Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:JSJames

2008-09-23T03:46:37Z

JSJames: /* Half-Truth References */ new section

Welcome jsjAMES! I hope you enjoy being an Editor at CP. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:42, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Thanks Henry, Ive felt a little dis-heartened by some of the material in the articles though. Such as half-truths to make republican/conservative politicians look better.

[[user:JSJames|JSJames]] 8:35pm 22 September 2008

*Please list examples of any half truths you have found. Please be specific, and also try to provide references to back your points. Thanks [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:39, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

== Half-Truth References ==

I'll start a headline here. well i'll list

1. The [[Clarence Thomas]] has no mention of the sexual allegations charged against him by [[Anita Hill]]. I tried to put it in, but it was removed by [[user:Buglar:Buglar]] who said that Anita Hill made it up just to keep him from getting into office. I know that case is controversal but I think there should be some mention of it. And not just an assumption that Anita Hill is a liar.

2. The [[Agnosticism]] article has a section about hoe agnostics give less money to charity then theists, which is just a plain assumption.

3. The [[George W. Bush]] article has no mention of his unpopularity among US citizens.

I haven't seen every article so these are just a few that im listing. [[user:JSJames:JSJames]] 8:46pm (PT) 22 September 2008

User talk:JSJames

2008-09-23T03:35:13Z

JSJames:

User talk:JSJames

2008-09-23T03:34:35Z

JSJames:

Agnosticism

2008-09-22T14:24:59Z

JSJames:

[[Image:65375.jpg|thumb|David Hume]]
'''Agnosticism''' is, in weaker forms, an affirmation of ignorance regarding the existence of God, and in stronger forms, the assertion that God's existence is not capable of being known (unknowable).

The proponent of the weaker form does not make a claim to knowledge about existence, but he simply suspends from making a decision. A suspension of decision, in terms of logic, does not have a truth value, and therefore he is not making an argument. The proponent of the stronger form goes a step further and makes a claim to knowledge by saying, ''I know that the existence of God cannot be known''. However, the stronger form does have a truth value, and therefore can be right or wrong. Either what the proponent of stronger agnosticism is correct, that the existence of God is not capable of being known, or he is incorrect.

The word "agnostic" was coined in 1869 by [[T. H. Huxley]]<ref>T. H. Huxley was also an early and influential supporter of Darwinism.</ref> from the Greek roots ''a-'' not, and ''-gnostic,'' knowing; the philosopher [[Herbert Spencer]] was influential in spreading its use. One nineteenth-century saw held that "There is no god but the Unknowable, and Herbert Spencer is his prophet."<ref>London, Jack (1913), ''Martin Eden,'' [http://london.sonoma.edu/Writings/MartinEden/chapter13.html Chapter 13]</ref> [[David Hume]] and [[Bertrand Russell]] were famous agnostics. Two present famous agnostics are [[Larry King]] and [[Fidel Castro]].

Agnosticism has become a fairly common belief system in Western culture with 14% of people in the United States, 32% of people in France and 35% of people in Great Britain self-identifying as agnostics.<ref>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1131</ref>
{{Clear}}

==Atheism and agnosticism==

Some agnostics bristle at the term ''atheist''. They say they aren't atheists, because they don't "believe that God does not exist" but rather "neither believe nor disbelieve".

Agnostics differ from regular [[Atheism|atheists]] in that they do not deny God's existence.

Many religious believers make no distinction among non-believers. If you're not sure that God exists, they combine the unsure and "surely not" into one lump. For these believers, an "atheist" is anyone who doesn't believe in God.

Among those who have not decided whether to believe in God, or to disbelieve in Him, there are two main groups:
#Those who simply haven't made a decision
#Those who declare no rational decision is possible, on the grounds that the existence of God is not knowable.

[[Bertrand Russell]] once wrote that, in describing his beliefs,
:I never know whether I should say 'Agnostic' or whether I should say 'Atheist'.... As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one [can] prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.<ref>Russell, Bertrand (1947) [http://www.luminary.us/russell/atheist_agnostic.html Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?] Most online sources say "by which one prove," probably a mistake.</ref>

==References==

<References/>

==External links==
*[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/reason/agnosticism/agnostic.html Origin of the word 'agnostic']
*[http://www.wonderfulatheistsofcfl.org/Quotes.htm Famous Atheists, Freethinkers, Diests and Agnostics]
*[http://www.celebatheists.com/?title=Main_Page Celebrity Atheist List]

[[category:religion]]
[[category:philosophy]]
[[Category:Agnosticism]]

Talk:Agnosticism

2008-09-22T14:23:32Z

JSJames: /* The charity subject */

''Agnostics differ from regular atheists in that they do not deny God's existence''

I hesitate to get involved in theological debate here; still less to make changes without agreement, but I should like to suggest that the word 'regular' be deleted from the above sentence. As written it suggests that Agnostics are not 'regular' atheists - ie, that they are some sort of (irregular) atheist. As an agnostic (type 2) myself I'd say that is not the case. The rest of the article makes it quite clear. Agnostics are not atheists, regular or otherwise. [[User:Alba|Alba]] 18:13, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

== "God's" ==

''"Agnosticism is the belief that '''God's''' existence or non existence is unknowable."''

Isn't agnosticism the belief that '''a''' God's existence is unknowable? This article, in my opinion, sounds like it's saying agnosticism is the belief that solely the existence of the Christian God is unknowable.

Could the "God's" be changed to ''"the existence of a diety"'' or something like that?
--[[User:Funnny|Funnny]] 21:49, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

:God, with a capital 'G', refers to the real God. Christians aren't the only ones who write the name of God that way. It differs from, say, a belief that the 'golden calf' (a god) isn't knowable. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:58, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

::That is the normal way for monotheistic religions, but there is no specific singular deity for polytheistic religions. God should be changed to "god or god's" because this would incorporate religion as a whole and not divide it into the one type. [[User:LearnJjjones|Jjjones]] 21:41, 29 January 2008(EDT)

I think they were referring to any higher power. {{unsigned|Mjac1103}}

Why is this page locked???
Would like to add:
"

==See Also==
*[[Religion]]
*[[Ignosticism]]
*[[God]]
Etcetera..."
[[User:Acronym|Acronym]]

== The charity subject ==

''Agnostics in the United States give significantly less to charity than theists.''

This can't be verified. There are lots of agnostics and atheists who donate to charity because its the right thing to do. I think this line is judgemental, presumptuous. and should be removed. [[user:JSJames|JSJames]] 7:23pm 22 September 2008

Talk:Agnosticism

2008-09-22T14:22:56Z

JSJames: /* The charity subject */ new section

Talk:Clarence Thomas

2008-09-21T02:24:50Z

JSJames: /* Sexual Allegations */

Edited to remove opinion and speculation with no factual evidence cited to support it. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 6:34pm 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== Sexual Allegations ==
I just thought I would add the case which made Clarence Thomas famous to the article. I don't know why it wasn't there, after all, this is supposed to be the trustworthy encyclopedia. JSJames 2:00pm (PT) 20 Septmeber 2008

: In my opinion, the Hill allegations were disproved. I would object to including allegations like this unless, at a minimum, the article includes the reasons for thinking that she way lying. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:47, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

::Nonetheless, the allegations show just how far liberals will go to prevent a conservative from sitting on the Supreme Court. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 19:20, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

:How were the allegations at all related to being liberal or conservative? --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 19:37, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
::It is an indication of [[Liberal style]]: they will spread scurrillous rumours, completely unproven, to smear a Conservative. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 19:43, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

:How do you know that the sexual allegations were liberal lies? Anita hill never said she was lying. Theres still a possibility that he did in fact sexually harass her and other women at the EEOC. We shouldn't just assume that Thomas never sexually harrassed anyone because he's with the Republican Party. I don't think we should allow that kind of corruption in an encyclopedia that claims to be trustworthy. [[User:JSJames|JSJames]] 7:24pm (PT) 20 September 2008

Clarence Thomas

2008-09-20T23:09:44Z

JSJames: Undo revision 521127 by Bugler (Talk)

[[Image:Thmas.jpg|right]]
The Honorable '''Clarence Thomas''' (b. 1948) is an [[Associate Justice]] of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]]. He was born in Savannah, [[Georgia]], which he often mentions in referencing his roots, such as in his book, ''My Grandfather's Son''.

Justice Thomas is highly respected by legal scholars for adhering to an interpretation of the [[U.S. Constitution]] based on its original text, meaning and understanding, which has included limiting federal powers. His judicial doctrine finds no basis in the [[U.S. Constitution]] for [[abortion]], [[Roe v. Wade]], [[homosexual]] rights, federal interference with state sovereignty, the [[Dormant Commerce Clause]] and constitutional limits on punitive damages.

Justice Thomas has a straightforward writing style that presents his principled approach in a clear manner. His judicial temperament is undisputed. He has an unblemished record of service on the Court since 1991 and has never had to recuse himself from a case due to activity off the bench or investments. He has trained more [[conservative]] law clerks than any other Justice.

== Early Life ==

Clarence Thomas was born on June 23, 1948. His earliest stages of life were in [[Pinpoint]], [[Georgia]], until his mother took him and his younger brother, Myers Lee Thomas, to live in [[Savannah]]. However, his mother couldn't afford to take care of them, so she gave them to her father, Myers Anderson. Anderson raised them up on his farm, where Thomas and his brother were raised to be very hardworking.<ref>[[My Grandfather's Son]], by Clarence Thomas, 2007, pp. 1 - 13. </ref>

== Comparison with Justice Scalia ==
Justice Thomas is most often compared to Justice [[Antonin Scalia]], both support overturning ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'', both reject the existence of a [[Negative Commerce Clause]], both feel that the only restriction on how prisons treat inmates is what actually constitutes [[Cruel and Unusual Punishment]] under the [[Eighth Amendment]], and both support strong [[sovereign immunity]] for states by virtue of the [[Eleventh Amendment]].<ref>''Cent. Va. Cmty. College v. Katz'', 546 U.S. 356 (2006) (Thomas and Scalia, JJ., dissenting).</ref>

But these Justices have significant differences. Through the 2006-2007 term, Justice Thomas had written 252 concurrences or dissents, of which Justice Scalia had joined about 2/3rds. Conversely, Justice Scalia had written 480 concurrences or dissents (he has served more years on the Court), of which Justice Thomas had joined about half.

Justice Thomas sided with [[free enterprise]] and wrote the opinion for the [[U.S. Supreme Court|Court]] in upholding an [[FCC]] rule that placed broadband cable services outside of the regulatory definition for "telecommunications service", despite how the [[FCC]] rejected a contrary ruling by a Court of Appeals.<ref>''[[Nat'l Cable and Telecomms. Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Servs.]]''</ref> Justice Scalia dissented in a forceful manner, and thereby defended general judicial authority at the expense of [[free enterprise]].

Justice Scalia typically rejects the use of legislative history more often than Justice Thomas does. Justice Scalia also rejects the important line of cases establishing a constitutional right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children, ''see [[Pierce v. Society of Sisters]]'', while Justice Thomas has not rejected that line of cases or a constitutional right of parents in some limited cases.<ref>''See, e.g.'', [[Troxel v. Granville]] (2000).</ref>

Justice Thomas takes a broader view of state sovereignty over intrastate activities against encroachment by the federal government. In ''[[Gonzales v. Raich]]'', 545 U.S. 1 (2005), Justice Thomas dissented from the Court opinion that upheld a federal law that interfered with California's legalization of marijuana for alleged medical purposes. In other words, Justice Thomas felt that the federal government lacked the power to interfere with state sovereignty over this intrastate activity. Justice Scalia, in contrast, joined the majority of the Court in upholding application of federal law to destroy marijuana plants grown lawfully under California law.

Justice Thomas also has taken more [[conservative]] positions than Justice Scalia has. Justice Thomas alone embraced a [[conservative]] view of the [[Second Amendment]]. In ''[[Printz v. United States]]'', Justice Thomas wrote a concurrence strongly suggesting a [[conservative]], individual-rights view of the [[Second Amendment]]. No other Justice on the Court joined that concurrence. Only Justice Thomas has expressed disagreement with the "aggregation principle" used to expand [[federal]] power based on the [[Commerce Clause]].<ref>United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 600, 131 L. Ed. 2d 626, 115 S. Ct. 1624 (1995) (concurring opinion).</ref>

Justices Thomas and Scalia differ on the issue of free speech and pornography. Justice Thomas provided the crucial fifth vote in ''United States v. Playboy Entm't Group'', 529 U.S. 803 (2000), which rejected indecency regulation of cable television in part because "[t]he question is whether an actual problem has been proved in this case. We agree that the Government has failed to establish a pervasive, nationwide problem justifying its nationwide daytime speech ban."<ref>529 U.S. at 822-23.</ref> Justice Scalia dissented, expressly his view that the government has broader powers under the [[First Amendment]] to regulate indecency on cable television.

Justice Thomas again provided the key fifth vote in ''Ashcroft v. ACLU'', 542 U.S. 656 (2004), which invalidated as unconstitutional a federal law criminalizing the posting on a commercial website of pornography harmful to minors unless there were protections against access by minors. The 5-4 Court placed the burden on parents to keep their children away from pornographic sites, rather than allowing Congress to place the burden on pornographers to limit access to their sites. Justices Scalia, Rehnquist, O'Connor and Breyer dissented.

Justice Thomas tends to oppose government power more often than Justice Scalia does. In a 5-4 decision written by Justice Thomas, from which Justice Scalia dissented, Justice Thomas held that the [[United States]] was wrong to seize $357,144 in cash from a traveler simply because he failed to report it as required by law. Justice Thomas, writing for the Court, held that such a forfeiture "would violate the Excessive Fines Clause of the [[Eighth Amendment]] ... because full forfeiture of respondent's currency would be grossly disproportional to the gravity of his offense."<ref>''United States v. Bajakajian'', 524 U.S. 321, 324 (1998).</ref>

Justice Thomas is more likely than Justice Scalia to enforce a statute that is wrong as a matter of policy, as Justice Thomas is more likely to hold that [[Congress]] alone can fix its own law.<ref>''Volvo Trucks N. Am., Inc. v. Reeder-Simco GMC, Inc.'', 546 U.S. 164 (2006).</ref>

Justice Thomas has called for ending a right of [[free speech]] for students in [[public school]], and stated his view that ''[[Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist.]]'', 393 U.S. 503 (1969), "is without basis in the Constitution" and should be overruled.<ref>Morse v. Frederick, 127 S. Ct. 2618, 2630 (2007) (Thomas, J., concurring).</ref> Neither Justice Scalia nor any other [[conservative]] has yet supported this position of Justice Thomas.

On the [[Negative Commerce Clause]], Justice Thomas is more reliable than Justice Scalia in defending state laws that discriminate against out-of-state companies. Justice Thomas, for example, wrote the dissent in the 5-4 decision invalidating a Michigan law that limited shipments by out-of-state wineries.<ref>''[[Granholm v. Heald]]''</ref> Justice Scalia split from Justice Thomas and surprisingly joined the more [[liberal]] majority in that case, which was presented using the issue of the [[Negative Commerce Clause]] but then decided based on slightly different grounds.

On the issue of compelled speech, Justice Thomas stronger than Justice Scalia in defending a [[First Amendment]] right not to pay for something with which one disagrees:<ref>United States v. United Foods, 533 U.S. 405, 418-19 (2001) (Thomas, J., concurring)</ref>

:I write separately, however, to reiterate my views that "paying money for the purposes of advertising involves speech," and that "compelling speech raises a First Amendment issue just as much as restricting speech." Id. at 504 (THOMAS, J., dissenting). Any regulation that compels the funding of advertising must be subjected to the most stringent First Amendment scrutiny.

Justice Scalia did not join Justice Thomas's concurrence above.

== Former Clerks ==
As a [[U.S. Supreme Court]] Justice, Thomas has mentored over 60 clerks. They include:

*Laura Ingraham, [[conservative]] talk radio host<ref>http://www.lauraingraham.com/pg/jsp/general/aboutlaura.jsp;jsessionid=5436967F38FA6C73A4D5804B1F165ABE</ref>
*Wendy Long, senior legal advisor and vice chair of [[Mitt Romney]]'s National Faith and Values Steering Committee.<ref>http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11799</ref>
*Professor Steven McAllister, [[University of Kansas]] School of Law

==Allegations of Sexual Harassment==
In 1991, Anita Hill, an attorney who had worked with Thomas at the Department of Education accused Thomas of sexually harrasment. She stated that he would talk about such things as [[bestiality]] and porn movies. Several other women accused Thomas of sexual harrasment as well.

Thomas denied all allegations saying: "This is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment. This is a circus. It's a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree."

On October, 23, 1991, Thomas took his seat as the 106th Associat Justice of the [[Supreme Court]].

== Appointment to the United States Supreme Court ==
In 1991, upon the retirement of Justice [[Thurgood Marshall]], President [[George H.W. Bush]] nominated Clarence Thomas to fill the newly vacant seat. Supporters of [[abortion]] desperately opposed his nomination.

Radical [[leftist]]s attempted to block Thomas' nomination to the High Court through a persistent series of public [[guilt by association]] smears. [[Chip Berlet]] of [[Political Research Associates]] noted that Thomas was on the editorial board of the ''Lincoln Review'', a quarterly black conservative publication of the Lincoln Institute. Berlet issued a rather dubious ''ad hominem'' attack which claimed "it is a far right group that has worked in coalition with… fascist and anti-Semitic groups," and goes on to "link" Lincoln Institute head J. A. Baker with the Indiana Ku Klux Klan by virtue that Baker is on the board of the Council for National Policy and another board member is supposedly a former Klan member. <ref>[http://www.theroc.org/roc-mag/textarch/roc-07/roc07-13.htm ''A Few Facts About Clarence Thomas,''] Chip Berlet, Political Research Associates, Cambridge MA, 1997.</ref>

In a flagrant violation of the rules of the [[Senate]]<ref>[http://www.loc.gov/rr/law/nominations/thomas/debates.pdf Congressional Record -Senate, 102nd Congress, October 7, 1991], Vol 137, Part 18, p. 25706.</ref>, staff members<ref>[http://www.uiowa.edu/~030116/153/articles/brock01.htm ''The Real Anita Hill''], David Brock, Harper Collins, 1993.</ref> for a sitting [[Democratic]] member of the Judiciary Committee leaked a routine confidential FBI background report to [[Nina Totenberg]] of [[National Public Radio]] (NPR)<ref>[http://backissues.cjrarchives.org/year/92/1/thomas.asp The Clarence Thomas Hearings], by William Boot, ''Columbia Journalism Review'', January/February 1992.</ref> which contained a vicious defamatory smear intended to mar Thomas for life. The accusation was known to be false, and was concocted to publicly intimidate an African-American Republican from accepting an appointment to the nation's High Court, and derail his nomination. None of the allegations could be substantiated. The deliberate falsehoods did however persuade former [[Ku Klux Klan]] [[Democrat]]ic [[Senator]] [[Robert Byrd]] to change his vote from "yes" for confirmation to "no".

Thomas was confirmed by the Senate with a vote of 52-48, which was at the time the narrowest confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee in history.

==Views on racism==
ABC News wrote:

:He is adamantly opposed to [[affirmative action]], but for entirely different reasons than white conservatives who drive the debate by arguing it's unfair to white people. Thomas says affirmative action instead has hurt blacks. It not only sends them into environments in which they are doomed to struggle instead of soar, but it also perpetuates negative stereotypes that whites hold today that all blacks are inferior to them and don't belong — just as whites in the South assumed 50 years ago.<ref>http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Story?id=3664143&page=2</ref>

== Personal life ==
Clarence Thomas is married to [[Virginia Lamp Thomas]].

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/10/clarence_thomas.html ''Clarence Thomas''], Real Clear Politics, October 9, 2007 <br>
*[http://www.hillsdale.edu/hctools/imprimis_archive/2007/10/2007_10_Imprimis.pdf ''A Conversation with Justice Clarence Thomas''] - [[Hillsdale College]] interview with Justice Thomas conducted in his [[chambers]] at the [[U.S. Supreme Court|Supreme Court]] in [[Washington, D.C.]], on September 19, 2007.

{{DEFAULTSORT: Thomas, Clarence}}

[[category:United States Supreme Court Justices]]

Talk:Clarence Thomas

2008-09-20T21:03:17Z

JSJames: /* Sexual Allegations */

Talk:Clarence Thomas

2008-09-20T21:02:16Z

JSJames: /* Sexual Allegations */

Talk:Clarence Thomas

2008-09-20T21:00:15Z

JSJames: /* Some truth */

Talk:Clarence Thomas

2008-09-20T20:59:48Z

JSJames: /* Some truth */ new section

Edited to remove opinion and speculation with no factual evidence cited to support it. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 6:34pm 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== Some truth ==

I just thought I would add the case which made Clarence Thomas famous to the article. I don't know why it wasn't there, after all, this is supposed to be the trustworthy encyclopedia.

Clarence Thomas

2008-09-20T20:56:54Z

JSJames: