Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Homeschooling

2009-05-09T15:17:41Z

JeffC: /* Prominent people who were homeschooled */

[[Image:Homeschool.jpg|right|thumb|300px|A young homeschooled student]]
'''Homeschooling''' consists of the practice of students receiving education from a parent or guardian, or instructors acting under the direction of a parent or guardian, rather than from certified teachers in a formal school setting like a [[public school]].

Homeschooling enables students to do well in contests, often winning over students from the school system. For example, the most successful [[mathematician]] in contests in history, Reid Barton, was [[homeschooled]].<ref>http://www.amstat.org/PUBLICATIONS/amsn/index.cfm?fuseaction=highlights0812001</ref> The top college football player and the first to win the Heisman Trophy as a sophomore, [[Tim Tebow]], was homeschooled until college.<ref>http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/783999/heisman_trophy_winner_tim_tebow_puts.html</ref>
In the [[United States]], an estimated one to two million students are homeschooled, or nearly one out of every 30 students.<ref name="USA Today">http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2009-01-04-homeschooling_N.htm</ref> Homeschooled students make up many of the top college and graduate students in mathematics today.<ref>For example, Princeton University math prodigy Arie Israel "never attended a regular school. His parents home schooled both him and his older sister, Rachel, allowing them to work at their own pace and discover their own interests. His dad, Benjamin, a computer programmer, helped him with math and science, while his mom, Rebekah, taught him English and history." [http://weblog.science.fau.edu/info/images/israel.html]</ref>

Reasons for '''homeschooling''' include:<ref>For 57 unique benefits of homeschooling, see [http://capitolhillcoffeehouse.com/more.php?id=5239_0_1_0_M].</ref>

* Freedom from a culture of depression and [[liberal]] and/or [[atheistic]] bias found in public and many private schools.
* A more flexible daily schedule, ability to take vacations and travel during the school year, less commuting, and a healthier diet.<ref>Obesity in [[public school]] students from junk food appears worse than in [[homeschooled]] students.</ref>
* Avoiding the frequent illnesses, unhealthy obesity, and fatigue that result from the daily routine of [[public schools]]
* Avoiding conflicts with [[public school]] officials.
* More time spent by parents with their children in formative years.
* Avoiding violence, intimidation, invasions of privacy (e.g., searches) and other hostile aspects of the [[public school culture]].<ref>As an example of the violent culture at [[public school]], "parents said there have been violent incidents, mostly fistfights, at the high school every day this week. 'My daughter is terrified,' said Elizabeth Sabalu, whose daughter is a junior. 'She doesn't want to come to school any more.'" [http://www.suntimes.com/news/education/877459,CST-NWS-skul04.article]</ref><ref>"Nationally, about 160,000 [[student]]s miss [[Public schools|school]] daily because they [[fear]] being [[Bully|bullied]]," and in [[Hawaii]] students viciously fight each other and post videos of it on [[YouTube|Youtube.com]]. One victim is now "being [[homeschooled]] at state expense."[http://starbulletin.com/2008/05/18/news/story01.html]</ref>
* Avoiding objectionable [[vaccines]], "mental health" screening, and questionnaires.
* Avoiding competition between genders, including public school [[feminists]] claiming that girls are better than boys.
* Developing the discipline to be self-employed as an adult, and to work at home.
* Creating an environment in which students are less likely to pick up life-long unhealthy addictions from peers, like drugs, cigarettes, sex, or alcohol.
* Having the time and availability to learn a trade or profession as an apprentice, as has been done throughout history.
* Homeschooling is often an essential approach to achieve the very best in many fields, from [[mathematics]] to music to certain sports.<ref>For example, [[Jordin Sparks]] (b. 1989) became youngest winner of the music talent competition "[[American Idol]]" after she left [[public school]] for homeschooling to concentrate on her singing.[http://www.pr-inside.com/singer-jordin-sparks-12-400-video-newest-r592857.htm]</ref>
* Be part of a community that has a much higher percentage of adopted children than formal school; the homeschooling community has a refreshing culture of life.
* Avoiding being subjected to [[homosexual agenda|homosexual]] teachers.
* homeschoolers develop independent thinking and self-reliance that help insulate them from techniques of mind control that afflict public school students and teachers<ref>This is most recently illustrated by techniques of mind control employed by the Obama campaign.[http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/0089]</ref>

Homeschooling, like being self-employed, requires more self-discipline and greater initiative. Many parents understandably give up or burn out after homeschooling for years, just as many people who try to be self-employed do also. Without a rigid schedule and structure to the day, there are constant distractions and excuses to making the same effort that one makes when told to do something. Initiative is required for homeschooled teenagers to meet other homeschooled teenagers, for example, and many return to [[public school]] in the absence of that effort.

Homeschooling [[parent]]s oversee their children's education, usually providing some of the instruction themselves. In addition, homeschooling enables them to mix-and-match other instructional approaches, including:
* attending a weekly course provided in many communities by the homeschooling community
* using a correspondence school (or the modern video- or [[computer]]-based equivalent)
* taking classes at local museums or nature centers
* joining with other [[family|families]] to share teaching responsibilities in a co-op
* encouraging the student to self-instruct using library books, traditional textbooks or workbooks, knowledgeable mentor's and/or hands-on experiences
* hiring a tutor for certain difficult topics, like [[physics]]

Homeschoolers often include local "after school" enrichment programs like scouts, 4-H, sports, [[music]] lessons, karate or dance classes, public library programs, and summer camps as part of their educational program. In 2003, "76 percent of homeschool graduates surveyed between the ages of 18 to 24 voted within the last five years, compared to only 29 percent of the corresponding U.S. population."<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35226</ref>

==Homeschooling Statistics==

In the [[United States]], homeschooling includes an estimated that 1.1 million students - about 2.9% of children in grade K-12 - as of 2007. "The number of home-schooled kids hit 1.5 million in 2007, up 74% from when the Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics started keeping track in 1999, and up 36% since 2003."<ref name="USA Today"/><ref>[http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/homeschool/estimated.asp] Homeschooling in the United States: 2003 Statistical Analysis Report, National Center for Educational Statistics, NCES 2006-042, Feb 2006.
A 2005 estimate from the [[National Home Education Research Institute]] places the number between 1.9 million and 2.4 million while the [[National Center for Education Statistics]] estimates that the number of students being homeschooled increased by 29% from 1999 to 2003. Christian Examiner, Sept. 2007, Vol 25, No 9, Pg 1</ref>

Families who homeschool their children do so for a number of reasons. A 2001 study by the [[US Census Bureau]] found that the single largest reason that parents homeschool is that they feel they can give their children a better education at home. This accounted for 50% of the homeschooling families; [[religion|religious]] reasons came in second at 33%.<ref>Home Schooling in the United States: Trends and Characteristics, by Kurt J. Bauman, Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau, August 2001, Working Paper Series No. 53 [http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0053.html]</ref> Other frequently mentioned reasons include dissatisfaction with academic instruction at other schools, the ability to provide religious or moral instruction along with academics, the ability to control what the child is being taught, flexibility in meeting the needs of a child with special needs (such as a physical or mental health problem, a temporary illness or giftedness), flexibility in scheduling family life, and concern about safety, drugs, and peer pressure at other schools.<ref>Homeschooling in the United States: 2003 Statistical Analysis Report, National Center for Educational Statistics, NCES 2006-042, Feb 2006>[http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/homeschool/TableDisplay.asp?TablePath=TablesHTML/table_4.asp] </ref>

Admissions departments at major [[college]]s are now familiar and comfortable with homeschooling, according to a 2004 Boston Globe article. The article quotes a [[Liberal Arts college|Williams College]] admission officer as saying: <blockquote>"We read homeschoolers' applications just like any other application. They don't get any special consideration, but they're not discriminated against, either. Their applications are interesting, and they've certainly done independent work their whole lives."</blockquote> It notes that the acceptance rate of homeschoolers at Williams is 20 percent,<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2004/03/21/schoolhouse_rocked?mode=PF Schoolhouse rocked] "home schooling has gone main stream, especially in Massachusetts. It's estimated that as many as 20,000 children here have abandoned test-crazy public schools and high-priced private schools for the comfort of the living room couch. But most surprising of all is that Harvard, BU, Brown, and other colleges are welcoming homeschoolers like all other students." Source for Williams College admission officer's quote, 20% figure.</ref> virtually identical to its overall acceptance rate.<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2006-11-02-collegerates_x.htm College acceptance rates]: Williams, 19.2%. U. S. News and World Report</ref>

In the [[United States]], some states permit homeschooled students to participate in [[extracurricular activities]] at their local public schools.

The states of Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wyoming in one way or another expressly allow equal access. In most other states, participation is worked out on a case-by-case basis. <ref>HSLDA: State Laws Concerning Participation of Homeschool Students in Public School Activities [http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000000/00000048.asp]</ref> In addition, some states, such as Alabama, are considering equal access legislation. <ref>HSLDA: Alabama - Legislation for Participation in Public School Activities[http://www.hslda.org/hs/state/al/200705010.asp]</ref> In New Jersey, school athletic associations dominated by public schools exclude homeschoolers from participation in athletics, even though they allow students at different charter schools to participate.<ref>[[New Jersey State Interscholastic Athletic Association]]</ref>

It should also be noted that stay at home moms, the most common teachers for homeschooling, reported having happier lives than their working counterparts.<ref>http://www.momlogic.com/2008/07/sahm_wahm_happiness_poll.php?icid=100214839x1204880052x1200231518#start</ref>

==History==

In the United States, opting out of [[public school]]s is not new. When [[Thomas Edison]]'s public school teacher said he was "addled," Edison's mother took him out of public school and taught him at home.

Education at public school year-round from about ages 6 to 18 became common only in the 20th century due to compulsory education laws. The first [[law]] requiring attendance at public school passed in [[Massachusetts]] in 1852; the second such law passed in [[Washington D.C.]] in 1864; and most states did not pass mandatory schooling laws until between 1870 and 1917.<ref>[http://www.ncsl.org/programs/educ/CompulsoryEd.htm Compulsory Education], National Conference of State Legislatures: "More than 150 years have passed since Horace Mann helped Massachusetts establish a statewide system of education that eventually led to the requirement that all children attend public school. In 1852, Massachusetts became the first state to pass compulsory school attendance laws, and by 1918, all states required children to receive an education."</ref><ref>http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/kellmeyer/050428</ref>

But even under compulsory education laws in the late 1800s, the school year was only twelve to twenty weeks long. Very few stayed in school from ages 6 to 18. For example, by 1900, only 6% of Americans had graduated from a formal high school. Moreover, these students did not learn basic skills like reading in school; they learned those at home.<ref>''id.''</ref>

Baltimore's Calvert School began selling the school's curriculum to parents in 1905. Within five years, more than 300 children were enrolled in Calvert's correspondence courses. Over the next hundred years, Calvert served over 500,000 children from a wide variety of families nation-wide and around the world, including missionary families and those in remote locations.<ref>Calvert School Homeschooling: A Century of Tradition and Innovation [http://www.calvertschool.org/education-services/home-school-history/]</ref>

The homeschooling ''movement'' began in the 1960s from very different ideological sources. [[Seventh-Day Adventists]] Dr. Raymond and Dorothy Moore pioneered homeschooling as a result of their research into education and their concern about the harmful effects of schooling on students, particularly boys, between ages 5 and 15.<ref>http://www.moorefoundation.com/article.php?id=2</ref> On the other side of the political spectrum, John Holt wrote a book critical of schooling in 1964, entitled ''How Children Fail.'' Holt was "a left-winger who regarded schools as instruments of the bureaucratic-industrial complex."<ref>Micklethwait, John and Adrian Wooldridge, ''The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America.'' Penguin, 2004. pp. 190-1</ref> More generally, millions of Americans were alarmed at the 1962 [[U. S. Supreme Court]] ruling which banned school-sponsored prayer in public schools, and many of those parents began to look for alternatives.

Truancy laws brought pioneering homeschoolers into conflict with local officials. The first [[New York Times]] story on "home schooling" appeared in 1974, and concerned two parents charged with "educational neglect" by the [[Westchester]] County Department of Social Services. Tests showed that they performed at or about grade level "except for one who is a little slow in reading," and the parents received strong support from a state senator.<ref>"Parents Accused in Home Schooling," ''The New York Times,'' July 28, 1974, p. 45</ref> By the mid-1980s the ''Times'' was running articles with titles like "Schooling in the Home: A Growing Alternative" and "There Are Benefits In Homeschooling," and states were legalizing homeschooling.<ref>Belluck, Pam (1998), "Life After Home Schooling," ''The New York Times,'' November 1, 1998, p. ED26: "Some 15 years after states began legalizing home schooling in earnest, these early graduates are starting to make their way in the world."</ref> A 1997 article said "It's not only [[Christian fundamentalists]] any more" and a 2003 article noted "Unhappy in Class, More Are Learning at Home."

== Prominent people who were homeschooled ==




Throughout history, a remarkably high percentage of accomplished people were homeschooled, including many great [[mathematician]]s. Here is a growing list of such achievers:

*[[Ansel Adams]], (1902-1984), the finest landscape photographer of the twentieth century. "At twelve, unable to stand the confinement and tedium of the classroom, he utterly disrupted his lessons with wild laughter and undisguised contempt for the inept ramblings of his teachers. His father decided that Ansel’s formal education was best ended. From that point forward, the boy was homeschooled in Greek, the English classics, algebra, and the glories of the ocean, inlets, and rocky beaches that surrounded their home very near San Francisco."<ref>http://wy.essortment.com/anseladamsbio_rjrq.htm</ref>

*[[John Adams]] (1735-1826), U.S. President. Learned to read at home, and was then taught in the kitchen by a neighbor with a handful of children. He matriculated to Harvard College at age 15.{{fact}}

*[[Louisa May Alcott]] (1832-1888), the author of ''Little Women'' and other great works, was taught by her father.{{fact}}

*[[Alexander the Great]] (356-323 B.C.), the greatest military leader of all time, was taught by his father and, as arranged by his father, by [[Aristotle]].<ref>http://history.boisestate.edu/WESTCIV/alexander/03.shtml</ref>

*[[Susan B. Anthony]], leading pro-life feminist and advocate of women's suffrage. Her father homeschooled her.<ref>http://www.homeschoolutah.org/pages/pastandpresent.htm</ref>

*[[Jane Austen]] (1775-1817), one of the most popular novelists of the early 19th century, was school-educated for only a year, after which she was taught at home by her father, her brothers, and herself, using their large family library.

* [[Benjamin Banneker]] (1731-1806)) wrote the first almanac by a black man and helped survey [[Washington, D.C.]]. Banneker was taught to read and write by his grandmother in rural [[Maryland]]."<ref>http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Banneker.html</ref>

*[[Clara Barton]] (1821-1912), pioneering nurse during the [[Civil War]], founder of the [[American Association of the International Red Cross]]. Barton was homeschooled, and at 15 started teaching school. She later attended the Liberal Institute in Clinton, New York. <ref>White House Dream Team: Clara Barton[http://www.whitehouse.gov/kids/dreamteam/clarabarton.html]</ref> <ref>Clara Harlowe Barton, Source: "Historical Times Encyclopedia of the Civil War" edited by Patricia L. Faust
[http://www.civilwarhome.com/bartonbio.htm]</ref>

*[[Alexander Graham Bell]] (1847-1922), inventor of the telephone. His deaf mother taught him to read and write, and he returned the favor by inventing the telephone to try to help her (and other deaf persons) communicate.

*[[Dietrich Bonhoeffer]] (1906-1945), a [[Christian]] who spoke against [[Hitler]] and was martyred for doing so.

*[[Mary Breckinridge]] (1881-1965), pioneering American midwife and founder of Kentucky's Frontier Nursing Service. Mary's father was a diplomat, and she was educated in America and abroad by private tutors.<ref>Frontier Nursing Service[http://www.frontiernursing.org/History/MaryBreckinridge.shtm] </ref>

*[[William Jennings Bryan]], [[Secretary of State]] under President [[Woodrow Wilson]] and before that was the founder of the modern [[Democratic Party]]. He was also the leading critic of the [[theory of evolution]] who prevailed in the [[Scopes Trial]] and was perhaps the greatest orator in [[American]] history. He was homeschooled until age 10 as his mother taught him to stand on table to recite his lessons.<ref>http://www.homeschoolutah.org/pages/pastandpresent.htm</ref>

*[[William F. Buckley]], leading [[conservative]] intellectual. He was homeschooled by his parents and tutors.<ref>http://www.homeschoolutah.org/pages/pastandpresent.htm</ref>

*[[Robert Burns]] (1759-1796) [[Scotland]]'s national poet.

*[[Andrew Carnegie]] (1835-1919), the brilliant American businessman and philanthropist of the late 1800s, his father was a poor weaver and Andrew dropped out of elementary school<ref>http://www.education-reform.net/dropouts.htm</ref> and had only five years of formal schooling.<ref>http://www.carnegieinstitution.org/carnegiemedal/background.html</ref>

*[[George Washington Carver]] (1864-1943) Botanical and agricultural researcher and educator. Born a slave, Carver "learned to read, write and spell at home because there were no schools for African Americans in" his area.<ref>http://lib.iastate.edu:9060/gwc/bio.html</ref> He did not attend school until age 12, when he went to a one-room schoolhouse in Missouri; he later graduated from Minneapolis High School in Kansas. Became the first black student at Simpson College in Iowa, transferred to Iowa Agricultural College in 1891. Earned a Bachelor of Science degree in 1894 and a Master of Science degree in bacterial botany and agriculture in 1897.<ref>MSN Encarta Encyclopedia - George Washington Carver article [http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761574196/Carver_George_Washington.html]</ref><ref>George Washington Carver, By Mary Bellis [http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa041897.htm]</ref>

*[[Augustin-Louis Cauchy]] (1789-1857), one of the greatest mathematicians of all time, was taught by his father during an 11-year retreat to the country to escape the [[French Revolution]]. His father "wrote his own textbooks, several of them in the fluent verse of which he was master. Verse, he believed, made grammar, history and, above all, morals less repulsive to the juvenile mind."<ref>E.T. Bell, "Men of Mathematics," 273 (1937).</ref><ref>http://james.fabpedigree.com/mathmen.htm#Cauchy</ref>

*[[Pafnuty Chebyshev]] (1821-1894), one of the greatest Russian [[mathematician]]s, was homeschooled until college.<ref>http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Chebyshev.html</ref>

*[[Agatha Christie]] (1890-1976), best-selling English mystery writer. Christie was homeschooled by her mother, who encouraged her to write from a very early age. At sixteen she was sent to finishing school in Paris. <ref>PBS Mystery Series "Miss Marple" site: Biography of Agatha Christie[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/mystery/marple/christie.html]</ref>

*[[Winston Churchill]] (1874–1965), [[British]] statesman. It was at home that he was taught how to read, write and do math, and was not enrolled in a school until several months into the school year at the age of seven. After only about two years at that school, he was abruptly pulled out and then spent several years under the instruction of two maiden sisters in a less formal school setting.<ref>William Manchester, "The Last Lion: Winston Spencer Churchill, VISIONS OF GLORY 1874-1932 (Little Brown & Co.).</ref>

*[[Charles Dickens]], prolific [[English]] author who could not afford school. His "passions for reading were awakened by his mother," who homeschooled him with a curriculum that included English and Latin.<ref>http://www.homeschoolutah.org/pages/pastandpresent.htm</ref>

*[[Thomas Edison]] (1804–1896), the most prolific inventor in the history of the world and considered by many to be the most influential person of the last 1000 years.<ref>http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bledison.htm</ref> His mother pulled him out of public school at age 7, after just a few months, and began homeschooling him by reading from the Bible.

*[[Paul Erdos]] (1913–1996), the most prolific [[mathematician]] of the 20th century, was taught at home until college.<ref>http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Erdos.html</ref>

*[[Pierre de Fermat]] (1601?-1665), the greatest [[mathematician]] of the 17th century and the founder of the modern theory of numbers, was homeschooled.<ref>E.T. Bell, "Men of Mathematics" 57 (1937)</ref>

*[[Benjamin Franklin]] (1706-1790), a leading [[Founding Father]] and prolific inventor and statesman, only attended part-time school from ages 8 to 10.{{fact}}

*[[Robert Frost]], the leading [[American]] poet of the 20th century and winner of the [[Pulitzer Prize]]. He "disliked school so much he became physically ill; what schoolwork he did was done at home until he passed the entrance exams and entered high school."<ref>http://www.homeschoolutah.org/pages/pastandpresent.htm</ref>

*[[Evariste Galois]] (1811–1832), among the brightest mathematicians ever and the founder of Galois groups and fields and Galois theory. "Until the age of twelve Galois had no teacher but his mother, Adelaide-Marie Demante."<ref>E.T. Bell, "Men of Mathematics," 362 (1937). Galois' life was tragically cut short at age 20 in a [[duel]], and his work was published posthumously.[scidiv.bcc.ctc.edu/Math/Galois.html]</ref>

*[[William Hamilton]] (1805-1865), the greatest Irish mathematician and biggest contributor since [[Isaac Newton]] of [[mathematics]] to [[physics]]. He was taught by his uncle, the Reverend James Hamilton.<ref>E.T. Bell, "Men of Mathematics," 340-41 (1937).</ref>

*Zac, Taylor, and Isaac Hanson, of the band [[Hanson]]. Educated at home by their mother, and later by a tutor. <ref>Hanson: The All American Boys[http://www.drdrew.com/DrewLive/article.asp?id=1112]</ref><ref>Hangin With Presents
Hanson[http://www.agirlsworld.com/rachel/hangin-with/hanson.html]</ref>

*[[Fred Hoyle]] (1915-2001), the greatest British physicist of the 20th century, received a "homespun" education in which he sneaked away from his school for 60% of the time between ages 5 and 9.<ref>"My earliest research work was in truancy from school, in which I was successful enough to whittle down the time I spent mewed up in classrooms to something like forty percent of what it was supposed to be between the ages of five and nine." Fred Hoyle, ''Mathematics of Evolution'' at p. 1 (Acorn Enterprises 1999). Note, however, that Hoyle's parents were also apparently unaware of his [[truancy]].</ref>

*[[Julia Ward Howe]] (1819–1910), abolitionist, writer, and women's rights activist. Julia was educated by tutors at home and in girls' schools until age 16. <ref>Open Connections Program, Women Working 1800-1930, Harvard University Library: Julia Ward Howe (1819-1910)[http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/ww/people_howe.html]</ref>

*[[Carl Jacobi]] (1804-1851), a prominent and prolific German mathematician, was taught at home until the age of 12 and was taught the classics and [[mathematics]] by a maternal uncle.<ref>E.T. Bell, "Men of Mathematics," 327 (1937).</ref>

*[[Joan of Arc]] (1412-1431), one of the greatest military leaders ever. Taught domestic skills and religion by her mother. <ref>"As a child she was taught domestic skills as well as her religion by her mother. ... It was my mother alone who taught me the 'Our Father' and 'Hail Mary' and the 'Creed;' and from none other was I taught my faith."[http://www.stjoan-center.com/#bio A Short Biography of Saint Joan of Arc][http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08409c.htm New Advent - Catholic Encyclopedia - St. Joan of Arc][http://joan-of-arc.org/joanofarc_biography.html Biography of Joan of Arc]</ref>

*[[John the Apostle]] (c. A.D. 20-100), the author of the [[Gospel of John]], considered by many to be the greatest written work ever. He also wrote several other books in the [[New Testament]]. His parents placed him, most likely as a child, under the homeschool-like teaching of [[Jesus]] rather than a more traditional school setting.<ref>In an approach common among homeschoolers, John's parents placed ''both'' their sons under the homeschool-like teaching of Jesus.</ref> John became the first to develop [[Christian]] [[faith]] and his work has since spread Christianity to billions.<ref>For growing evidence that John was a child, see [[Mystery:Was John a Child?]].</ref>

*[[C.S. Lewis]] (1898-1963), the author of the ''Chronicles of Narnia'' and other famous works, was taught at home by his mother and a governess until age 10, and later sent to be taught by a tutor to prepare him for [[Oxford]].<ref>'''Lewis, C. S.''', ''Surprised by Joy: The Shape of My Early Life'', London: Harvest Books (1955) ISBN 0-1568-7011-8</ref>

*[[Abraham Lincoln]] (1809-1865), American president. "Though his [formal] education was limited to a few months in a 1-teacher school, Lincoln avidly read books such as the Bible, ''Pilgrim's Progress'' and Weemss ''Life of Washington''."<ref>http://www.civilwarhome.com/lincolnbio.htm</ref>

*Countess Augusta [[Ada Lovelace]] (1815-1852), a visionary programmer and namesake of the [[ADA]] programming language, was homeschooled by governesses and tutors hired by her mother.{{fact}}

*General [[Douglas MacArthur]], the leading [[American]] general of the 20th century, both in [[World War II]] against [[Japan]] and in the [[Korean War]]. His mother homeschooled him until the age of 13, at which point he attended West Texas Military Academy.

*[[Benoit Mandelbrot]], a [[Yale]] mathematics professor known as the "father of fractals" and the person who coined the term,<ref>http://www.creativitysoftware.com/fractals-images/pages-hs/mandelbrot.htm</ref> received no extended formal schooling and was taught at home by his uncle beginning at the age of 12.<ref>http://www.fractalwisdom.com/FractalWisdom/fractal.html</ref>

*[[Yehudi Menuhin]] (1916-1999), noted violinist and conductor, never attended school, and was taught Mathematics, History and Hebrew by his father, and French, German, Italian and Spanish by his mother.<ref>Slater, Elinor and Slater, Robert ''Great Jewish Men'' (Jonathon David Publishers; 1996) ISBN 0-8246-0381-8</ref>

*[[John Stuart Mill]] (1806-1873), influential 19th century political and economic philosopher, was home-schooled by his father, James Mill. He learned Greek at age 3, Latin at age 8, studied economics, history, science, etc. before age 10.

*[[James Monroe]] (1758-1831), highly successful U.S. President, homeschooled until age 11.<ref>http://www.presidentialavenue.com/jam.cfm</ref>

*[[Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart]] (1756-1791), German composer. "He was educated by his father, Leopold Mozart, a violinist of high repute in the service of the archbishop of Salzburg."<ref>[http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica]</ref>

*[[Isaac Newton]] (1643-1727), considered the greatest physicist of all time. He was homeschooled until age ten, and then was an underachiever at school until he lodged with the headmaster.<ref>http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Newton.html</ref>

* [[Christopher Paolini]] (1983-), the author of the best-selling [[Inheritance Trilogy]] ([[Eragon]], [[Eldest]], and [[Brisingr]]). He was homeschooled by his parents, through an accredited correspondence course from the American School in Chicago, Illinois, from which he graduated with his high school diploma at 15 years of age. <ref>Book Browse Author Biography: Christopher Paolini[http://www.bookbrowse.com/biographies/index.cfm?author_number=934]</ref>

* [[Blaise Pascal]] (1623-1662), one of the greatest mathematicians and philosophers of all time, was homeschooled by his father.<ref>E.T. Bell, "Men of Mathematics," 74-76 (1937).</ref>

* [[George Patton]] (1885–1945), one of America's greatest generals. He was taught at home until age 11 based on his "father's theory of education" that "youthful mind should be led along a path that parallels the development of the mind of the race" by being read to by elders.<ref>http://www.pattonhq.com/unknown/chap01.html The Patton Society ("The Early Years")]</ref><ref>;http://www.freeinfosociety.com/site.php?postnum=517</ref>

* [[Henri Poincaré]] (1854-1912), one of the greatest mathematicians ever and an original developer of the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Poincaré, who had diphtheria as a child, received special instruction from his gifted mother and excelled in written composition while still in elementary school. He entered the Lycée in Nancy (now renamed the Lycée Henri Poincaré in his honor), in 1862 and spent eleven years there. He entered the École Polytechnique in 1873, graduating in 1875. After graduating from the École Polytechnique, Poincaré continued his studies at the École des Mines. <ref>Jules Henri Poincaré[http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Poincare.html]</ref>

* [[Alexander Pope]] (1688-1744), one of the greatest and most-often quoted [[English]] poets and essayists. "From Twyford School he was expelled after writing a satire on one of the teachers. At home, Pope's aunt taught him to read. Latin and Greek he learned from a local priest and later he acquired knowledge of French and Italian poetry."<ref>http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/apope.htm</ref>

*[[Ferdinand Porsche]] (1875-1951), designer of the [[German]] Porsche automobile. He was homeschooled and self-taught during his formative years,<ref>http://famousbrandnames.blogspot.com/2007/02/porsche.html</ref> which is ironic given that homeschooling is illegal in [[Germany]] today.

*[[Joseph Priestley]] (1733-1804), the father of modern chemistry and the discoverer of oxygen, dropped out of school as a teenager and privately learned geometry, algebra and numerous languages.{{fact}}

*[[Bernhard Riemann]] (1826-1866), a German recognized as the greatest modern mathematician. He was taught at home by his father, a Lutheran minister, until he was ten. After that he was tutored by a teacher from a local school until he entered the Lyceum in Hannover at 14. <ref>School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of St Andrews, Scotland -- Georg Friedrich Bernhard Riemann, by: J J O'Connor and E F Robertson[http://www-groups.dcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Riemann.html]</ref><ref>http://www.andrews.edu/~calkins/math/biograph/199899/bioriema.htm</ref>

*[[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] (1882-1945), U.S. President. He was educated by private tutors at home through age 14, then entered Groton, an elite private school in Massachusetts, in 1896. <ref>The Eleanor Roosevelt Papers. "Franklin D. Roosevelt." Teaching Eleanor Roosevelt, ed. by Allida Black, June Hopkins, et. al. (Hyde Park, New York: Eleanor Roosevelt National Historic Site, 2003).
[http://www.nps.gov/archive/elro/glossary/roosevelt-franklin.htm]</ref>

*[[Theodore Roosevelt]] (1858–1919), U.S. President. "Roosevelt never enrolled in a public school. He was mostly instructed by private tutors until he entered Harvard College in 1876."<ref>http://law.enotes.com/presidential-biography/theodore-roosevelt-administrations/education</ref>

*[[Erwin Schrodinger]] (1887-1961), was one of the developers of the theory of [[quantum mechanics]] in physics. "He was not sent to elementary school, but received lessons at home from a private tutor up to the age of ten ...."<ref>http://bdaugherty.tripod.com/berlin/schrodinger.html</ref>

*[[George Bernard Shaw]] (1856-1950), author. Tutored in the classics by a clerical uncle until he entered school at age 10. Left school by age 15. <ref>Encyclopedia of World Biography on George Bernard Shaw[http://www.bookrags.com/biography/george-bernard-shaw/]</ref> <ref>Dictionary of Literary Biography on George Bernard Shaw[http://www.bookrags.com/biography/george-bernard-shaw-dlb/]</ref><ref>George Bernard Shaw, 1856-1950 Biographical Sketch[http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/research/fa/shaw.gb.bio.html]</ref>

*[[Mark Twain]] (real name was Samuel Clemens) (1835-1910), American author and satirist who said, "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." Attended school through the 5th grade, where he "excelled only in spelling" and was frequently truant, then worked as a printer's apprentice for a local newspaper. His mother said, "He was always a great boy for history, and could never get tired of that kind of reading; but he hadn't any use for schoolhouses and text books." <ref>The Mark Twain House and Museum: Biography of Samuel Clemens/Mark Twain [http://www.marktwainhouse.org/theman/bio.shtml]</ref><ref>The Project Gutenberg EBook of Mark Twain, by Archibald Henderson
[http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/6/8/7/6873/6873.txt]</ref>

* [[Leonardo da Vinci]] (1452–1519), Italian artist, inventor, and all-around "Renaissance man". Leonardo went to school in Vinci, where he learned to write, to read and to calculate, and was taught geometry and Latin. At 14, Leonardo moved to Florence where he began an apprenticeship in the workshop of Verrocchio. <ref>Leonardo da Vinci[http://www.kausal.com/leonardo/childhood.html]</ref>

*[[Randy Weaver]] (1948-), conservative anti-government activist famously attacked by the FBI at his family's home in [[Ruby Ridge]], Idaho.

*[[Laura Ingalls Wilder]], the author of the Little House on the Prairie.<ref>http://www.homeschoolutah.org/pages/pastandpresent.htm</ref>

*[[Andrew Wyeth]] (1917- ), American artist, was tutored at home until he was 18. <ref>The Homeschooling of Andrew Wyeth, A Conversation with the Artist, Gifted Children Monthly, May 1986, Vol 7 No. 5.[http://www.nfgcc.org/51.htm] </ref>

*[[Frank Lloyd Wright]] (1867-1959), considered the finest architect ever, was taught at home by his mother who dreamed that he would become an architect. She used "Froebel's geometric blocks to entertain and educate her son" as his father led the family among various Baptist churches, where he preached.<ref>http://freenet.buffalo.edu/bah/a/archs/wright/bio/index.html</ref> Wright then attended high school but dropped out of college.<ref>http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0942394/bio</ref>

*[[Brigham Young]], the leader of the [[Mormon Church]] and founder of 200 towns and villages. He was homeschooled and had only "11 days of formal education."<ref>http://www.homeschoolutah.org/pages/pastandpresent.htm</ref>

In addition, a number of prominent people have chosen to homeschool their children. [[David Guterson]], author of the novel ''Snow Falling on Cedars'' (1994), which won the 1995 [[PEN/Faulkner Award]], also wrote ''Family Matters: Why Homeschooling Makes Sense'' (1992), an account of his family's homeschooling journey. <ref>www.randomhouse.com: David Guterson [http://www.randomhouse.com/vintage/read/snow/guterson.html]</ref> Actor and recording artist Will Smith and his wife actress Jada Pinkett Smith homeschool their children. <ref>Reader's Digest: Will Power: Will Smith is One Driven Guy[http://www.rd.com/content/will-smith-interview/1/]</ref>. Roseanne Barr stated in an interview that she has started to homeschool her 11-year-old son.<ref>Reuters Interview - Roseanne Barr says age gives her a louder voice [http://in.news.yahoo.com/070322/137/6dlba.html]</ref> Jimmy Wales, co-founder of [[Wikipedia]], also homeschools.<ref>http://reason.com/news/show/119689.html</ref> Kristin Maguire, head of the [[South Carolina]] board of education, which governs all its [[public schools]], homeschools all four of her children.<ref>http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/01/09/17stjour.h27.html</ref>

==See Also==
*[[People Who Arguably Were Homeschooled]]
*[[Previous Breaking News/Homeschooling|Articles about '''Homeschooling''' from previous "In the news"]]

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

==See also==
*[[Homeschool Legal Defense Association]]
*[[Homeschooling in England and Wales]]
*[http://www.homeschoolcentral.com/ Homeschool Central - Free Online Resources for Homeschooling]

==External links==
*[http://www.robinsoncurriculum.com/view/rc/s31p54.htm Christian Children Must Have More Than A Fighting Chance] - Four reasons to homeschool your children, by [[Art Robinson]]
*[http://www.homeschoolacademy.com/famoushomeschoolers.htm] - List of homeschooled achievers.

[[Category:Homeschooling|*]]

Talk:Pericles, Prince of Tyre

2009-05-09T15:12:05Z

JeffC: /* I Didn't See The Parody */

==I Didn't See The Parody==
WillAmot's edit seemed to be a basic plot summary of Pericles. Was it plagiarized? [[User:JeffC|JeffC]] 10:37, 9 May 2009 (EDT)

Look at the synopsis more closely, it had nothing to do with the actual plot of the play. It was mostly parody. --[[User:OscarJ|OscarJ]] 10:42, 9 May 2009 (EDT)
:Agreed. Though it does include many of the elements of the play, it misses completely some of the major plot devices and emphasizes the brief comedic episodes, some of which I don't recall from the production I saw. Besides it basically looked like a hacked up version of the WP article. [[User:JeffC|JeffC]] 11:12, 9 May 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Pericles, Prince of Tyre

2009-05-09T14:37:42Z

JeffC: Created page with '==I Didn't See The Parody== WillAmot's edit seemed to be a basic plot summary of Pericles. Was it plagiarized? ~~~~'

==I Didn't See The Parody==
WillAmot's edit seemed to be a basic plot summary of Pericles. Was it plagiarized? [[User:JeffC|JeffC]] 10:37, 9 May 2009 (EDT)

Pericles, Prince of Tyre

2009-05-09T14:32:41Z

JeffC:

'''Pericles, Prince of Tyre''' is a [[play]] by [[William Shakespeare]], written in 1607 and directed the following year at the [[Globe Theater]]. It is one of Shakespeare's [[Shakespearean comedy|comedies]]. There is, however, some question as to whether Shakespeare is the sole author of the play as many scholars have noticed the stylistic differences between the first nine scenes-possibly written by Shakespeare's contemporary, George Wilkins-and the latter thirteen.<ref>http://www.sparknotes.com/shakespeare/pericles/context.html</ref>

[[Category:Plays of Shakespeare]]

Pericles

2009-05-09T13:40:55Z

JeffC:

[[Image:Pericles 2.jpg|left]]
'''Pericles''' (Greek: ''Περικλης'') (495 to 429 B.C.) was an [[Athens|Athenian]] orator, general and statesman who ruled the Athenian [[Democracy]] during its ''golden age''.

Coming to power in 461 B.C. after winning a power struggle against [[Cimon]], he saw Athens further sprout into an economic, [[philosophical]], and military power expanding its influence over most of [[Greece]]. The [[Parthenon]] was built by his request. After a truce with [[Sparta]] in 445 B.C. the peace from 445 B.C. to 431 B.C. was considered the golden age of Athens.

One of the instigators of the [[Peloponnesian War]] against Sparta in 431 B.C., he was deposed and then re-elected, and then died of the plague in 429 B.C. His untimately death may have helped to bring about the defeat of Athens.

{{cquote|
''All kinds of enterprises should be created which will provide an inspiration for every art, find employment for every hand... we must devote ourselves to acquiring things that will be the source of everlasting fame.''<ref>''The Rise and Fall of Athens'', Plutarch</ref><ref>[http://www.pbs.org/empires/thegreeks/characters/pericles_p6.html The Acropolis]</ref>
}}

Pericles became a [[role model]] for future generations of Europeans. [[Plutarch]] wrote a [[biography]] of Pericles in his ''[[Parallel Lives]]'''.

[[Pericles, Prince of Tyre]] is also the title of a play written, at least in part, by [[William Shakespeare]].<ref>http://www.online-literature.com/shakespeare/pericles</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Greek Philosophy]]
*[[Age of Pericles]]
*[[Seven Sages of Greece]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.pbs.org/empires/thegreeks/htmlver/characters/f_pericles.html Pericles]

== Sources ==

* The New American Desk Encyclopedia, Penguin Group, 1989

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Ancient Greece]]
[[Category:Heads of State]]

Pericles

2009-05-06T17:55:58Z

JeffC:

[[Image:Pericles 2.jpg|left]]
'''Pericles''' (Greek: ''Περικλης'') (495 to 429 B.C.) was an [[Athens|Athenian]] orator, general and statesman who ruled the Athenian [[Democracy]] during its ''golden age''.

Coming to power in 461 B.C. after winning a power struggle against [[Cimon]], he saw Athens further sprout into an economic, [[philosophical]], and military power expanding its influence over most of [[Greece]]. The [[Parthenon]] was built by his request. After a truce with [[Sparta]] in 445 B.C. the peace from 445 B.C. to 431 B.C. was considered the golden age of Athens.

One of the instigators of the [[Peloponnesian War]] against Sparta in 431 B.C., he was deposed and then re-elected, and then died of the plague in 429 B.C. His untimately death may have helped to bring about the defeat of Athens.

{{cquote|
''All kinds of enterprises should be created which will provide an inspiration for every art, find employment for every hand... we must devote ourselves to acquiring things that will be the source of everlasting fame.''<ref>''The Rise and Fall of Athens'', Plutarch</ref><ref>[http://www.pbs.org/empires/thegreeks/characters/pericles_p6.html The Acropolis]</ref>
}}

Pericles became a [[role model]] for future generations of Europeans. [[Plutarch]] wrote a [[biography]] of Pericles in his ''[[Parallel Lives]]'''.

''Pericles, Prince of Tyre'' is also the title of a play written, at least in part, by [[William Shakespeare]].<ref>http://www.online-literature.com/shakespeare/pericles</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Greek Philosophy]]
*[[Age of Pericles]]
*[[Seven Sages of Greece]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.pbs.org/empires/thegreeks/htmlver/characters/f_pericles.html Pericles]

== Sources ==

* The New American Desk Encyclopedia, Penguin Group, 1989

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Ancient Greece]]
[[Category:Heads of State]]

Magic (card game)

2009-05-06T17:51:11Z

JeffC: /* Criticism */

'''Magic: The Gathering''' is a [[strategy]] [[card game]] which lets players take the role of dueling [[Wizard_(fiction)|wizards]] who can summon creatures to fight for them. One defeats his opponent by reducing his life points down to zero or by being the last one with cards remaining in his draw pile.

The game consists of numerous elements from various fantasy worlds, including magic, [[elf|elves]], [[dwarf (mythology)|dwarves]], [[dragon]]s, mana, [[orc]]s, and so forth. One of the reasons for keeping the game limited to the size of a small deck of cards was so that it could be easily taken along to, and played at, gaming conventions.<ref>''The Coming CCG Storm: 1993-1995'' "A Brief History of Game" (2006) [http://www.rpg.net/columns/briefhistory/briefhistory1.phtml RPGnet] Accessed 31 December 2007.</ref>

Its creator is Richard Garfield and the game is owned by [[Wizards of the Coast]], the same firm that publishes [[Dungeons and Dragons]]. The full name of the game uses a subtitle, i.e., Magic: The Gathering.

== Colors ==
Magic cards come in five colors, representing the different aspects of magic: red (destruction, fire and mountains), blue ([[deceit]], water, islands), white (Order, yet sometimes confused for good; light, plains), green (nature and animals), and black (evil, death, decay, swamps). Additionally, there are colorless cards (artifacts) which are associated with no color and multicolored cards which are associated with two or more colors of magic.

Some cards represent creatures, which are summoned to attack and defend. Other spells can be used to attack other players, bolster ones own creatures, and a multitude of other effects.

==Criticism==
The card game very quickly came under scrutiny for its inclusion of dark magic elements, such as demons. It was only after strong criticism from concerned families that these elements were scaled back. However, in recent years demons have been returning to Magic<ref>http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/mr131</ref>.

Pastor David Brown has identified four key problems with the game:<ref>http://logosresourcepages.org/Occult/magic-g.htm</ref>
*1) The primary focus on the occult
*2) The violent nature of the game
*3) The addictive nature of the game
*4) The identification of the players with evil characters.
To demonstrate the abundance of occult themes in the game there are 58 demon, 38 witch, 26 vampire, 228 zombie, 103 horror, and 6 devil cards.<ref>http://ww2.wizards.com/gatherer</ref>

Additionally, a number of cards feature unrealistic and unusually sexy depictions of female characters.

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mC4NyO1gUqU Learn to play magic] - YouTube video

[[Category: Games]]
[[Category:Satanism]]

Taoism

2009-05-04T03:01:33Z

JeffC:

[[Image:Yin_yang.jpg|thumb|500px|right|Taoism is often represented by the [[Taijitu]]]]
Taoism is a [[Chinese]] philosophy centered around the concept of Tao. It stresses the unification of contraries. Taoism also seeks harmony with nature.

The primary text of Taoism is [[Lao Tzu]]'s ''Tao Te Ching'', which works to express the essence of Tao. The book stresses the ineffability of the Tao.

:''Taoist ethics are concerned less with doing good acts than becoming a good person who lives in harmony with all things and people.''

Because of this, devoted Taoists tend to be nice and accomodating people.

Nonetheless, it is important to distinguish between Taoism as a [[philosophy]](as described above) and Taosim as a [[religion]]. Taoist religious practices include numerous occult rituals including 'internal alchemy'-the ingestion of minerals and herbs to supposedly restore balance to one's Yin and Yang energies-and the invocation of various pagan deities. The ideal of the Taoist 'Sage' is one who removes themselves completely from society and no longer serves to further the well-being of mankind. As such religious Taoism shares many of the dangerous traits of other primitive faiths and lacks the spiritual substance of the Abrahamic traditions.

Taoism originated in [[China]]. Accurate figures for the number of believers of Taoism are elusive, for two reasons. Firstly, Taoism is a loosely defined faith, so some people don't even realize they're practicing it. Secondly, the [[Communist]] Chinese government does not record most religions in its [[census]]es, on account of the government's anti-religious stance. However, Taoism is one of the five religions officially recognized by the Chinese government, the others being Protestant Christianity, Catholicism, Buddhism, and Islam.<ref> South China Morning Post, April 30, 2007, www.scmp.com</ref>

== External links ==

*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/taoism/taoethics/ethics_1.shtml Taoist ethics - theory and practice]

== See Also ==

*[[Confucianism]]
*[[Zen]]
*[[Falun Gong]]
*[[New_Age| New Age Spirituality]]
*[[Feng Shui]]
*[[World History Lecture Three]]
*[[Tai Chi]]

[[Category:Taoism]]

Talk:Socialism

2009-05-01T03:57:31Z

JeffC: /* Grammatical Edit and Rebuttal */

"This correlates with a rise in atheism," I think it should be noted that correlation does not show causation. What is the correlation coefficient? Is there a positive or a negative correlation?
-Gasmonkey

"Socialism has caused more deaths…" What, really? A reference would go great with that opinion. --[[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]] 01:19, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Laughable bias ==

"Leading European Socialists are very critical of America."

Of America? Of the american government? Some of the american governments? Some of the american goverments policies? American corporations? American food? American anti-americans? American republicans, democrats, liberals, jews, muslims, african americans, hispanics? I assume you mean all those things since you just say America? Do you have a valid point somewhere buried under that mountain of prejudice and generalisation? [[User:Messpm|Messpm]] 15:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Also, the source that backs it up mentions America ''once''.

' One thing is clear: the unilateral military style approach of the Bush-administration has failed'

I'm removing it with the ridiculous 'vastly superior' remark. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

[[User:AmeriCan]] keeps reverting my edits saying that it stresses the rights of the many over the priveliges of the few, as opposed to vice versa. I'm tired of edit warring and don't want to get blocked for something that is not worth it. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 01:32, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:Okay, this article is just [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Socialism&diff=next&oldid=135051 ridiculous]. I give up. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 13:49, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
== Incentives ==

I couldn't find anywhere in this article where socialism lacks incentives. Should I add it in? The lack of incentives is a crucial reason to why socialism doesn't work in societies. [[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 01:40, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

This article's lack of knowledge is laughable and as an evil limey toothéd bastard who can spell things right (color=LOL) who is also a European Socilaist who is critical of America (the whole world is socialist by that standard) I must correct this issue.
LOL at the moron who re-edited my work, they do not know history well enough to try and battle me over Atlee.

== "Socialist" Britain ==

Rob, re your revision to Socialism. First, you make a large assumption about how socialist New Labour is (they aren't), second, the Conservatives would be far less likely to change the rules than any Socialist party, partly because thirdly, it would require disestablisment of the Church of England, which in any case could almost certainly not be achieved in the ten years New Labour have been in power, even if it was something they intended to do. Based on this I think the phrase "Socialist Britain" is inappropriate and removing it would not be liberal bias. In fact, retaining it is conservative bias. --[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:23, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:So the Socialists do not oppose religious discriminition then? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:30, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Which socialists? New Labour do - they have in fact introduced legislation outlawing discrimination based on religious belief. But as I said - they're not Socialists in the sense that you would use. And as the article says - Catholics are not barred from being Prime Minister. They are barred from holding one of the ceremonial offices associated with the post - an office which could be renounced without having any impact on the powers intrinsic to the post of Prime Minister.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:35, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::This article gives a glowing description of what Socialism has done for Britian since 1945; it does not differentiate between Brand X Socialism and Brand Z; together, whatever stripe, along with all those great things they've done, you'd think eliminating bigotry would be high on the list. Must be a case where they are willing to compromise their principles in exchange for real political power. Nonetheless, they never stop talking about things like oppression, etc. Oh, I forgot, people who beleive in God are fair game for discrimination -- that's one of the basic tenets of Socialism. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:44, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Socialism in Britain has done more to eliminate bigotry in Britain than any other movement. In fact so much that it is accused of political correctness. That this singular example remains is not an indictment of socialism - in fact that such a small example seems to raise your ire so much shows just how far bigotry has been eliminated.

::::People who believe in God are not discriminated against in this case. Adherants to '''any faith or denomination''' except Catholic are eligible; and the restriction to Catholics applies only to one essentially irrelevant ceremonial office associated with the post. Can you please address the points I make in the way I have yours?--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:53, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::So Britian, under various Socialist governments since 1945, has continued to discriminate against Roman Catholics. Why should this be surprising? It is very much in keeping with Socialist doctrine. And we can certainly conclude, Socialism ''does not'' respect equality. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:04, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Everything you say can be repeated for Conservatism in this case, and you continue to ignore all of my points. Forget it.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 16:08, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Ignore which points? Are arguing discrimination against Catholics is not discrimination? Why? Because they're Catholic? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:15, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: I have to reiterate Olly's point here. I live in Britain, and I know that the Labour Party, since the [[Third Way]] (the third way, see? Not socialism, not conservatism, but a middle), is not a socialist party. ergo, blaming discrimination on socialists is false. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

::::::::: I rarely comment on politics but I have to agree with the British users here (being one myself). The Labour Party ceased to be a socialist party with the move to becoming New Labour (their proper title) and the implementation of the [[Third Way]]. New Labour seem to be in the strange position of trying to appeal to both the left and the right at the same time with neither Conservative nor Liberal values other than those required to win the popular vote. What is more worrying to the British conservative is that the Conservative Tory party seem to be following the same path required to win the mass vote leaving Britain in the strange position that both our main left and right parties have moved to the centre leaving nothing that would reflect either conservative or liberal views other than some rather, errr, I'll be polite here and say odd, fringe political groups such as the detestable BNP (no policies other than those of racism) and the pointless UKIP (too insular by far). Socialism has been dead since Labour morphed into New Labour (best described as a "Labour scented party") and traditional conservatism seems to be following the same path --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 17:54, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:: new labour is certainly not socialist in nature! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I have to confess, I get lost in leftist ideological fever swamps. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:00, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: I have no idea what that means but nothing about modern britain or it's govt fits anything that resembles "socialism" in any significant manner - fees and loans for students, PFI, Invasion of iraq etc etc. The current govt is actually further to the right in many ways that Mrs. T government! was Thatch a socialist! I think not! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: Similarly, our Conservative party is no longer traditional conservatism. Think two parties both using the same elastic ideologies to chase the same fickle voters and appeal to conservative and liberal alike and there you have recent British politics. No left or right, just two sets of "middle". --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:05, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Yep. I was just reading how Socialist leaders in Britian send their kids to private schools. Very similiar to American liberals -- who then give us the Cain vs Abel speil about getting even with the rich! [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:21, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Which socialist leaders? You mean the leader of the socialist workers party? I doubt it. I'm really struggling to understand what's going on here - Britain does not have a socialist government and if the catholic thing is meant to be an indication of socialist discrimination then Mrs. Thatcher was a socialist because she did nothing about it either! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:25, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Here. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1970902,00.html] At least now we know why Blair's popularity has shrunk; it's not the War in Iraq, it's all those compassionate liberals and socialists who found out he was thinking of converting to Catholicism. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/15/ncath15.xml] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:35, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

eh? Do you think this is a big issue in the UK? That someone is a catholic? Can I suggest in a friendly manner that maybe your understanding of the UK is slightly lacking and you are looking at it via the lens of the US? I'll leave it at that stage because you want the article to say that Britain is a socialist nation and as a sysop - well you win straight out of the box. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:38, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:It was somebody elses idea to trumpet the glories of British Socialism, whatever for. What is obvious from this is, Socialist do not care at all about equality and human rights. It's simply fraud to pretend that they do. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:46, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Thing is, we have no true socialist leaders or true conservatives anymore. Ideology is dead, long live chasing after anyone that will vote for you. And I come from a very long line of Catholics who were also passionate supporters of the NHS, minimum wages and other socialist ideals. I happen to be Christian and Conservative but there are many good Christians who hold to what are considered socialist values. Many many many shades of grey here. Very hard to pin down to a few neat paragraphs. One thing holds true though, New Labour are not and never were Socialist. This is why most of my extended family stopped voting Labour as they felt it was a betrayal of their values. --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:48, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::The only limitation that Blair would face if he became a Catholic would be that he would be unable to suggest the appointment of Bishops in the Church of England to the Crown. This restriction came about from the Catholic Relief Act of 1829, which repealed earlier laws outlawing Catholic participation in voting and government. There is also a law prohibiting the King or Queen from being a Catholic or married to a Catholic, the Act of Settlement of 1701. British anti-Catholic laws have nothing to do with Socialism or the Labour party, but instead are due to the English Civil War, the Restoration, and resistance by Protestant Britain to Catholic rule. The Act of Settlement and that provision of the Catholic Relief Act aren't still in force due to strong anti-Catholic sentiment in Britain, but just due to inertia and the fact that the law doesn't really come up. I don't think it's true to say that these restrictions have anything at all to do with socialism in Britain, either currently or historically.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 18:50, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::This BBC article quotes Blair, "changing the law would be hugely complicated involving changes to nine different pieces of legislation." [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/529227.stm] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:13, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

We still have a great number of old laws that technically still apply (policemen in certain counties are still supposed to walk in the gutter for example) that no one adheres to, very few remember and no one cares to repeal due to the fact that they are archaic and pretty much forgotten. Hardly tantamount to discrimination, more a quirk of history. [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:54, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Right...that's my point. I'm agreeing with you. It's an old law that has never been changed because it's never been an issue.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 19:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Would it be more correct to rephrase the final sentence in this article thus. "''In Britain, Catholics are discriminated against by being barred from holding certain offices associated with the post of Prime Minister. These offices can be renounced without any practical inhibition to the powers of the post, but no government, socialist or otherwise has done so since 1829."'' Or better yet, remove it. Or am I just tired from a long day down t'pit? --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:07, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Sounds good, but we should add, "a reform measure was voted down as recently as 1999." [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:16, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Well, the 1999 reform measure you're citing doesn't have anything to do with religious restrictions of the Prime Minister...just religious restrictions for the monarch. But, still, I don't really see what this has to do with socialism.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 23:52, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::It evidently isn't that easy. Blair says it affects nine pieces of legislation, some it appears affecting his office. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:08, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

If that is the case then please do. No shame in the truth providing all governments since 1829 share the blame equally. --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:20, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Go ahead and do it. That is indeed how a democracy works, even when socialists are dominant. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:47, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

My only issue with making these amendments to an article on Socialism is that, as all governments since 1829 are complicit in this lack of reform, it is no longer purely a Socialist issue and, as such, should have no place here. I'd like other people's views on this but, as it is not soley a Socialist failing, I think the entire reference to this Catholic discrimination should be removed. Other people, the floor is yours ; ) --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I think this section illustrates the folly of applying a US conservative-liberal axis to the political culture of other countries. There's an interesting article to be written about socialism in Britain but it doesn't belong in an article that puts anyone who supports universal health care in the same camp as Stalin and Hitler.--[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 01:05, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:Yes and no. It all depends on the conduct of the British Socialists. Name calling, and outrageous assertions can be a two way street. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:13, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Hang on a minute. The information about the Act of Settlement is correct, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Socialism. What on earth is it doing here? If nobody else removes it I will.

how are catholics discriminate against by labour? there are catholic schools funded by the state, the only part of the UK that discriminates against catholics is Northern Ireland and if you called men like paisley a socialist he'd knock your teeth out.[[User:Foxley|Foxley]] 15:18, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

:How many decades over the past century has the labour/left coalition dominated British politics? Why haven't they acted on this? Being the self-appointed defenders of the oppressed and against injustice, how come no one speaks up?

:We don't have to look far to see how deeply rooted and respectable anti-Catholicism is in British culture. Why, one of the ''Beatles'' greatest hits, ''Lady Madonna'' is a celebration of despicable anti-Catholic attitudes & stereotypes. And several Beatles have been, if recollection serves me correct, Knighted for their achievements and service. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:47, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Right. Just one Beatle -- Paul -- has been knighted and both he and John Lennon were themselves raised as Catholics. I really don't think Lady Madonna can be seriously regarded as a criticism of ANYTHING.
:Read the lyrics. [http://www.lyrics007.com/The%20Beatles%20Lyrics/Lady%20Madonna%20Lyrics.html] George Harrison, too. John Lenin didn't live long enough, and everybody knows Ringo's a bit slow. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:48, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

:Facts are, for all criticism of the US, the treatment of Catholics, by law, in Great Britain, as second class citizens, or the open, naked prejudice and ridicule they suffer, would never ever be tolerated in the United States. And truth be told, there is anti-Catholic prejudice in the US, but nothing like the respectability it has gained over the centuries in Great Britain. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:54, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

What do you mean "George Harrison too"? Are you under some delusion that he, too, was knighted. You are wrong. All of them did, of course, get MBEs, though Lennon -- "Lenin"? Oh, you are SO witty -- returned his in protest at the Vietnam War. As for Lady Madonna, speaking as an Irish Catholic myself, I am flabbergasted that you could regard this as a recognisable criticism of that community.
:Read the lyrics. I was raised Catholic but left the Church many years ago. But I ''still'' get deeply offended by the blatant intent, and ridicule of the message in that song. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:15, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
::Paul McCartney, a lapsed Catholic, said he wrote ''Lady Madonna'' in response to seeing a photograph of a woman and child entitled ''Mountain Madonna''.[http://www.iamthebeatles.com/article1208.html] It's bizarre to read an anti-Catholic sentiment into that song -- it's an expression of sympathy for a struggling mother. In answer to an earlier question you posed Labour has governed the UK for about 30 of the last 100 years and has traditionally enjoyed strong support from Catholics[http://www.ipsos-mori.com/publications/rmw/the-catholic-vote.shtml]; The greatest opposition to changing the constitution to allow a Catholic monarch comes from traditionalist Conservatives who want to retain the privileges of the Church of England. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 13:21, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Sympathy? On what planet? ''Labour has governed the UK for about 30 of the last 100 years'' And we are really discussing Socialists here, and their record of being defenders of the "oppressed", and rectifying injustice. Even if it's only 30 years, what is the record of rectifying this injustice? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:01, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
::::Sigh.[http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/pm.htm] Catholics in Britain have traditionally favoured Labour for a number of reasons, not least of which is that Labour has been more sympathetic towards Nationalism and the Conservatives more sympathetic to Unionism -- it's more to do with green vs. orange than red vs. blue. Perhaps we could have a cite for the "oppression" that has somehow escaped the attention of those living in Britain who have contributed to this thread? --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 15:17, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::Cough. Sneeze. [http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA992.htm][http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article512736.ece] Thank God she's not a Catholic. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:17, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

== DAB's version ==

DAB's version on 'succesful socialism' has already resisted 9 minutes. How long before a SysOp comes? I guess someone will be blocked for a long long time... (and no, I have no affiliation with DAB)[[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 13:38, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== Let's not get carried away here, please ==
The picture at the very top of the page right away makes a direct visual attachment of communism and socialism as if they are one in the same. As the vast majority of editors and sysops here are quite cleary well educated people, I am shocked that the picture in question remains. Communism is not the equal of socialism, nor is the reverse true either. Communism is socialism taken to the far extreme. For example, Finland is socialist, but try labeling them communists and see what happens, lol... I'm all for removing that picture, and perhaps replacing it with something more indicative of socialism in general rather than Marxism/Leninism/Communism in specific. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 16:35, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:Oh, umhh, I see. Care to explain how [[Hitler]] was misunderstood, too? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:39, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
::Rob, he never said anything about "misunderstanding" the ideology. He made the valid point that socialism and communism are ''not'' the same thing. Canada, Finland, Sweden, etc. They are socialist, but ''not'' communist. Do you wish to dispute that? This conversation had nothing to do with Hitler. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:50, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Pardon me for not wading into a [[leftist]] ideological fever swamp, but I really don't care to decipher the degrees of complicity in [[democide]] based upon an avowed [[atheistic]] philosophy. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:05, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
::::So then don't contribute to the article. Your responses do not address the complaints, but rather your refusal to accept anything other than what you think you already know. Your defense for completely screwing up the distinction between two ideologies is a refusal to even ''attempt'' to understand the distinction. That makes ''perfect'' sense. I'd be glad to wade into that "leftist ideological fever swamp" for you, Rob, seeing how scared you are of it. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:13, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
We are not in the position of advocating, defending, or apologizing for [[democidal]] ideologies. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:18, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:No, we are in the position to write an '''encyclopedia article''' about them. And saying that communism and socialism are identical ideologies is completely false. Once again, you change your reasons for wanting to include the misleading picture. How is being factual "apologetic", "advocating for", or "defending" socialism? Are you suggesting we deliberatly mislead readers? And the ideology is not democidal. Last I heard, Canada, Finland, Sweden, etc. don't commit democide. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:27, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Quite so Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ. If I seek to distinguish between a shark and a barracuda I am not taking sides with either. Rob seems pathologically incapable of listening to reason and seems to view any considered response of this subject to be an act of Marxist-Leninist subversion. Ignore him.

RobS it appears you misunderstood what I was saying and clearly the fault is on me as I should have explained my position better.My apologies on giving the impression that I was apologizing for communism. Was not my intention. I think however you should really think about what Hojimachong is saying though, since he has explained it perfectly =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 23:33, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

:: I went ahead and removed the picture in question. I do apologize to you RobS however, in truth it was misleading and out of place. It would PERFECT for the article on Communism, or articles about the old Soviet Union and presently existing communist regimes. But this is the socialism page. Let me put it this way: Having that picture represent socilism in general is like making an article about the primary colors and only showing blue. It is misleading. But this is in no way a reflection of any supposed sympathy for communism in specific or even socialism in general. And as for democide, well, isn't that getting a bit off track? I know one of the key principles of communism is an athiestic society, but that's all part of the package, I don't see how making your major argument revolve around democide makes sense. Also, again, that's communist specific. There are SOCIALIST countries that are Christian by LAW, as a STATE RELIGION (something that America has avoided as we all know), regardless of the denomination. So applying democide to socialism is another exercise in ignorance. But I digress; I simply removed a misleading graphic. I would like to add something more illustrative of socialism in general, however while I could find such a thing, I sadly am not well versed in editing yet, specificaly when it comes to posting images. Yes, that IS a call for help by the way, =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:06, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
:::That's odd, I thought the name of the state Stalin & Lenin presided over was, "The Union of Soviet '''Socialist''' Republics, not "the Union of Soviet Communist Republics". I must have been sleeping in class again the day they set that straight, I guess. [[User:RobS|RobS]]
00:23, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::::"What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell just as sweet," or in this case "would be just as red." hahaha, sorry, bad joke. But here is my response: That was simply a name. If I call a ka-bar a fluffy teddy bear, does that make it any less lethal a weapon? No. Granted, the USSR itself may not have been total communism, however it was far closer to communism than it was to the "ordinary" socialist idealology that spawned it. As I stated earlier, "socialism" is a generalism, while "communism," "USSR," etc. are specifics. If you're talking about a broad issue like socialism, it's not academically responsible to, whether accidently or otherwise, make the specific general broad issue appear to others as nothing more than one single specific. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:38, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

If you have two children, and the children are quite different from one another in most respcts, but naturally they are both YOUR children, do you take any more pride in the one, than you do the other? Is socialism nothing more than communism that spawns from it? Of your two hypothetical children, does only one of them represent you? [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:43, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::As a side note, I truly do believe in at least replacing that image, and I do notice it is back up, though I'd rather not take it back down again unless some sort of consensus is reached or I get solid support for my argument. I do not wish to be accused of starting an edit war or seem like I have a vendetta against RobS now :) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:52, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
Also I am pleased to see the "different strands of socialism" section. I completely support that. The existence of that section lends even more to my argument that that graphic on the socialism article in general ought to be removed. The section listing different strands of socialism clearly indicates the author knows communism is not the entirety of socialism. So why the communist specific graphic? =)

Just to go back to socialism and atheism for a minute, while it's true that Marxist Communism certainly is atheistic, socialism isn't neccesarily. In fact, there was a strong Christian Socialist movement in Britain in the 19th century that helped lead to the British Labour party, and there was certainly a Jewish Socialist movement that contributed to the Zionist movement.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 01:22, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:Very good points Steve! [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 01:25, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

==Compromise?==
RobS, I would greatly apreciate it if you would take a look at my most recent edit. I didnot remove the graphic. I did however edit the text in the caption slightly, in that I added a bitmore detail which makes it less misleading, in my opinion, and I would greatly value your thoughts on this =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 04:53, 25 June 2007 (EDT) (anyone else reading also lol)

::Well scratch that. It seems Fox has provided a graphic that suits the article. Cheers to Fox, good find and good edit. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:54, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::RobS if you gave up debating I do not see the virtue in reverting Fox's edit. His picture makes much more sense than the previous. I reverted it back to HIS. You seem to want to cram your opinion down peoples's throats. On the other hand, Fox and I and many others would rather have this be accurate and academic. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 02:46, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm no supporter of Socialism by any means, but I genuinely feel this image is more illustrative for the article's subject, particularly as the main body sems to concentrate on British socialism. I know how easy it can be to choose an image to make a general point rather than to illustrate the point of the article - you should see the dozens of pics I'm itching to use to illustrate Israel's fight for survival - but I resist the temptation to use them because: we all accept that articles here are going to be representative of a broadly, if only small "c", conservatism, so using a soviet commie poster to illustrate the article is somewhat like cracking hazelnuts with a sledgehammer. Welded to an anvil. :D [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 04:17, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

::::Agreed. That's how I felt on it. I'm not a supporter of socialism either, but I do support sticking to the point, rather than the point of view. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 15:46, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

==Inaccurate==
The article currently lists Tony B.liar as the Prime Minister. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:08, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

*No points given for something that only happened earlier today, Fox! ROFL! We can change it when you know who the new man is, eh? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:10, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
::LoL - I would have changed it, but it was protected. The new <strike>village idiot</strike> PM is [[Gordon Brown]]. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:47, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Check your offline Yahoo's. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:13, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

== Poor Move ==
I am saddened to see the page is locked for editing after being reverted back to misleading picture. This is quite unfortunate and I am afraid it will refelect poorly for CP. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 19:02, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

== This article lacks a basic understanding of what socialism is ==

This article begins by stating.

Socialism is an economic system where the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government without compensation to the builders of the capital, and where investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government nomenklatura that regulate the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation and regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion.

There are a number of things wrong with this. It seems like the author has failed to actually read socialist tracts. I will try to list most of the fallacies I see offhand.

1. "are seized and monopolized by the government" this phrase betrays a lack of knowledge about how socialism views the state. For example, "means of production" aren't seized, and cannot be seized. The worker is a human being not a commodity or "capital". As a human being he is a part of the state. Finally, Marxism actually is anti-state and in the culmination of the dialectical processes would lead to its removal. (Also, no mention of Hegelian dialectics are present in the article. This is a key point concerning socialism. To abandon the dialectic is similar to discussing Christianity without the crucifixion.)
:So the human being is an [[untermensch]], state property, and without rights, correct? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
2. The authors seem to fail to realize that there are vast differences within socialism just as there are within Christianity e.g. Catholicism, Protestantism, Mormonism...etc each differing vastly but similar in appearance to an outsider.
:True; Jesse Jackson for example, may be described as a God-fearing Socialist. Problem is, we need more sources. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

::In Wikipedia one may find: ''Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community for the purposes of increasing social and economic equality and cooperation. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state... A diverse array of doctrines and movements have been referred to as "socialist." '' --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 01:53, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

::*Well, Wikipedia is never an acceptable source or citation at CP, so perhaps another definition can be found, Joaquín. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 06:31, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

3. The statement that "religion is the opium of the masses" is taken out of context. It wasn't meant to be a pejorative statement. The common misunderstanding of this quote is that religion is a tool used by the state to force an otherwise unruly population into line through fear, propaganda, religious mysticism, and thus religion is ultimately evil.
:So under this theory, the state gets people hooked on narcotics in order to control them. Thanks for clarifying that. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
The actual meaning is that religion is created by the people for the people as an expression of their desire for some form of justice in an evil world. This may be viewed through a Christian perspective of mankind longing for God and thereby creating rituals and religion etc.. to reach Him.
:Ok, so then Marxism or Socialism (or whatever code word you wish to use), Socialists seek to restrict the fundemental, God-given, [[human right]] of [[worship]]. Further, this an excellent example of [[leftist]]s seeking to impose ''their'' [[morality]] on the rest of us, is it not? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Really, the major lack of information concerning Hegel's influence and the respective influence of the French, Germans, and British on Marx as he lived throughout Europe in his formulation of his ideas (French utopianism etc...) suggest an overly simplified method of viewing socialism.
:Yes, I understand. It truelly is a more intellectual exercise than we give it credit for. [[Charles Manson]] wasn't much of an intellectual, but his recruiting talents and demonstrated abilities to persuade young minds would have made a valuable member of the [[nomenklatura]]. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
It is a multifaceted philosophy and this article does it great injustice by explaining it in terms you would have expected from a farmboy filled with American propaganda from the 1950s.
:Multifacted. Yes. Some advocate murder and lawlessness, others only certain degrees of it. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Socialism does not necessarily attempt to create a manmade utopia atheistically (some forms have however). Instead, the historical process is viewed as evolving. Just as the Roman system of government worked better than the Greeks, and feudalism evolved from that. In turn industrialized capitalistic colonial government worked better than feudalism. None of these forms of government were perfect but in every case they were better (arguably worse depending on whose perspective you take.) Similarly, socialism is ultimately a democratic movement wherein the workers (i.e. the means of production) cease to be exploited by the privelaged classes.
:Marxist mumbo-jumbo. Feudalism was at one time the solution to mankinds problems of homelessness and unemployment, and other social problems. Conservapedia is not interested in spewing more Marxist trash to another generation. We need some straight forward reporting on human history. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Also, one last misconception is that socialism is against private property or the earning of wages. It is quite the opposite small business men were sympathetically viewed by Marx as ultimately destroyed by the industry (Analogy: mom and pop stores being eaten by Walmart). Socialism is often viewed as a welfare state, but Marx's view was contrary to this. He viewed the owners of corporations etc... as those who benefited from the welfare of the production made by those who worked. Thus, the worker (means of production) produced and the owner (businessman) consumed.
:So we are back to the issue of [[Economic planning]]; yes, we are working on that. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
This article expresses a really uneducated opinion. I'm not claiming socialism is the greatest thing ever. I'm not denying communism and thus mass murders and authoritarian government came from it. But its a logical fallacy to claim that socialism is therefore wrong. Take the French Revolution. Maximillian Robespierre was a democrat and the revolution was a democratic one and yet it is known as the Reign of Terror. Is democracy evil? Also, consider Christianity and the crusades, the inquisition, the wars fought between the reformationists and the Catholics. Is Christianity therefore wrong?
:The revolution was democratic? Yes, and as our sources show, violating price controls set by economic planning boards was a capital offense warranting the guillotine. Glad to see democracy works. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
You do yourself and the reader great injustice. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 15:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:Good luck, son. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

::I don't understand. Are you saying the French radicals in charge of the Reign of Terror were not liberals (in the international sense) who were in favor of a democracy as opposed to the monarchy? How novel and how very uninformed. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:21, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

::Please don't debate me within my own text it's hard to respond. Concerning the opium statement if you actually read my sentence I said that's the common misconception.
:::There's little evidence the French Revolution was "democratic;" it was a lynch mob that turned on each other. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
"So the human being is an [[untermensch]], state property, and without rights, correct?"

No that's incorrect Marx actually wrote of the end of the concept of statehood. I get the notion that you believe Communism is socialism and you have a limited understanding of what Marx wrote. Concepts such as government, statehood, etc.. are absent from socialism as a philosophy. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:26, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Bukharin read Marx correct; he saw through the fraud. While I do not advocate or agree with Bukharin's philosophy, as an eyewitness, his historical reporting on Marx is accurate. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
You say I'm using code words. That would be similar to me denying Christianity on the grounds that I find the Pope offensive. When you claim that not all Christians are Catholics I accuse you of using propaganda and code words.

Please be a bit more rational. I am not a Marxist propagandist. I am a Christian. I feel like this article could use a little more truth in it and little less of the common American anti-communism uninformed dialogue in it. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:28, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::What's so uninformed? Americans have stood on the sidelines and watched how Socialism has ravaged other contintents with [[democide]], and have clearly articlated a [[foreign policy]] to oppose it. Yes, Socialism has made vast inroads in the [[public school]]s, [[media]], entertainment, and [[law]]. But American foreign policy for decades has been fairly consistent in opposing it, despite opposition and subversion along the way. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

:::What are you talking about? Which continent was ravaged by SOCIALISM? SOCIALISM NOT COMMUNISM. THEY ARE DIFFERENT. READ A BOOK, PLEASE, AND LEARN A LITTLE. Are you talking about Europe and Canada? Two very SOCIALIST places, or are you talking about Russia and China two very COMMUNIST places.

:::The Reign of Terror was a DEMOCRATIC revolution. Communism came from socialism but it is NOT socialism. The Reign of Terror was founded on liberal ideas like anti-monarchy, freedom of speech, democracy, BUT IT WAS NOT DEMOCRACY. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 17:02, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

==British socialism==
The second paragraph of the British socialism section should be removed. It really has nothing to do with socialism (though some of it might be useful in a different article). Additionally the sentence describing how Catholics are barred from certain offices appears to be untrue, or at least misleading. The "offices" in question are the mostly ceremonial positions of Monarch and spouse. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 15:42, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:oh, so you don't deny the existence of discriminatory laws? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:50, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::Other than barring a Catholic from becoming king or queen? I don't know of any. If there are point them out. In any case it has nothing to do with socialism. Put it in the [[United Kingdom]] article; I didn't notice it there. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 15:55, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Dodi Fayed's kid could become king, but not Tony Blair's. In the US, this is not only unconstitutional, most living American's would be outraged at the even the suggestion of such a law. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:08, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Again, WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH SOCIALISM? [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:25, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::What did the Socialist do to repeal this law when it was last taken up? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:30, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::"The Socialist"? Who might he be? In any case, the law has been on the books for 300 years, and in that time no party has repealed it (it's mostly a non-issue; neither Fayed's nor Blair's kids are going to become king, the Queen's kid will. He's an Anglican), should it be mentioned in the articles on Tories, Whigs, and the Britsh Liberal Party? How about every in the article on every Prime Minister ("Benjamin Disraeli did not repeal the Act of Settlement"; "Earl Grey did not repeal the Act of Settlement"; "Ramsay MacDonald did not repeal the Act of Settlement"...). According the the cited article "Mr Blair said altering the law would be a hugely complicated process involving changes to nine separate pieces of legislation. The government has already embarked on a heavy legislative programme with 28 bills to see through." If Prince William gets engaged to a Catholic I'll bet we'll see the issue taken up, but in the meantime it's a lot of work for a something that is not going to be an issue. And ''it has nothing to do with socialism''. It might be relevant in another article, but not this one. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:43, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Blair's wife is Roman Catholic, and the kids are too as I understand. Fayed was a Muslim, and the child Princess Di was carrying at the time of her death would have a had a rightful claim to the throne under certain circumstnces.
:::::::The logic of your argument above appears quite anti-progressive, and [[reactionary]], does it not? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 17:14, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Hmmm. Perhaps it would help if you actually read what I wrote. But that might be too much to ask. Fayed and his offspring would have zero claim to the throne, nor does Blair's kids. None of that matters, in any case, as we're discussing the article, and the connection between the Act of Settlement and socialism, which is zero. I'm not sure what's "reactionary" about pointing that out. I'm not here to defend the Act of Settlement, or any other remnant of Britian's bygone era. Just explain its significance to this article. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 18:18, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::We saw the same thing when Chuck remarried; the wedding was delayed because Parker-Bowles had at onetime been married to a Catholic. "Thank God she's not a Catholic" [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article512736.ece] How these Enlightened Socialists can look us straight in the eye, fail to condemn this hypocracy, shrug their shoulders and say there's nothing that can be done about it, I'll never understand. It all proves the point: Socialism stands for nothing but political opportunism. And if it something doesn't serve Socialists immediate politcal opportunism, like standing up for religious freedom and against religious bigotry, they fall back on reactionary arguments. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:23, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::'''Bottom line''': Don't tell me Socialism stands for social progess, change, opposition to the exiting order, levelling the playing field, and against discriminition until British Socialists take on this issue. Absent that, Socialism is just a complete [[fraud]]. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:32, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

*See [[deceit]], Rob. You don't really expect to get a straight answer, do you? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:19, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

== Just Plain Wrong ==

Socialism is an economic system where the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government without compensation to the builders of the capital, and where investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government nomenklatura that regulate the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation and regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion.

This is the definition of COMMUNISM, not SOCIALISM. The writer of this article is laughably politicaly incoherent. (and the bias is thick enough to cut with a bundle of sticks tied to an axe)
:If you think you can do better, Silvanus, by all means do so...but don't make it hard on yourself by demeaning others. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:35, 14 November 2007 (EST)

::I think we have to distinguish between the various types of socialism, but this is not easy to do. Many partisans write about socialism as if their pet variety is the only (or main) kind.

::The kind which conservatives oppose is the totalitarian [[Communist]] type. But not every form of socialism is as bad as that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:26, 4 January 2008 (EST)

:::Well, in the European tradition at least, communism has always been extremely distinct from socialism - perhaps this is not clear in the USA. For instance, the Labour Party has always been committed to democratic socialism, and was strongly critical of the USSR. It is self-evident that democratic socialism is hugely more widespread as a faith than communism in the present day, and has never implied totalitarianism - the Labour Party has traditionally been far more committed to freedom than the Conservatives here in the UK.

::::If there countries having a "socialist" system with less than totalitarian control, we can describe them also. I just thought it would be good to start by describing the Communist approach, since that is the model or ideal that most people look to when comparing [[capitalism and socialism]]. The Nazi variant permitted individual ownership, but [[von Mises]] says the results were similar because the state maintained price controls and so on.

::::We also need to distinguish between the economic aspects of socialism and the political aspects of "socialist" countries. For example, in Sweden people are allowed to emigrate, but in Cuba they are not. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:28, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

== Would like to add a paragraph about my country (Norway) ==

If its all the same to you I'd like to write about our system wich is currently socialist-democratic. Then again most of our parties are socialist to some degree. Any objections?

Also, the article seems to have mixed up communism with socialism. I assure you, socialism in this day and age bears a much stronger resemblance to the US govermental system than the dictatorship that was soviet russia.

LOL this again. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 15:35, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:Can you be more specific? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:42, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

== Also Add Ethiopia ==

Someone needs to add Ethiopia to this article as Ethipia used to be socialist. Also, include the Ethio-Somalia War.

==Liberal propaganda about Chile==

Removed from article:

:In the first year of Allende's, the economic policy showed decidedly positive results, including a 12% industrial growth an 8.6% increase in GDP, as well as major declines in inflation (down from 34.9% to 22.1%) and unemployment (down to 3.8%). However, these gains were only temporary due to American intervention. American copper interests in Chile, which controlled 80% of Chile's copper production, reacted violently to Allende's nationalization. The United States set about placing an economic stranglehold on Chile designed to, in a famous quote by Richard Nixon, "make the (Chilean) economy scream". Classified documents have also revealed the extent of the United States' involvement in the 1973 coup d'etat that overthrew Allende, installing and supporting dictator [[Augusto Pinochet]] in power. Pinochet is known to have detained and tortured thousands of domestic dissidents by its secret police.<ref>http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8i.htm</ref>

This is a typical kind of one-sided argument. The point being made is that Chile was doing fine under Allende until the US helped Pinochet thwart his "reforms". Actually, Allende was trying to make Chile like Cuba, and Pinochet stopped Allende's attack on Chile's economic and political freedom.

We need to cover all this in [[History of Chile]]. Perhaps, like Wikipedia, we should also create a [[1973 Chile coup]] article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:20, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

*Pinochet loyalists ... still revered him for implementing the macroeconomic reforms, which eventually raised the standards of living nationwide.
*Pinochet lost power in a renewal of democratic elections. [http://nylatinojournal.com/home/eagles_in_fall,_lions_in_spring/analysis/a_divided_chile_contemplates_pinochet_s_passing.html]

There's a [[Chile: Two Visions|book]] which covers the mess Allende made of the economy:
:This book is a study of Chile's turbulent recent history. It covers Salvador Allende's socialist revolution and explains how it sank Chile into chaos, economic deprivation, political turmoil, and illegality. It covers Chileans' repudiation of the Allende government three years later and their call to the military to intervene after the August 1973 congressional censure of Allende failed to stop Allende or convince him to resign.
:By winter 1973, Chileans were desperate, as famine loomed in Chile and disorder reigned in the streets. Allende's government had so destroyed the productive apparatus that on Sept. 6, 1973, President Allende announced: "We do not have the most minimal supply of flour, at most for three or four days." [http://www.policyofliberty.net/HPdA/RobertsAraujo.html]

Even the ultra-Liberal [[NPR]] agrees that Allende was botching things up:
*Allende was implementing socialist economic policies in Chile, with disastrous results. Gen. Pinochet finally agreed with other military officers that they had to stop Allende . . . [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6606013]

Liberals never fail to label Allende "democratically-elected", but he got less than a majority of the vote and:

:the Chilean parliament denounced Allende for abrogating the Chilean constitution. [http://www.vdare.com/roberts/050607_guilty.htm]
::Remind me, who was it sent the tanks onto the streets and the planes into the air to overthow a democratically elected Government? Pinochet or Allende? And which major superpower supported that overthrow? [[User:BrianTS|BrianTS]] 10:12, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

:::If you're not going to read the references or respond to what I actually wrote, then you should limit your comments to our [[debate pages]]. This page is for improving the article. Try [[Debate:When is revolution justified?]] or something like that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:19, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

==Grammatical Edit and Rebuttal==
I made a small grammatical edit and included a brief rebuttal of pro-socialist sentiments expressed in "Controversy" section. [[User:JeffC|JeffC]] 23:38, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

:You thought the article was pro-socialist? Please don't revert the edits of Administrators, that is against our policy, JeffC. There were paragraphs removed, so it captured my attention. Please explain further. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:47, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

::I didn't remove any content. The 'controversy' section offers some brief pro-socialist nonsense that I thought could use a short rebuttal to support the overall message of the article. I apologize for reverting your edit. If you have time, please review the content I added and re-revert if appropriate. Thanks! [[User:JeffC|JeffC]] 23:57, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

Socialism

2009-05-01T03:39:41Z

JeffC: Undo revision 658702 by TK (Talk)

[[Image:Backrdv12n2.jpg|right|400px|thumb|The [[caption]] reads, "Long live the great undefeatable flag of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin!" This is Leninism]]
'''Socialism''' is an economic system of government which advocates state ownership of the means of production with equal distribution of goods among the people. The central goal is to establish a "worker's paradise"-an ideal state with perfect equality.

In practice the government owns the banks, railroads, farmlands, factories, and stores, and is the only employer. (People sometimes are allowed to have small gardens.) The central goal is to destroy the "evils of capitalism" by government ownership of the means of production.

In practice however the socialist system never manages to establish this "paradise" because management for the benefit of the employees leads to featherbedding and lack of investment or economic growth, at the expense of consumers. Collective farming (operating farms like factories) sharply reduced the food supply. The most thoroughgoing efforts by Communist regimes turned into authoritarian dictatorships. The government controls all investments, production, distribution, income, and prices, as well as all organizations, schools, news media and formerly private societies. Churches and labor unions are suppressed or controlled by the government. Socialism is the antithesis of [[capitalism]], opposes private ownership of capital or land, and rejects the free market in favor of central planning. It also rejects "civil society" and makes sure that all organizations are controlled by the government.

Theoretically socialist regimes can have multiple parties. In practice there is only one political party, and it controls the government. The leaders of the party choose the government officials and set all policies for the nation and for cities and localities. Opposition parties are not allowed access to the media or to meeting halls or to funding, and their leaders are often arrested as "enemies of the people."

As a political ideology based on the redistribution of wealth, socialism stresses the privileges of the many over the rights of the few, but in practice when socialist economic principles are forced onto a nation by a totalitarian government a new Upper Class appears which is much better off than the Lower Class.

There are three main kinds of Socialism, but all of them are built on the premise that social control of the means of production ensures that a community's resources are used in a positive and uplifting manner.

==Leninism==
First there is Marxian Socialism or '''Leninism''' as revised by Lenin and practiced in the Soviet Union by [[Stalin]] (and his successors) and in China by [[Mao Zedong]] (but not by his successors), as well as Cuba, North Korea and Vietnam. The first version is totalitarian, with no democracy and all decision made by the leaders of the Communist party. Virtually all property (apart from clothes and some personal possessions) is controlled by the Party, as are all jobs and all economic activity. Conservatives have been very hostile. China after Mao's death remained politically totalitarian under the Communist party, but allows a vibrant capitalism and free enterprise system.

Socialism in Communist countries such as the old [[Soviet Union]], [[China]] in the 1949-1980 period, [[Cuba]], [[North Korea]] and [[Vietnam]] had government ownership practically everything. That led to severe inefficiency and widespread shortages of basic goods and services. These Communist countries used an "[[Iron Curtain]]" to keep their citizens from emigrating and an elaborate, brutal secret police to ensure there was no freedom of ideas or action.

==Democratic Socialism==
The second form (sometimes called "Revisionism") prevailed in Western Europe down to the 1970s, and is typified by the British Labour Party. It was democratic and closely linked to labor unions that had real power. The goal was for the government to own ("nationalize") major industries such as coal mining, railways, steel making, shipbuilding, airlines, and banking. Small businesses remained private. The idea was that labor unions controlled the government and therefore unions controlled working conditions and wages for the benefit of workers, regardless of the damage to long-term economic growth.

The Socialists were well organized and after 1918 they bitterly fought the breakaway faction that became the [[Communist]] movement. In recent years major Socialist parties (in Europe and Canada) have largely dropped the long-standing demands for state ownership of the means of production and have mostly accepted capitalism. However they remain tied to labor unions and favor liberal policies regarding high taxes and public spending. Conservatives have been negative toward the economics of the second form of socialism, but they have praised its vigorous anti-Communism. Conservatives complain socialists use government power to redistribute wealth.

In countries such as [[Sweden]], a form of democratic socialism has been much more successful, leading to high social equity and a burgeoning economy, as well as general content. Although this acts as a drag on the economy, in democratic countries of the industrialized west, some socialist ideas have been put into practice with varying degrees of success.

==Communal Socialism==
The third form of Socialism has nothing to do with Marx or government ownership, and emphasizes the importance of the community over the individual. Usually it means small communities sharing most of their possessions. The most famous examples are the religious [[Shakers]] of the 19th century (a conservative group), and the new-left communes that briefly existed in the 1960s and 70s.

==Controversy==
The ideology of '''Socialism''' is subject to a variety of interpretations. From a conservative perspective, Marxist socialism is an economic system whereby the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government sometimes without compensation to the builders of the [[capital]]. Investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government [[nomenklatura]] that regulates the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation, regulation and aggressive institutionalized coercion.

However, some socialists reject this description. Democratic socialists advocate a system of governance based on the principles of [[solidarity]], [[equality]] and [[liberty]], viewing these principles as interconnected. They believe increased socio-economic equality is associated with increased practical freedom to fulfill human potential. In many countries, such as Britain, socialist movements have been built on Christian, democratic and co-operative bases, embracing the notion that individuals should 'treat others as they would wish to be treated', and arguing that all individuals have a moral responsibility for the welfare of other members of their society. Socialism seeks to prioritize human welfare over other goals, such as profit and wealth accumulation by elites; it views increased redistribution of wealth as vital to securing greater freedom and happiness for the bulk of the people, and deplores the devastating effects of gross inequality on society in terms of increased crime, mental illness, unhappiness and lack of life chances.

Though this rosy picture of socialism is appealing to many, it denies the reality of government intrusion on individual freedom. Implementation of socialism is historically tied to fascism, religious persecution, and the abuse of power by government officials. Though in theory socialism is appealing as an idealized, egalitarian form of government, in practice it leaves much to be desired.

==Key elements==

As a political ideology based on the expropriation of wealth, socialism stresses the privileges of the nomenklatura over the rights of workers and earners. Many of the most notoriously oppressive dictatorships have been socialist, such as the [[Soviet Union]] and China under Mao Zedong. Private wealth was seized and the owners executed.
===Welfare state===
As an economic theory, democratic socialism calls for equalization of incomes, through taxation of private wealth coupled with welfare state spending. The [[nationalization]] of major industries is primarily a device to allow the unionized workers to control their own wages and working conditions, cutting out the capitalistic owners.

State [[pension]]s and unemployment insurance were not brought in by Socialists--they were first introduced by arch-conservative Chancellor [[Bismark]] in Germany in the 1870s. In Britain they were introduced about 1910 by [[Winston Churchill]] and [[David Lloyd George]] of the [[Liberal Party]], and in the U.S. were part of the [[New Deal]] in the 1930s. Welfare state ideas such as [[universal health care]], and state control of key industries have been common throughout the developed world in the modern era. However, the United States has always rejected socialism as an ideological position, with a few exceptions such as the [[TVA]].

===Religion===
Some forms of socialism have often been [[atheistic]] in character, and many leading socialists (most prominently Karl Marx) have been critical of the role of religion - and conservative religion in particular - which they criticize for lending support to an unjust social order. Other Socialists have been Christians, and there has been considerable interplay between Christian and Socialist ideas. [[Christian socialists]] have asserted that early Christian communities, in particular, displayed certain traits, such as the holding of possessions in common,<ref>Acts 2:44: "Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need."</ref> the rejection of conventional sexual mores and gender roles, the provision for communal education, etc., that could be considered similar to socialism. See, for instance, Arnold Toynbee, the British historian, has responded to this,
:"the Marxian excerpt from a Christian Socialism is an experiment which is doomed to failure because it has denied itself the aid of the spiritual power which alone is capable of making Socialism a success. ….'Christianity', they say, 'is the opiate of the People'; and, in the [[Soviet Union]]… Christianity or of any other theistic religion have been debarred… from admission to membership of the All-Union Communist Party. In fact, Communism has been definitely and militantly anti-Christian. Thus the campaign against Christianity which is to-day an integral part of the propaganda of [[Marxian Socialism]] is a challenge to the living generation of Christians …we latter-day Christians may still turn a Marxian attack upon Christianity to good account … a re-awakening of the Christian social conscience has been the one great positive practical achievement of Karl Marx" <ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585-586, Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity.</ref>

Communist persecution notwithstanding, the earliest Christians were decidedly living in a manner consistent with the aims of socialism. Acts 4:32-5:11 not only describes community redistribution of property, but describes punishment of a husband and wife for failing to completely share the proceeds from selling their land.

[[Marx, Karl|Karl Marx]] considered socialism to be a transitory stage between capitalism and communism. In his view, socialism is summed up by the expression: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." A major criticism of socialism is that it infringes individual rights in favor of the populace. In a very real sense, politics in the western world throughout the 20th century was shaped by the conflict between socialist and capitalist governmental policies.

Although socialist parties are common in Europe, the leading examples all currently embrace some free enterprise, individual property rights and certain other aspects of capitalism although leading European Socialists are very critical of America. In many European countries socialism has been changing to [[Social democracy]].

== Britain, the Labour Party and socialism ==

At its inception, the [[Labour Party]] borrowed socialist ideas by committing itself to a program of nationalization under 'Clause 4' of their Constitution, but was always fundamentally committed to the British State and the [[Westminster model]] of parliamentary government. Clause 4 was formally dropped after the election of [[Tony Blair]] as Party leader, signaling the creation of 'New' Labour.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/21/newsid_2515000/2515825.stm</ref> The British governments of 1945-1950 and 1950-1951 under [[Clement Attlee]] implemented the nationalization of several industries and utilities, including coal, steel, water, railways and electricity. Former owners of nationalized industries were compensated. The best known example is the [[nationalization of health care]] to create the [[National Health Service]] (NHS). This made - literally overnight - health care "free" at the point of delivery for everybody in Britain.

Since the election to government of the Labour Party in 1997, many "[[progressive]]" measures have been introduced, such as the Minimum Wage, Child Tax Credits, union recognition legislation, increased maternity and paternity leave, the Child Trust Fund, refurbishment of [[council housing]], free bus travel for the elderly, increased paid leave for all workers, free nursery-school places, and large cuts in unemployment.<ref>[http://www.towerhamlets.labour.co.uk/a1c1ce9b-1488-7bb4-a528-14436f084ba3]</ref> In addition, over a million children and a million pensioners have been [[lifted out of poverty]]; however, many in the [[Labour Movement]] are extremely critical of [[New Labour]]'s tentative approach to reducing [[inequality]], and are frustrated that the government has not been more willing to make the case to the public for the [[redistribution of wealth]].

== Criticism of socialism ==
Socialism is often criticized by conservatives such as [[Bill O'Reilly]]. In his book ''''Culture Warrior'''' O'Reilly starts the book out by painting a bleak picture of what America would look like with a socialistic government. He states problems such as lawlessness, lack of morals and ethics and an overbearing politically correct "feel good" government.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=XPY4AAAACAAJ&dq=Culture+Warrior |title=Google books |accessdate=2008-02-22}}</ref>

==Past Socialist Countries==
===Chile===
Marxist socialist leader [[Salvador Allende]] was popularly elected in Chile in 1970 in a minority government run by the Popular Unity Party. Allende's economic policy, known as the Vuskovic Plan, sought to achieve transition to socialism. The Vuskovic Plan involved nationalization of large foreign enterprises, land redistribution to farmers, and redistribution of income. The majority in Parliament never supported it and the plan was never carried out as Allende was overthrown by the military.

==Other Socialist Countries (Current )==
===[[Cuba]]===
Communist leader [[Fidel Castro]] violently overthrew the Cuban government in the 1950's and has declared Cuba to be Communist since then. Today, Cuba faces copious economic problems and the people lack their Fundamental Rights. ([[Raul Castro]] now runs the country, having taken it over from his ailing brother Fidel.)

===North Korea===

North Korea's form of communism is in the form of "Juche" - a doctrine established by Kim Il Sung and carried on by current leader Kim Jong Il. Although it is investing heavily in nuclear weapons and long-range missiles, extreme poverty on the verge of starvation is the fate of the people, who are very tightly controlled. The country has little to no electrical power at night outside the capital, which can be verified by looking at nighttime satellite photos. <ref>http://epod.usra.edu/archive/epodviewer.php3?oid=87488</ref>

===Venezuela===

The socialist policies of president-for-life Hugo Chavez have destroyed the economy of that oil-rich nation. In 2009, he seized the Venezuelan operations of U.S. based Cargill in order to tighten his grip on the shrinking food supply in his country. <ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/venezuela/4938993/Venezuelas-Hugo-Chavez-tightens-state-control-of-food-amid-rocketing-inflation-and-food-shortages.html</ref>

==Different Strands of Socialism==
*[[Communism]]
*[[Social democracy]]
*[[Welfare state]]

==Bibliography==
* Busky, Donald F. ''Communism in History and Theory: From Utopian Socialism to the Fall of the Soviet Union'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Communism-History-Theory-Utopian-Socialism/dp/027597748X/ref=sr_1_24?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232396722&sr=1-24 excerpt and text search]
* Dougherty, Jude P. "Socialist Man: A Psychological Profile," ''Modern Age'' Volume 46, Number 1-2; Winter/Spring 2004 [http://www.mmisi.org/ma/46_1-2/dougherty.pdf online edition], a conservative critique
*Laslett, John, ed. ''Failure of a Dream: Essays in the History of American Socialism'' (1984)
* Lindemann, Albert S. ''A History of European Socialism'' (1984)
* Lipset, Seymour Martin, and Gary Marks. ''It Didn't Happen Here: Why Socialism Failed in the United States'' (2001), Lipset was a leading conservative scholar [http://www.amazon.com/Didnt-Happen-Here-Socialism-Failed/dp/0393322548/ref=sr_1_21?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232396722&sr=1-21 excerpt and text search]
* Malia, Martin. ''Soviet Tragedy: A History of Socialism in Russia'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/Soviet-Tragedy-History-Socialism-Russia/dp/0684823136/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228761853&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search]
* Muravchik, Joshua. ''Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism'' (2003) by conservative historian [http://www.amazon.com/Heaven-Earth-Rise-Fall-Socialism/dp/1893554783/ref=sr_1_21?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228761601&sr=1-21 excerpt and text search]
* Novak, Michael. ''Capitalism and Socialism: A Theological Inquiry '' (1988) [http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Socialism-Theological-Michael-Novak/dp/0844721549/ref=sr_1_19?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228761601&sr=1-19 excerpt and text search], bu leading conservative scholar
* Nove, Alec. ''An Economic History of the USSR 1917-1991'' (3rd ed. 1993)
* Pipes, Richard. ''Communism: A History'' (2003), by a leading conservative
* Suny, Ronald Grigor. ''The Soviet Experiment: Russia, the USSR, and the Successor States.'' (1998) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24265044# online edition]

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
*[http://www.mises.org/etexts/hayekintellectuals.pdf The Intellectuals and Socialism], By F.A. Hayek, ''The University of Chicago Law Review'', (Spring 1949), pp. 417-420, 421-423, 425-433.
*[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109587/socialism Socialism] Encyclopædia Britannica.
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/socialism/ What Liberals Say - Category: Socialism], [[Accuracy In Media]]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_countries]

[[Category:Socialism]]

Talk:Socialism

2009-05-01T03:38:15Z

JeffC:

Socialism

2009-05-01T03:25:03Z

JeffC: /* Controversy */

Talk:Essay:Greatest Mysteries of World History

2009-04-29T20:21:35Z

JeffC: /* "Ancient humor" */

==Dark Ages==

I have to ask: does this really qualify as a "mystery?" Most people who have actually taken the time to study European history, I would suggest, would say that there's a clear and simple answer: "No, the so-called "Dark Ages" weren't really so backwards." Significant advances were made during the period generally termed the "Dark Ages" in many fields: music, agriculture, metallurgy, and philosophy spring to mind immediately. Historians today generally avoid using the term "Dark Ages" for precisely that reason.

Should it really be termed a "mystery" just because some people continue to hold misconceptions about it? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:11, 28 December 2008 (EST)
: Yes, it's not a mystery at all. Renaissance humanists hated the "dark ages" with a passion. Now we know just how much science and culture were developed during those centuries. Not so much a mystery as a myth, really (liberals love to claim early Christian Europe was fruitless) [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 14:14, 28 December 2008 (EST)

::Perhaps a better question would be "Why are the advances of the early Middle Ages frequently overlooked or dismissed?" --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:19, 28 December 2008 (EST)

:::My question is: ''What specific non-warfare scientific/technological advances were made in Christian Western Europe between the fall of Rome and AD1000?'' [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:36, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::There were some important scholars, notably Isidore of Seville (6th century Spain), Bede (7th century England) and Alcuin of York (8th century England). But, with these possible exceptions, European scholarship is overshadowed by India, China and the Muslim Caliphate in this period. The first European renaissance started when Christian scholars visited Spain and Sicily to benefit from Arab learning.

::::However, the so-called Dark Ages weren't nearly as obscure are the name suggests. There was significant trade with Byzantium and the Caliphate and the most important monasteries had access to classical Latin texts. There were major building projects, especially of monasteries, particularly from the late 8th century onwards. The standard of craftsmanship was exceptional - you couldn't say it declined at all during the "Dark Ages". Witness the jewelry at Sutton Hoo or the illustrated manuscripts produced by Anglo-Saxon scriptoria. The Anglo-Saxon kings, notably Alfred, Athelstan and Edgar, laid the basis of English government which was formalised by the coronation oath of Henry I.

::::Bear in mind that the setback to civilisation was only in Western Europe. Culture flourished in the Eastern Empire, also in the Arab Caliphate, while the Tang and Song Dynasties represent in many ways the peak of Chinese culture. Also, much of the foundations of mathematics were discovered in India in this period. Universities were first founded in Arab lands (Fez was the first, I think) in the 10th century, before spreading to Spain and thence to Christian Europe. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:23, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::::The operative words in my question above were ''scientific/technological''. I know of Bede and Alcuin and have had occasion to look into Isadore in the last few months. Yes they were scholars, and they shine like beacons. I am also aware of the "Benedictine reformation" and the wonders done by St. Dunstan. But these are beacons in the gloom. Was it Dunstan who had the Benedictine rules translated into "English" because Latin had been largely forgotten? And I love the jewellery of that age. I have had occasion to read much of the [[Anglo-Saxon Chronicle]] a number of times last year...and it really was a dark and dangerous age. Only Christianity kept western society together (and I know of no historian that denies the good the Church did in those times) but as for science and technological advances, really there was very little, if any at all.
In another context the age is also called ''the great interruption''. Cheers [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::::::Science and technology: almost nothing, I think. The great advances in science during the so-called Dark Ages were in India and the Muslim countries. The West only started to turn the corner in terms of scientific learning when Gerbert (Pope Sylvester II) visited the Muslim universities in Spain, c.1000 (see R.W. Southern, ''The Making of the Middle Ages''). [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 17:59, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:Yes! Now all we have to do is get people to agree to it on [[Essay:Liberal Denials about History]] item (10) under "Specific truths that history books deny".[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 18:57, 10 February 2009 (EST)

==Humor==
Perhaps this entry could be clarified: is there a particular form of humor that the author had in mind? There are examples of jokes, riddles, puns, comic figurines/images, anthropoligical notes of humorous conversations, etc. from both pre-Christian times and from post-Christian 'first contacts' with cultures that had had no previous exposure to Christianity.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 09:37, 8 February 2009 (EST)

:Brossa: Can you provide some? --[[User:AbnerY|AbnerY]] 21:51, 8 February 2009 (EST)

:I'd like to see Brossa's alleged examples also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:49, 8 February 2009 (EST)

::How about Greek and Roman comedy? that way predated Christianity. Andy, what kind of claim are you making here? on what basis would you allege that humor does not predate Christianity? it seems pretty far-fetched. I'd like to see some evidence. --[[User:DaveClark|DaveClark]]

::: You misunderstand what a Greek "comedy" was. It was not a humorous performance as meant by the term today (after the onset of Christianity).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:32, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::: Yes. It was. The intention was to make people laugh. Otherwise, what on earth do you mean by "humor"? Also.. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7536918.stm [[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 09:02, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: Aschlafly is right in saying that the term "comedy" did not mean exactly what it does today, but KimSell is right that the works of playwrights such as Aristophanes certainly included humorous elements such as wordplay, farce and grotesque exaggeration (often surprisingly coarse by our standards). I'd also cite the episode where the children mocked Elisha in 2 Kings 2:23-24 as an example, albeit fairly base, of pre-Christian humor.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: As a side-note, in the past there have been bitter disputes where people have taken the polar opposite position to Mr Schlafly, ie that all humor is un-Christian. This is touched on in Umberto Eco's ''The Name of the Rose'', which I recommend.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:21, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: The pre-Christian examples don't withstand scrutiny. Mockery or crude comments are not quality humor, and may not be humor at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:23, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::::::Sorry Mr. Schlafly. While you may not consider crude comments humorous, it is still defined as humor. you are yet to back up the claim you're making with any specific evidense. even if greek comedy didn't qualify as humor (and it does) there would still be no evidence that the advent of christianity brought the advent of humor.

::::This will be easier if you define precisely what ''you'' mean by 'humor' or 'comedy' so that we can determine if in fact it did or did not exist before Christianity. As the essay stands now, it implies that there was no ''humor'' before Christianity, not that, say, stand-up comedy as practiced in the United States today did not exist in the ancient world. The Greek comedy tradition was well-established by the sixth century BC and contains aspects of sexual farce, parody of 'serious' literary styles, and mockery of specific political and public figures. Comic performers wore characteristic costumes that included fat suits, huge genitalia, and grotesque masks that are still in use in modern comic performances. Greek vases depict these comic characters engaged in antics; I recall in particular a vase depicting two grotesque dwarves helping a third dwarf up a ladder or ramp - Three Stooges level humor.
::::Isaac in the Bible got his name from the laughter of Abraham and Sarah; does this not indicate a sense of humor? Elijah mocks the prophets of Baal, including the suggestion that Baal cannot hear his priests because he is on the toilet.
::::Egyptian papyri show exaggerated caricatures of dishevelled older men engaged in sexual relations with young women, including humorous captions (in heiroglyphics!) detailing the women's commentary on the situation. Other examples of Egyptian pictorial humor include depictions of animals engaged in human activities - like cats herding geese and goats and lions playing board games - juxtaposed with humans engaged in animal activity. A foreign queen is depicted as being so fat that she stands next to an ass with the caption 'the ass needed to carry the queen'.
::::Sumerian scatological humor is recorded (in cuneiform) on a tablet dated to 1900 BC.
::::Many Native American groups had oral traditions that include the 'Trickster' figure, who gets involved in humorous scrapes and mocks authority figures. Many of these stories also include punning wordplay and practical jokes; another dimension of humor.
::::Nineteenth century Australian ethnographers, coming into first contact with an isolated Aboriginal group, noted that the Aboriginals told stories among themselves and laughed during an otherwise stressful time - in this case, a terrible thunderstorm.
::::I'm sure that others could contribute examples from Sanskrit or Asian cultures.
::::So scatological humor, sexual humor, puns, riddles, slapstick, political satire, parody of 'serious' art forms, practical jokes, and others are all documented in pre-Christian or non-Christian cultures.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 09:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: To one with an open mind, your vulgar "examples" tend to reinforce the basic observation: (real) humor was lacking before Christianity. Crudeness or vulgarity or mockery is not true humor, and Greek "comedies" were not attempts at humor in today's sense.

::::: If you had evidence of writings about humor itself, or books of humor, or truly comedic performances, or anything remotely similar to quality humor today, then that could help your argument. But the above examples, if they are the best you have, simply underscore the insight in this essay.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:54, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: It would have been simpler for you to have simply started with the statement that no 'true humor' existed before Christianity, so that we would have known what sort of Scotsman we were dealing with in the first place. At any rate, the Japanese had [http://www.conservapedia.com/Noh_theater#What_is_Ky.C5.8Dgen.3F mature forms of theater] designed to "draw rich laughter from the audience" before Christianity was introduced to Japan.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:02, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::Have you ever watched an ancient Greek comedy? Because I have, and in parts, they are downright hilarious. As people keep saying, you have not explained what you mean by "humor" and so, this conversation would seem to be pointless. However, Aristotle speaks of the history of Greek comedy, including the fact that it was funny! [[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:39, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: May I ask what is the earliest example of true humor that you know of? While I respect the viewpoint that the above examples are not real humor, I don't know of any new form that emerged very soon after the establishment of Christianity.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:30, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::If you are so adament about so called "genuine humor" mr. Schlafly, then please define it for us.

::::::::Clearly there is a distinction to be made between things that are funny and things that are 'humor'. If it was intended to make people laugh, it qualifies as humor, whether it was funny or not. No doubt plenty of movies made by the Zuckers and the Farrelly brothers aren't funny, but they're still comedies. I don't find Groucho Marx very funny but he still counts as a comedian. What you seem to mean is that you don't find pre-Christian humor amusing. That's fine but it hardly counts as one of the 'greatest mysteries of world history'.[[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 12:09, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: I agree with Mr Achalfly in that for something to be humorous it needs to have a certain amount of taste and refinement. For example, the article mentions a man getting hit in the crotch by a ball. While some people may find this funny, I daresay there are very few people in the world whi would call this humor. The article also mentions the Jackass movie; again, while a few people may find it amusing, I doubt very many people would define it as humorous. What do these two examples have in common? A lack of taste and refinement. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:26, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::::Surely someone with an open mind would find such taste and refinement in ancient Greco-Roman political satire (e.g. from Aristophanes). Humor undeniably existed before Christianity. Let's just put this behind us as a misunderstanding (or even a disagreement over personal preference). [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 13:41, 9 February 2009 (EST)

For the elucidation of all: "''The Oxford Companion to Classical Literature''" describes Aristophanes as an "Athenian comic poet". Eleven of his plays survive. I know of at least one that has been performed in modern times - "''The Wasps''". I have a CD of it (2 CD set actually) Originally, it was produced in 422 B.C. and is a satirical comedy, poking fun at the Athenian jury system of the time and the state of contemporary politics. It is a comedy of manners, with elements of parody, occasional crudity and slapstick. Sounds like the Restoration writers to me. Or Voltaire. Even Shakespeare indulged in a bit of crudity at times. Modern productions, of course, update some of the scenes.

Aristophanes, who is still read and studied, is only one of many writers of comedies in those times. There was an annual competition for comedy. (''The Wasps'' came 2nd in its year.) Aristophanes' style has been copied by classically trained playwrights since...the Frenchman, Racine, for instance.

The above Oxford Companion devotes over 3 tightly printed pages to ancient Greek and Roman comedy, as well as many mentioned writers getting their own articles. Perhaps we today would not find as funny, but scenes in Shakespeare that had them rolling around in the aisles in 1600 do not quite have that power today. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:remove indent) ETundel, you are confusing "I find it funny" with "it is intended as Humor." I don't find Jackass funny myself, but it is still considered humour. It may be very low comedy, which it is and not everyone will like it, but the fact remains that something does not cease to be "humour" just because X amount of people don't find it funny. [[User:StephenK|StephenK]] 16:25, 9 February 2009 (EST)

The above discussion is interesting, and I'd like to learn more about "The Wasps." But certainly much of the above, such as vulgarity, is not "humor" as defined primarily by the dictionary: the "ludicrous" or (more importantly) the "absurdly incongruous."

There are dim-witted people who are amused by compulsive profanity or, as on this site, by mindless vandalism. Parody and sarcasm is also immensely entertaining to the easily amused. But this is not "humor" as defined by the dictionary, and I still haven't seen any compelling examples of pre-Christian humor. A performance like "Trading Places" would qualify, but it didn't exist.

It's interesting how strenuously some people object to the proposition that humor did not predate Christianity. Surely your minds are not so closed as to think the proposition to be automatically impossible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:48, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Here you go Andy, here is the full text of "The Wasps" for you to read at your leisure here[http://classics.mit.edu/Aristophanes/wasps.html]. You can judge for yourself if you find it humorous. Honestly, I'm surprised that you're surprised; you throw out a proposition that runs counter to even the most basic understanding of behavior and psychology, basically saying that before Christ nobody knew how to be genuinely funny, and are surprised when people question that? Having an open mind doesn't mean you accept everything to be true. --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 18:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::(EC)"But certainly much of the above, such as vulgarity, is not "humor" as defined primarily by the dictionary"
::Presumably if ANY of the above is humor as defined by the dictionary, then there was humor that pre-dated Christianity. If Aristophanes wrote a political satire ("a satirical comedy, poking fun ... at the state of contemporary politics"), would that not make it a humorous piece of work by any normal definition?[[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 18:28, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::: ShawnJ and Sam99foster, please answer my question: are you saying that you believe the proposition to be automatically impossible??? It sure sounds that way from some of the closed-minded postings above. Note, by the way, that satire is not "humor" per its primary dictionary definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:42, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::: No Andy, I don't find it automatically impossible, I find it impossible after brief consideration. That means I gave your question thought, and found its position to be ludicrous. The question infers that somehow, before Christ, humans did not have access to the full range of their emotions. You can argue over how humor, like ethics and morality, have changed over the years, but it doesn't stop them from existing. Rejecting the notion that humor didn't exist before Christ is not an example of closed-mindedness any more than rejecting the notion that 2+2=76 is. --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 23:22, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: Andy, why do you assume that we're automatically dismissing the notion? We are using historical facts and examples which you yourself seem to be dismissing out of hand without giving them any thought. Case in point, your two line rebuttal to a whole list of examples on the grounds that they are all "vulgar." Well, what's vulgar about this? "Other examples of Egyptian pictorial humor include depictions of animals engaged in human activities - like cats herding geese and goats and lions playing board games - juxtaposed with humans engaged in animal activity." Nothing sexual, crude, or otherwise off-color here, just a '''ludicrous''' and '''absurdly incongruous''' situation that could only be intended as humorous, and yet you, without apparently even reading what the user posted, flippantly dismiss it for some reason unbeknownst to the rest of us.

::::: Now, although you are somewhat correct in saying that comedy did not mean the same thing to the ancient Greeks that it does to a modern audience, you blindly overlook two other important points. First, that ancient definition of comedy--or a version of it (Boethian, to be exact)--lasted long past the birth of Christianity. Dante and Shakespeare both wrote their comedies under this ancient definition, which is why something like the The Divine Comedy is called, well, a comedy, despite the fact that the first third of it details brutal torture and punishment without any humor whatsoever, or at least none that I can recall off the top of my head. In essence, to credit Christianity with the rise of modern "comedy" simply because of the history of that word and the genre it represents misses the mark by at least 1500-1600 years.

::::: More importantly, you ignore the fact that Greeks also had a third dramatic form, the satyr play (from which we derive the English word "satire"), which was very close to what we mean by modern comedy. Fewer of these have survived, but the express purpose of these plays was to generate laughter, which is why they were named after satyrs, who were presumed to be pranksters in Greek myth. Very often, these plays simply relied on ludicrous and absurd situations to get the audience laughing. Often these were crude, yes, but not exclusively so.

::::: We aren't automatically dismissing the idea. We're dismissing the idea because it is objectively wrong and every single shred of evidence indicates the exact opposite, even when working within your incredibly limited definition of "humor." --[[User:JakeLa|Jake Lassiter]] 10:10, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Sir, since you say parody is not humor, is [[Essay:Born_Outside_the_U.S.A.!|this]], therefore, not funny?

[[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 19:57, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Do you often speak in non sequiturs?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:00, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:: How is that a non-sequitur? You argue that parody and satire are not humor, so I point you to something that you presumably wrote as a humorous piece. You certainly didn't reject the accolades that termed it funny.

::: You argue, ''"Note, by the way, that satire is not "humor" per its primary dictionary definition."'' What dictionary are you using? [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/humor According to Merriam-Webster's on-line dictionary], this is the definition of humor in the context with which we are concerned (the others definitions concern the dated usage referring to the human body):

* that quality which appeals to a sense of the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous
* the mental faculty of discovering, expressing, or appreciating the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous
* something that is or is designed to be comical or amusing

Parody and satire seem to fit both the first and third. If you disagree, please explain why.

So, what is your definition? You've not provided one yet; you've merely said "humor is not (fill in the blank)".

I view humor as a gift from God. It allows us to get through our most troubling times. The idea that humor only existed after Christ is as alien to me as the idea that romantic love only existed after Christ. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 20:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::: I apologize to Mr. Schlafly in that I charged that he had not provided a definition of humor -- he had, and it was, embarrassingly enough, the same one I cited. This topic has become long, and I missed his definition.

::: However, I still ask this: how do parody and satire '''''not''''' fit that definition?

::: Mr. Schlafly also cites the film ''Trading Places'' as an example of humor. Well, Eddie Murphy was never one of my favorites, since, particularly during the time he made that movie, he was extraordinarily foul-mouthed. But... as I understand it, plot of the movie is two people from different worlds trade lives, and we see how they both handle it, or fail to do so.

::: That strikes me as something that has to be one of the oldest jokes imaginable -- laughing at the "fish out of water" concept. I can easily imagine two Egyptian peasants, toiling down in the Nile Delta, lightening their day by laughing at the thought of the Pharaoh having to do their jobs for a while. "He'd be worried about getting his robes dirty!" "He probably couldn't even fill ten bushels of reeds!" (Of course, "ten bushels of reeds" isn't funny to us, but it might be hilarious to the guy who could pick thirty bushels before a lunch break.)

::: Now, admittedly, I'm speculating, but so is Mr. Schlafly. And I think my speculation is quite reasonable -- ancient people laughing at a concept we still find funny. He, by contrast, apparently imagines humanity consisted of a collection of dour sourpusses and/or vulgarians who couldn't appreciate anything beyond a flatulence joke until somewhere between 1 and 30 AD.

::: He also charges those of us who don't see his viewpoint of being close-minded. Sorry, no -- it is not close-minded to expect extraordinary proof for an extraordinary claim. If I said, "perhaps, until Christ was born, the sky was green and the grass was blue", you'd be justified in taking that with a huge grain of salt -- particularly if you presented me with some evidence that, in 200 BC, the sky was blue and the grass was green, and I responded with "well, that's not really ''blue'' and ''green'', that's ''cobalt'' and ''emerald''." [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 08:47, 10 February 2009 (EST)

I'm new here but I don't understand this one. What has Christianity got to do with humour? In any case, the answer is "yes" - as contributors above suggest, go and read (or even better, watch) Aristophanes. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::Whilst shopping just now I nicked into my local newsagency-cum-bookshop. There were Penguin Classics editions on the shelf of Aristophanes' ''Frogs'', ''The Birds'', ''Lysistrata'' and ''The Clouds''. This not a big shop....so it seems old Aristophanes is alive and kicking, if only as part of a subject at university. (I must admit that I only have the ''Wasps'' CDs because of the wonderful RVW incidental music written for a Cambridge Uni dramatic society performance in 1909, but it shows that he is not completely out of date and that his wit can be applied to modern circumstance.) The word ''wit'' is what I keep coming across regards his plays.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

==="Ancient humor"===
One thing I think many of Mr. Schlafay's detractors are overlooking is the possibility that the works we refer to as "comedies" today might not have been intended as comedies in their own time. The word "[[comedy]]" is English (as are all the other words used to describe Aristophanes' work: [[joke]], [[humor]], etc.), so we are in effect relying on modern translators of Ancient Greek to tell us what the Ancient Greeks thought about their own literary works.

The other day I was looking out my [[window]] and saw two [[squirrel]]s chasing each other up and down a [[tree]] trunk. Suddenly the lead squirrel stopped and turned around so suddenly that the other squirrel bumped into its head and fell off the tree! (It was only six feet or so off the ground, so the squirrel was unharmed.) I laughed at this funny occurrence — but of course the two squirrels weren't ''trying'' to put on a funny show for me; they were just doing what comes naturally to animals. Perhaps when we look into our history books and see the funny things that were done by Aristophanes, we should keep these two squirrels in mind. I think Mr. Schlafay was speaking particularly about the ''conscious'' exercise of humor — the ''intention'' to do funny things, not simply the ''fact'' of having done funny things. Nobody can seriously argue that nothing funny ever happened in antiquity... but ''why'' did it happen? that's the question. --[[User:GarthA|GarthA]] 21:48, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: That's an excellent point. Some of the ancient vulgarity, for example, was probably not intended to be "funny" any more than compulsive profanity today is intended to be funny. Someone 1000 years from now may look at dialog between two public school students today as being absolutely hilarious, even though the students are not trying to be funny now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:24, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:: The City Dionysia, which is the festival where these plays were preformed had several highly established conventions, including that four plays were to be preformed by each group: three tragedies and then a comedy. Comedies by nature are funny. While vulgar humor was indeed used, they still fit the definition of comedy ("a drama of light and amusing character and typically with a happy ending" according to Merriam-Webster). Whether people find them funny is up to them (I happen to like Scrubs, while my brother despises the show. However, he likes Family Guy, which I dislike). But the original intent of the comedies was to make people laugh, which qualifies it as humor [[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 22:45, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::That's very clever thinking, Garth. Fortunately, we have contemporary reviews of the work of authors like Aristophanes, which described them as being humorous (or in some cases not humorous enough!).
::I suspect that this debate might be in order to get people thinking outside the box while at the same time testing their composure. Of course, humor could have not predated Christianity and of course, that is not the case. But how are you going to react when someone doggedly pursues the contrary? How are you going to react when someone refuses to define their terms or moves the goalpost or shifts ground? Will you calmly research and respond? Or will you resort to liberal deceit and condescend to them. Not only should you survey the responses you see here, you should also be doing research of your own before you form your conclusions.
::If you do your research, you will probably find the evidence for pre-Christian humor that you find compelling. Either way, come back here and attempt to argue your point. Remember to stay calm, approachable and accommodating. I urge you to engage in this exercise and wish you the best. [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 22:53, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::Garth, there were no "''funny things done by Aristophanes''" any more than there were ''funny things done by'' humorous writers of modern times. He wrote plays, in verse, using the formal dramatic restraints of his day. In 5th century Athens there were two distinct forms of stage performances. There were the Tragedies, the most famed writers of which are Euripides and Aeschylus; and the Comedies, represented today by our mate Aristophanes. Never the twain did meet. They probably both developed out of pre-Classical Dionysian ritual, but by Classical times they were distinct from each other. Unlike the tragedians, Aristophanes set out to make people laugh; and to do this he used many of the forms used today - funny or fantastical situations, plays on words, ridicule of people in power, etc., He is supposed to have been very witty. He had a way with words. He was also a serious man who was concerned at perceived faults in the society he lived in, and used humor as a weapon against these things. He is recorded as saying "comedy knows what is right." He brought the powerful down a peg or two. My "Dictionary of Greek Civilisation", a book set for university courses during the 1970s, called him "a comic genius". [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 22:57, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Mr. Schlafay: Thank you. ENorman and "Fundie": It sounds like you are resorting to [[appeal to authority]] in this case. Remember that we do not actually have "contemporary reviews" of Aristophanes; what we have are ''modern translations'' of those works. I'm not even sure we would be justified in calling them "reviews", as you did, since I doubt the Ancient Greeks had anything like the modern conception of a film review or book review. "Fundie", I'm glad we agree about the value of exercise. AlanE: If Aristophanes never did anything funny, then in what sense was he a comedian? You describe him as a "serious man" who "ridicule[d] people in power"; this Aristophanes sounds like something of a [[liberal]] [[radical]]! :) --[[User:GarthA|GarthA]] 23:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:Who were the "liberals" - those in power or Aristophanes? Let's not bring today's concepts into describing someone who lived 2500years ago. He was not a comedian any more than Jonathan Swift was when he used ''Gulliver's Travels'' to lampoon the foibles of his age. Have you read him? The use of comedy to prick the inflated egos of the powerful, whether they be politicians, judges, or whatever, has a long and noble history, both for those on the left and on the right. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:49, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:: This is so ignorant it's just adorable:

:: <blockquote>"I'm not even sure we would be justified in calling them "reviews", as you did, since I doubt the Ancient Greeks had anything like the modern conception of a film review or book review."</blockquote>

:: What in the wide wide world of sports do you think Aristotle's ''Poetics'' was? --[[User:JakeLa|Jake Lassiter]] 10:33 12 February 2009

:Remember to do a little research! The first line of Aristophanes' ''[http://classics.mit.edu/Aristophanes/frogs.html The Frogs]'':
::<blockquote>XANTHIAS: Shall I crack any of those old jokes, master, At which the audience never fail to laugh?</blockquote>
:I'm almost positive there is some implication of humor somewhere in there! Form your own conclusions! [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 23:32, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::Well done, Fundie! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:51, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::::Having read this controversy with interest, I am forced to agree with Mr Schalfly. There is a difference between the theatre of cruelty - sarcasm and cruel raillery - that was the hallmark of the pagan Greeks, and true humour, which to be effective needs access to the depths of ones heart and soul, a perspective that only became real through the incarnation and suffering of Christ. Similarly, the coarseness of peasant nonsense such as was available to primitive peoples - the ancient equivalent of gurning through horse collars - has no right to be defined as humour. What Mr Schlafly is attempting to describe (albeit to a deliberately unreceptive audience) is something wiser, something altogether more refined and insightful. I wish him luck in persuading the unpersuadable. [[User:RegalBruin|RegalBruin]] 14:25, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:::::Hi and welcome to CP, Regal! I'm interested in your view of my quote from ''The Frogs'' (above) in light of CP's definition of [[Humor]]:

:::::<blockquote>Humor is an act, statement, or other form of communication done to invoke laughter, amusement, or happiness in the audience.</blockquote>

:::::If you agree that Xanthias intended to invoke laughter by cracking jokes and continue to believe that this is not humor, please explain how you would like to see our definition of 'humor' changed. [[User:MattL|MattL]] 14:41, 10 February 2009 (EST)
::::::And G'day from me, Regal. Can you tell us what dictionary you use? All of mine say more or less the same things. What is refined humour,? Wise humour. Insightful humour. Can we have examples? BTW, all the things you find detestable in so-called ''pagan'' humour is found unabated in Chaucer and the ''Decamaron'' and the other medieval story-tellers. Shakespeare used it. Scatalogical humour was the rage through most of the reformation times and later. Mozart wrote scatalogical songs. The bedroom farce has always been popular - we had no senior churchmen refusing to go to ''The Marriage of Figaro''. The Greeks laughed at the dolt and so do we - hence the undying popularity of the Inspector Clouseau type character through history. Nothing changed. No one is denying that much pagan humour was coarse; but what I am saying is that it has never stopped being coarse, and I am also saying that before Christ there was humour of the kind that we find in Wodehouse or Wilde, and the one-liners of Groucho Marx or Dorothy Parker, which are clever because they manage to nail an aspect of the human condition in so few words. Aristophanes could do that.(Unlike I, who go on and on...:))[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:58, 10 February 2009 (EST)

::::::: It appears that discussing humor with [[atheists]] is a fool's errand because they, like the ancient Greeks, are unable (or refuse) to open their minds to what real humor is. I've defined it several times, as does the dictionary; it is something "ludicrous" or "absurdly incongruous." Vulgarities may amuse the simple-minded to no end, and so may slapstick comedy (which is all the "Frogs" is referencing in its opening line), but it's not humor.

::::::: We've learned something from this discussion. It's not just the pre-Christians who were without humor, but so are [[atheists]] today. It's unfortunate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:57, 10 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::::"Ludicrous": amusing or laughable through obvious absurdity, incongruity, exaggeration, or eccentricity; causing laughter because of absurdity; broadly or extravagantly humorous, resembling farce. All of these definitions are fulfilled in the examples that have already been stated in this discussion. For that matter, they are all fulfilled by the image on [http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/gr/r/wine_bowl,_apulia.aspx this vase in the British Museum] from the fourth century BC.
::::::::::If your second paragraph is meant to imply that your whole premise behind claiming that there was no humor before Christianity was to poke fun of atheists - since only atheists are so humorless as to take such a ludicrous proposition seriously - then I am afraid that your Modest Proposal has been found lacking.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 18:48, 10 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::: Now that we've established that humor is a post-Christian phenomenon, we would do well to explore it's origins within Christianity. Do you have early Christian examples? [[User:MattL|MattL]] 17:03, 10 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: In regards to something ludicrous or absurdly incongruous, from Plutarch's ''The Comparison of Demosthenes and Cicero'':

:::::::::<blockquote>So also we are told that when Cicero, being consul, undertook the defence of Murena against Cato's prosecution, by way of bantering Cato, he made a long series of jokes upon the absurd paradoxes, as they are called, of the Stoic set; so that a loud laughter passing from the crowd to the judges, Cato, with a quiet smile, said to those that sat next him, "My friends, what an amusing consul we have."</blockquote> We can plainly see that this is absurd. Now for the incongruity - A paradox, as defined by MW, is "a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true". Incongruous, as defined by MW, describes "something inconsistent with itself". Could this possibly be an example of humor? [[User:MattL|MattL]] 17:11, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Merriam-Webster also says that humor is "something that is or is designed to be comical or amusing." Doesn't that describe Aristophanes? [[User:BenjaminC|BenjaminC]] 17:38, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:It seems that I go away an hour and suddenly I am "without humour" and an atheist,Andy. Why have you reverted to (a) being personal to someone whose sense of humour you know nothing about and who has based his arguments on basic well-documented scholarly texts in a generally polite manner and (b)decided on a definition of humour that is at odds with every dictionary and encyclopedia I can find? Whether I am a Methodist, atheist, Catholic or calathumpian has nothing to do with the my arguments which, like most of my words in this site, are based on a lifetime of reading the canon of western literature and about it. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:20, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:::I don't know why Mr Schlafly should have to defend himself against such an intemperate passive-aggressive assault. And if, as you claim, you are an expert on the entire canon of western culture, I should expect to find you in concordance with his ideas. [[User:RegalBruin|RegalBruin]] 11:50, 11 February 2009 (EST)
::::I didn't say, nor mean to imply, I was "''an expert on the entire canon of western culture''", Regal. What I can say is that that I, especially in this case, is that I am basing my statements on books (you know...those old fashioned things with pages that people used to read and geriatrics like me still do - I own thousands of them and have read untold thousands more.) So if I talk about the humour in Chaucer or Shakespeare, or mention Voltaire, or Beaumarchais (who? he says), Regal, it's because I've been there, mate, and done that, and have the tee shirt. (Even if, half the time now I have forgotten where I've put it!) Now, I assume you are being silly, perhaps "parodical", in your final phrase, but I am not in the mood. Andrew Schafly might be able to turn off severe sciatica with a quick prayer, but I can't; so I want to take it out on people: and seeing its not yet dawn and the rest of the family is still fast asleep, that means you! So do me one favour...go and find one reference - just one - from a reputable reference source, that "humour" started with Christianity. (And while you are at it, try and help Andrew by finding a reference for the Chinese inventing bamboo.)[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:03, 11 February 2009 (EST)

::The assumption that anyone who disagrees with Mr. S must be an atheist is indeed a pretty flimsy deflecting tactic. The claim being debated is not quite as bizarre as saying that there was no epic poetry before Christ.
::I'll chime in re the claim that the pagans had only farcical, bawdy, dirty type humor. I'm only familiar with 2 Aristophanes plays, ''Lysistrata'' and ''The Clouds''. ''Lysistrata'' does have a bawdy premise - the women of Greece conspire to not go to bed with their husbands until they end their war - but the play's point was political, not sexual, and it spoke on a real contemporary topic (the Peloponessian War) and addressed leading politicians by name. ''Clouds'' is a purely intellectual satire, making fun of the sophists in general and Socrates in particular. (Soc. was not actually a sophist but was apparently identified with them.) There are also a few poop jokes thrown in there, but that's no different from a lot of intellectual comedy today: I think of ''Little Miss Sunshine,'' that had jokes about Proust and Nietzshe, but also jokes about the dirty old grandfather character.
::My favorite thing about ''Clouds'' is that the main butt of the jokes, Socrates, was ''actually there in the audience'' watching it. The intro to my copy says that at the performance, the mask for the Socrates actor was such a good caricature, they had Socrates himself stand up so the audience could applaud the mask maker. [[User:Fishal|Fishal]] 20:36, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:::A lot of this boils down to arguing definitions - a fruitless argument that could go on endlessly if we had nothing better to do. What does interest me is the idea of a new form of humor emerging during or after the life of Jesus. Does anyone have any examples of a first- or second-century shift towards more refined types of humor? Perhaps "What is the earliest example of genuine humor" could be added to the list of mysteries?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:47, 11 February 2009 (EST)
::::I don't know if this has been brought up, but it appears that Mr. Schlafly doesn't find the "crude" humour entertaining (nothing wrong with that, it'd not everybody's thing) but what about wordplay and the double negative? I sumbit my favorite passage from Homer's Odyssey: When captured by the Cyclops, Odysseus tells him that his name is "Nobody." Later, after they attack the Cyclops and blind him, he storms around his cave in a rage screaming "Nobody will not get out alive" a double negative, and then calls to his brothers that "Nobody has blinded me, Nobody has blinded me." The Cyclops thinks he is calling for help, but not understanding what he is actually saying, his brothers misunderstand him and stay away... This type of humour leads directly to the modern examples of Abbott and Costello's "Who's on First?" routine, as well as the Chico and Groucho's constant back and forth in their movies "Chico:(looking at a Contract) What'sa this?" "Groucho: That's just the standard Sanity Clause" "Chico:You can't fool me, there ain't no Sanity Claus." [[User:StephenK|StephenK]] 12:15, 11 February 2009 (EST)

:::Apologies for coming in on this debate so late, but I am a student of Theatre and I would like to put my two cents in. It's certainly not a sign of stupidity to question the origins of comedic humor. Like anything else, everything has an origin and the birth of Christianity is just as good a measuring stick as any other.

:::That being said, I do indeed believe that humor as it has been defined here predates Christianity. The plays of Plautus and Terrence especially come to mind. Mr. Schlafly, you cited specifically the film ''Trading Places'', yes? Well one of the Roman Plautus's more well known plays, ''Menaechmi'' is similar in wit and predates the birth of Christ by...I believe around two hundred years, though I could be wrong on the exact number. It specifically deals with a pair of estranged twins and ultimately draws it's comedy from their machinations when the come together in Sicily and one twin's wife mistakes the other for her husband while her real husband is getting back at her by giving away some of her belongings to a prostitute. It is a play whose intention is to evoke laughter and gaiety through use of situational irony and circumstance. The "mistaken identity" theme is a widely recognized hallmark of humor and the play was later adapted by William Shakespeare in "A Comedy of Errors". This is only a single example and if it is insufficient to convince you then I can provide more. --[[User:NicholasT|NicholasT]] 12:20, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

:::: I'm not familiar with that work and welcome specific "humor" that you think is in it. I caution you, however, against automatically assuming that the play must have been intended to be "humor" as "Trading Places" is. Most ancient "comedies" were not really "humor" in the modern sense of the word, but were charming poetry. "To err is human; to forgive divine" could have been in a "comedy" in the ancient sense of the term, but it is not "humor".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:33, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::As I said before, I am a student of Theatre. I am familiar with the varying definition of comedy, especially in regards to the history of the playwright. On the whole being designated a "comedy" as laid down in Aristotle's "Poetics" only meant that it was not a tragedy: meaning that the protagonist did not ultimately fall victim to his tragic flaw or hamartia as is necessary in a tragedy. Indeed, a comedy in the theatrical sense is not by necessarily "funny", however, a play intended to be funny would still fall under the category of comedy. What I provide is not only a comedy in the classical sense, but a comedy explicitly intended to be funny and, furthermore, primarily through the use of wit and situation rather than explicitly through vulgarity and slapstick. [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text.jsp?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0101%3Aact%3Dintro%3Ascene%3Dsubject here is a text, translated from it's original latin] that I managed to find. The first lines of act one, scene one have the character Peniculus explaining that his friends call him "The Sponge" because of his enormous apatite and ability to seemingly absorb food and clean a table. This becomes a bit of a running gag with lines such as between one of the characters and her servant when she sends the servant with some money to get food. She says basically "We need food for three people" to which the servant replies "Who's eating" when he learns that the list of three includes Peniculus he states "So I'll need enough money to get food for ten people then." This is just one example of a "gag" within the script. Much of the humor comes from the characters comentary on the action which is given directly to the audience. The relationship between Menaechmus and his wife, for instance is another source of humor and is reminiscent of "The Honeymooners". At one point Menaechmus tells his consort that he spent a fairly large amount of money on some clothes for his wife, prompting Peniculus to say sadly to the audience "And that's good money he'll never see again...". These are just some examples from the first act. The overall plot of the show, as I said before, involves what has become one of the most prevalent comedic devices of mistaken identity to drive the plot.

:::::The notes provided in the translation occasionally point out various terms that while not readily apparent "where meant to make the audience laugh". Plautus also helped to pioneer the various comedic stereotypes which would eventually become the basis for the Italian Comedia Del Arte and later would be exploited by Shakespeare and persist even today. These include: The crafty servant, The pompous, ego-inflated general, the buffoonish erudite, the elderly lech, the idiotic lover, and others. Most of these archetypes can be seen in "The Taming of the Shrew" as a matter of fact, relatively unchanged from the base of their inception. I could go further into a discussion regarding this play if you wish, though we are quickly approaching the level of research paper and most of the info can be found in the link I provided above. I believe it meets all of the criteria for being considered true humor. It is not based around physical slapstick or vulgarity, it's intention is to make the audience laugh, it utilizes an acknowledged comedic device as a plot driver, and it is verified as predating Christianity (Plautus is believed to have died around 184 B.C.). Again, if this one play is insufficient, then I could provide more evidence. I apologize for the length of this post, but I do love discusing Theatre and while brevity may be the soul of wit, I am not claiming to be witty...just that this play is witty :)--[[User:NicholasT|NicholasT]] 14:01, 29 April 2009 (EDT)
::::::Face it NicholasT, there was no humor before Jesus. To turn a phrase from the Gospel of John: "We laugh because He first laughed at us." [[User:JeffC|JeffC]] 16:21, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

==Who was right - Catholics or Protestants?==

Can you explain what you mean by this question? It's a bit like asking - who is right, Christians of Buddhists? Do you mean, regarding Transubstantiation? Or do you mean celibacy? Or the infallibility of the Pope? Maybe you could phrase it a little more clearly? Finally, do you think it's helpful to the world to see the world like this? Doesn't every faith believe it's 'right'? [[User:TadghOB|TadghOB]] 17:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Surely you don't think that just because different people hold different views that each think are right, truth therefore does not exist. If I told that some cultures believe that 2+2 equals infinity, and are convinced they are right, would that change your view that 2+2=4 and not infinity?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:50, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::Well, yes, I do? Despite my own faith, I cannot in all sincerity tell a Buddhist that their faith is nonsense - I simply don't believe that's a way to get along with the rest of the planet, the pursuit of which is, after all, is our bounden duty here on this Earth. My own faith (Catholicism) has experienced many controversies, and although I hold fast to my faith, I acknowledge that it is not without its flaws and appalling mistakes. Jesus taught us to "love thy neighbour", after all. But to return to the question at hand - "who is right, Catholics or Protestants?". As an Irish Catholic married to an Irish Protestant, I'm sure you'll understand there's a great deal of sensitivity over this issue on our Island. And I'm certainly not about to tell my partner that her beliefs are 'wrong'. But what 'right' are you referring to? [[User:TadghOB|TadghOB]] 19:06, 9 February 2009 (EST)

To keep this conversation from devolving into an ideological argument, I thought I might try to clarify the original question: I interpret it as referring to the issues at the heart of the Protestant Reformation, namely the allegations of abuses of power within the Catholic Church, the selling of indulgences, the lack of reliance on Scripture, etc. Some of these are purely theological points, but I think historical discussion can bring light to the issue of whether or not the Protestants were justified in some of their more pragmatic claims. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 19:13, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: In reply to TadghOB, one thing about Jesus is indisputable: He did tell others they were wrong, and was very clear that He was divisive rather than uniting.

: In reply to Economist, there is the issue of how to deal with the problems, and what the subsequent centuries and today illustrate. I'm not yet taking a position on the question, but am pointing out how your list is incomplete.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:25, 9 February 2009 (EST)

== Why did Islam grow so rapidly? ==

Not sure there's a lot of mystery here. The rise of Islam is well documented in both Arab and Byzantine sources. The "mystery", if there is one, is how Mohammed managed to convert a sizeable number of followers in his lifetime and how they became organised into a small but effective military force. Thereafter, Islam spread for several reasons. Initially, it was confined to Arab soldiers and their families and was something of an elite religion. But the Arabs were generally welcomed by the common people in the Byzantine territories because they imposed lighter taxes, their military levies were less oppressive and they didn't cut people's heads off because they disagreed with the Emperor's theological opinions. The same factors are reflected in the decline of the Byzantine empire, to the benefit of the Arabs in West Asia and North Africa: excessive taxation, too many able-bodied men from wealthy families joining the priesthood to evade military service, and continuous demoralisation of the population through religious disputes. Added to that was the over-centralisation of power in the Byzantine Empire, with the result that when the Emperor was out of action, there were few men with both the authority and the competence to wield power effectively. Such was the situation at the decisive Battle of the Yarmouk, in what is now northern Jordan, when the Emperor Heraclius was ill and unable to take the field, resulting in a decisive victory for the Arabs.

Islam spread in the territories conquered by the Arabs for similar reasons to the spread of Christianity in Europe: local rulers ingratiating themselves with their overlord (the Arab Caliph in this case), the prestige of being part of the official religion, the apparent evidence that God must favour the Muslims because he enabled them to win battles, and lower taxation for Muslims.

It's much harder to understand why the Byzantine Empire lasted as long as it did. Also, why did the Arabs not conquer most of the West? The post-Roman kingdoms in the West seem to have been more organised and effective than historians gave them credit for until recently.

See e.g. John Julius Norwich's history of Byzantium (three volumes but extremely - even addictively - readable). Also 'The Formation of Christendom' by Judith Herrin, the standard modern work on the interplay of Church and State in the Byzantine Empire; she shows that the church wasn't always a negative influence, as Edward Gibbon supposed. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:06, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:In addition to Fred's information above, Islam burst out of Arabia at a time when both the Byzantines and the Persians were completely exhausted from fighting each other interminably. There is also talk of a plague epidemic that wasted the so-called civilised powers but had little effect in the sparcely populated Arabian desert. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:52, 9 February 2009 (EST)

== Romans ==

''Did the Romans recognize or understand the concept of "truth"?''

What reason do you have to think that they did not? We would surely disagree with any ancient people (not just the Romans) about whether certain ideas are true or false, but that would not mean that the people did not understand the ''concept'' of truth. What meaning do you think the word ''veritas'' had for the Romans?--[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 07:18, 20 February 2009 (EST)

== Literacy in Ancient Greece ==

I don't know what the literacy level is in the USA but let's guess at 98-99%. In ancient Greece, the people who were able to read were free, male city dwellers - and by no means all of them. Perhaps 1% of the population could read. Not sure why this one is on the list of mysteries, because it isn't one. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:11, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Decline and fall of the Roman Empire ==

This is at the other end of the spectrum - i.e. a truly unsolved problem which has been a rich subject for academic research and debate. Many books have been written about this subject so you need some kind of strategy to assemble a decent essay on the subject. I would say it's more accurate to write about the ''transformation'' of the Roman Empire, not its fall. The Eastern half of the Roman Empire as divided by Diocletian became the Eastern Roman Empire, governed from Constantinople. The Western half became a set of independent kingdoms ruled by Germanic tribes. The territory of both the Western and Eastern halves of the Empire on the southern shore of the Mediterranean, plus the Levant, became part of the Arab Caliphate. All these successor states relied heavily on Roman methods of administration and law. Arguably, the ''only'' part of the Empire that actually declined and fell, insofar as the lives of ordinary people were concerned, was England.

Some of the more important causes of the decline (transformation):
* Environmental degradation of farmland.
* The permanent state of civil war for over 50 years in the middle of the 3rd century.
* Over-centralisation of power in the hands of the emperors from the late 3rd century onwards, partly as a reaction to the instability of the 3rd century.
* Outsourcing - i.e. the replacement of Roman manpower in the army by German mercenaries.
* The sapping of the numbers of young men who could serve in the army, especially as officers, because ordination as a priest or even a deacon precluded military service.
* The decline in the tax base, because priests and monks didn't have to pay taxes.
* Population pressure as tribes (e.g. the Huns) were forced westward by the failure of farming in central Asia.
* The Great Plague of c.535, which may have been even more destructive than the Black Death.
* Interminable religious disputes diverted much of the empire's intellectual effort.
* As ever in history, chance. The Emperor Heraclius, possibly the greatest general of all Roman emperors, fell ill at a critical moment. The Arabs, on the other hand, were commanded by their greatest general, Khalid ibn al-Walid, and, against all expectations, won what is now called the Battle of the Yarmouk in 636.
[[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:40, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Did the Hebrews build the pyramids? ==

Almost certainly not. If you mean the Pyramids of Giza, including the Great Pyramid of Khufu, they were built in the 4th Dynasty (c.2500BC), about a millennium before Joseph. I don't know where the Hebrews were at that time, but it wasn't Egypt. The last of the significant pyramids in Egypt was built in the 12th Dynasty, c.1860BC, a good 200 years before Joseph.

According to the Bible, which should be considered semi-historical evidence, Joseph used a chariot but chariots didn't appear in Egypt till c.1650BC.

So: no, and not a mystery. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:52, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== How were the pyramids built? ==

This isn't known for sure but calling it a mystery rather demeans the excellent archaeological research on the subject. [http://www.archaeology.org/0705/etc/pyramid.html Here's a good, accessible article.] [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:00, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Origin of the name Jesus ==

Jesus, pronounced ''Dzheezus'' in English, is the Latin version of his name (pronounced ''Yaysoos''). In turn, that's the Latin spelling of the Greek version of his name (same pronounciation as in Latin). And that's the Hellenised version of the Hebrew name Yehoshua. Which, as it happens, has come into English by a more direct route as Joshua.

The only thing that might seem slightly curious here is the sound shift from ''Y'' to ''J'' at the beginning of the word. This came about because the letters ''I'' and ''J'' were used indiscriminantly by English printers in the late middle ages. By the time the letter J finally entered the English alphabet (early 17th century, I think), Latin words which the Romans spelt with a initial ''I'' (e.g. Iulius Caesar) had come to be spelt with an initial ''J'' in English (hence Julius Caesar). So then they acquired the pronounciation ''J'', as in the very common names James and John.

Again, I don't know why you call this a mystery. This is pretty well known and very easy to look up if you don't know it. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:11, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Reply to the Above ==

Fred, thanks for your attempt to solve the mystery, but I've got news for you: your spelling is atrocious and you're absurdly wrong in claiming that literacy in the U.S. is 98% or 99%. It's nowhere near that high.

The liberals who are running [[public schools]], and whom you likely support, are producing millions of illiterates each year. And it's getting worse thanks to how you likely vote. I know, you don't think it's your fault, but someone is electing these people who are perpetrating illiteracy. Fortunately, some parents are waking up to the problem, even if voters aren't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:44, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

* Spelling: I wrote ''we'' instead of ''were'' at one point in the 'Decline and Fall' section but apart from that, you'll have to tell me what my spelling mistakes are because I don't see them.
* Why does anything I've written make you assume I'm a liberal?
* Your criticism of public schools is a 'straw man' argument. Scotland (where I live) has almost entirely public education and a very high literacy rate. Likewise the Scandinavian countries, Holland, etc. Maybe there's something wrong with public education in the USA but it's too simplistic just to blame any problems on the fact that schools are public ''per se''.
* So you'll have gathered I haven't voted for anyone who's perpetuated illiteracy in the USA.
* Even so, I don't believe literacy in the USA is as low as 1-2%, which is what it was in Ancient Greece.
* Finally, are you always so rude to contributors? I hope you don't behave like that to the schoolkids you tutor. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 07:33, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:: [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2103.html The CIA World Factbook concurs] with Mister Ferguson -- 99% literacy (defined as "age 15 and over can read and write"), both male and female, in the United States. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 08:35, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Don't believe everything the government says, obviously. Illiteracy is rampant in many public schools, and among millions of adults in the U.S.

::::Care to cite a source (like I did)? You merely say "millions of adults" -- well, there's 220 million adults in the United States. If 1% of them cannot read, that's 2.2 million -- in other words, "millions". I'll grant, 99% literacy seems high, especially if you're looking at functional literacy (that is, able to read and write well enough to function in society) versus ability to read and write at all (my five year old niece can read and write a smidge, but certainly not well enough to hold a job!), but you act as if half the population couldn't read anything more than the cutesy graphics on the front page of USA Today. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 10:28, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Fred, I'm surprised you think my reply was "rude", yet seem to have no problem with your own postings. As to spellings, "indiscriminantly"? "Pronounciation"? Please. Also, don't try to fool anyone into thinking you're not a liberal. We are a truthful resource here and we disclose our point of view up-front. Do likewise or find another site to rant on. Wikipedia likes people who hide their point of view. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:50, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: * Whoops! Tripped up on two of the trickier words in the English language. Maybe you'd better take a blue pencil to your own contributions - they're not exactly flawless either.
:::: * "Liberal" - please answer my question. What, exactly, is liberal about what I've written above?
:::: * You're very fond of accusing people of ranting, aren't you? I've seen you say that to other people. But stating the facts and arguing logically isn't ranting. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 10:07, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Can we focus on the facts, please? [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] has brought up some interesting points - let's discuss those, rather than who is the better speller. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:12, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::This is the Fred Ferguson who claimed his spelling was immaculate, and when his errors were pointed out responded with a blase, "Oh, those are the two most difficult words in the English Language, so it doesn't really count", is it? the Fred Ferguson who thinks that ad homs are an adequate replacement for logical debate? I'm sure his points are very valid indeed! [[User:RaviS|RaviS]] 11:07, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::: And your point is...? I don't see the relevance of this to the facts of the discussion. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 11:12, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::I dare say you don't. However, I have grave doubts about whether your 'fact'-mongering is carried out with the intention of helping to build up Conservapedia. Given the nature of these 'facts', and of your attitude, I suspect quite the opposite. [[User:RaviS|RaviS]] 12:53, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
: LITERACY: I crunched some numbers. According to the CIA World Fact Book, the population of the US is 303,824,640. 20.1% of that is children 0-14 years,w ho are presumably still working on literacy. Leave them out and that gives 303,824,640*0.799 = 242,755,887 adults. Now if 99% of those are literate, how many are not? 242,755,887*0.01 = 2,427,559. Thus even if 99% of Americans are literate, there are still two and a half million American adults who are illiterate. So we can have BOTH millions of illiterate Americans AND 99% literacy. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:19, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::I found some interesting reading on literacy in the US in [http://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93275.pdf this report]. I have not read it all (I have to get back to teaching and laundry and bread baking), but I think it will prove worthwhile for those interested in seriously discussing this topic. Note that it provides a more complex picture of literacy than just "literate" vs. "illiterate". I would be interested also in reading something about literacy in Ancient Greece. My layman's impression is that women and slaves were generally not taught to read, which, if accurate, would imply that there was significantly less literacy in Ancient Greece than in modern America, even if Mr Schlafly's perspective on US public schools & literacy is accurate. Has anyone found any information to the contrary? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:34, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Info on literacy in ancient Greece:
::: [http://www.historyliteracy.org/scripts/search_display.php?Article_ID=69 Book review of ''Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece'' (suggests literacy as we understand it was confined to "a very small elite")]
::: [http://people.uncw.edu/deagona/ancientnovel/leslie.htm An article on ''Literacy and the Ancient Novel'' (suggests "advanced literacy" of 5%)]
::: Doesn't sound comparable to the modern USA! [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 10:54, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: FredFerguson, have you ever considered that some sources aren't trustworth and that some things (like literacy in Ancient Greece) can't be measured? It's all very well citing a book or article, but then you have to consider where the book writer or article writer got the information from - and in an unfortunately large number of cases it comes from the top of his head. How do they know what literacy levels were in Ancient Greece? As a Greek lay dying, did he say to his son "Now if you remember one thing, remember this, and pass it on to your children....the current literacy rate is 5%. Pass it on to antiquity!"? I doubt it. It is quite likely that the figures quoted in those articles are just plain lies, or taken from other sources which have lied. Just because you read it somewhere doesn't mean it's true. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:50, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::I don't think that truth is one of his priorities. [[User:RaviS|RaviS]] 12:54, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::Maybe, but it's undeniable that nowadays 'Professor' has become a deceptive title; people are too inclined to trust them and what they say based purely on their title, when in fact they should be subject to greater scrutiny. Too many people see a book or article by a 'Professor' and immediately believe it must be completely true. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:59, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Well, RaviS, who's being ''ad hominem'' now?! And ETrundel, simply because something can't be measured directly doesn't mean it can't be estimated. And the fact that one estimate has been made doesn't mean that that estimate can't be improved. But in general, people who've studied a subject seriously generally have a better idea of the actual facts than people who just dismiss out of hand any factual information they find uncomfortable.
::::::Can we move this discussion forward? Does anyone else have some '''information''' to contribute about any of the topics I've raised on this page? [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 13:10, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
Is it even sensible to talk about the literacy rate in Ancient Greece as a whole? I believe that (for example) Athens and Sparta had very different societies, so could be expected to have different levels of literacy.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 13:13, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:CPalmer makes a very good point. And to FredFerguson, people are trying to contribute, but you keep arguing and trying to stop them. Also, do you really believe that so-called "Professors" are totally and utterly unfallible? Have you really been brainwashed into thinking that they are totally devoted to the truth and don't have their own agendas to push? Because believe me, many of them do. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:17, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::So books written by academics who are experts in the field don't count as trustworthy anymore? Compilations of population statistics written by a branch of the government aren't somewhat reliable either? Then what sources should we use? WND? Whatever we decide is the truth? And don't give me any of that "open your mind" rubbish - we need adequate sources or we're just making it up.
So can we accept that millions of Americans are illiterate, the literacy rate is 99%, and the literacy rate in Athens was high within a small elite, very low elsewhere? These seem to have been established in the discussion and I don't understand why there's dissent (certainly no contradictory sources have been provided.)[[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 13:18, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::Mr Ferguson's claim above that only men could read may be a good starting point. If we can find a reliable source to verify this, then we can say confidently that the literacy rate couldn't have been more than 50%.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 13:19, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::Given that one of the most famous ancient poets, Sappho, was a woman, Mr F may need to think again! [[User:RaviS|RaviS]] 13:23, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::Excellent point! Now we seem to be getting somewhere.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 13:25, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::On the other hand, reliable historical records place the number of Ancient Greek female poets as being minute, one of the reasons Sappho is famous is because she was a female poet at a time when poets were almost exclusively male. An example can be drawn with medieval Europe where, outside of the nobility, literacy was confined almost exclusively to men such as priests and the wealther merchants, but on rare occasion some women were taught literacy skills.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 13:33, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::The reliable source you want is ''Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece'', cited above. Note that most poetry in the ancient world was oral, e.g. the epic poems ascribed to Homer may have been recited by bards for 500 years before they were eventually written down c.700BC. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 13:37, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::I'm not going to respond to the renewed jibes from RaviS and ETrundel. Let's talk about the facts. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 13:37, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::::...he said, masterfully sidestepping their legitimate objections. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:46, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::::Mr. Ferguson has actually provided citations for his arguments. It is reasonable to dispute the accuracy of his citations, but it needs to be something more than "oh, a professor wrote those; people put far too much faith in that title." In other words, provide citations of your own, not hand-waving dismissal. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 14:05, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

It appears to me that there really isn't a consistent answer to the question of the ancient Greeks. Spartan boys were taught to read and write, but they didn't really care for the skills so functionally they may have been illiterate still. The Athenians could definitely read - provided you happened to be male and somewhat well off. Literacy in the US is well higher because reading is a necessary function of socialization within our time. The ancient Greeks loved the arts, but they were more loved for their aesthetics than their functional qualities.

What is contestable about our high literacy rate? Millions still can't read, but that's because our population happens to be rather large. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 14:16, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:True enough. Instead of comparing actual literacy rates it might be more appropriate to compare how much access/opportunity people have or have had to learning literacy skills.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 14:52, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

TO SUM UP THUS FAR: So, the original mystery was ''How did the level of literacy in Ancient Greece compare with the United States now? '' So far, considering all the evidence offered above, the answer would be something like "While not all American adults are functionally literate, literacy in the US is much more widespread than that of Ancient Greece, and includes a broader range of the population. More people in the US have access to education than did in Ancient Greece; this is particularly true of women and the lower classes." References: [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2103.html The CIA World Factbook], [http://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93275.pdf this report on literacy in the US], [http://www.historyliteracy.org/scripts/search_display.php?Article_ID=69 Book review of ''Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece''], [http://people.uncw.edu/deagona/ancientnovel/leslie.htm An article on ''Literacy and the Ancient Novel'']. Does anyone have any other sources that might be significant? Is there an appropriate way to include this in the article? I'm not sure what the etiquette is about editing "mystery" pages. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:08, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

[http://www.detlitcoal.org/faq.htm 47% of people in metro Detroit are functionally illiterate]. I doubt the rate of illiteracy was much higher in Athens in ancient Greece.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:11, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
: It sounds as though the rate of functional literacy in ancient Greece was a very low percentage, 5% at most. The rate of literacy in Detroit doesn't sound great but (1) it's still a lot higher than ancient Greece, which was the original - if rather arcane - question and (2) how representative is Detroit of the USA as a whole? [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 15:16, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:: Your 5% figure is not credible. Socrates had a big following, and all of them could read and write. As someone pointed out, Spartans (not known to be as educated and Athenians) were taught to read and write. Moreover, democracy of Athens would not have originated without widespread literacy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:21, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::So how did American democracy originate if the US was (and is) plagued by illiteracy? Also, Socrates had a following amongst the other elites. As was said, literacy was high amongst the elites, low everywhere else.[[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 15:30, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::I suggest you take up the argument about the 5% figure with the authors of the books I've cited. They're the experts on the subject, not me.
:::Athenian voting: only adult men who'd completed military training were eligible to vote - no women, slaves or people of foreign origin. In any case, Athenians gathered to hear arguments orally, not to read newspapers. The same applied in the early democracies in the Viking domains, e.g. Iceland and the Isle of Man; there's no evidence there that any but a tiny proportion of the people there (mainly priests) could read.
:::I agree with JHanson's point about Socrates; yes, he had a following, but it was made up of aristocratic men who had women, slaves and foreigners to do their work for them. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 15:38, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

: <edit conflict> Looking at the Detroit data: Remember that when they refer to "functioning at the lowest literacy level", they do not necessarily mean completely unable to read. The NALS report explains the definitions of literacy level they used in their survey. They group people into four different levels. Those in the lowest level include people who can do basic tasks like identifying a specific piece of information in a news article; those people have basic reading skills. 66% to 75% of the people in this lowest level described themselves as being able to read or write English "well" or "very well". It's important also to look at who is in this lowest group. It includes immigrants, for whom English may not be their native language (25%), people with physical, mental, or health conditions that affect literacy (26%), people age 65 and older who may not have had the educational opportunities offered to today's students (one-third), and those with visual difficulties that affect their ability to read print (19%). So the whole question of literacy is much more complex than simply "can this person read or not", and the 99% number cited in some sources is measuring something quite different than the "functional literacy" rate referred to by the Detroit Literacy Coalition. (Note also that the NALS survey included some mathematics in their definition of literacy.) I am not surprised that a depressed inner city like Detroit includes a large number of people who struggle with literacy. However, we obviously cannot conclude that the Detroit rate is in any way similar to an overall US rate. As an example, the Detroit Literacy Coalition puts the functional illiteracy rate in Michigan at only 18%. This of course implies that there are areas of Michigan where the rate of illiteracy is significantly lower than 18% - perhaps wealthier, suburban areas. 
:As to Ancient Greece - while Socrates may have had a big following, they would have been men who were wealthy enough to have time for philosophy. Women, slaves, and the lower classes would not have been part of his followers. Remember also that in the democracy of Athens, only men who owned land were eligible to vote - again, women, slaves, and the lower classes were not included. I do not know anything about the number of people in each of these groups, except that it is reasonable to assume that women were around 50% of the population. Even if we assume the US's rate of functional literacy is 72% (based on Michigan's), it seems unlikely that Ancient Greece would come anywhere near this, given that most women, slaves, and the lower classes do not seem to have been, generally speaking, functionally literate. Leaving out the women alone gives a literacy rate of 50% - removing the slaves and the lower classes would bring it even lower. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:00, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::Good points there. The book review of ''Literacy and Orality'' makes it clear that most of those in ancient Greece who could read or write at all did so rarely and at a rudimentary level. I just don't see that the modern USA is comparable in any way. The much more important questions are, is literacy in the USA now as high as it should be (probably not) and how can it be raised?
::But on the specific subject of Athenian democracy, (1) I don't think men had to be land-owners in order to vote, e.g. merchants, craftsmen, etc, were eligible and (2) it's been estimated that as few as 1% of the residents of Athens had voting rights (if I can find a reference, I'll add it). [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 16:20, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::''I don't think men had to be land-owners in order to vote...'' It's quite possible that I'm wrong on that one. My kids and I have been reading a bit about Ancient Greece for our history studies, but we've been looking mostly at non-fiction books for kids, and I'm guessing some are more accurate than others. I'm far from an expert on history.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:32, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::Hsmom, the WP page on Athenian democracy seems informative. Solon originally set a property qualification for voting but by the time of the "Golden Age" (Pericles to Aristotle, roughly), that had fallen into disuse. In peace-time, as much as 10% of the population may have been adult male Athenians who had completed military service, but that fell dramatically when Athens was at war, as it so often was (I think the 1% figure that I recalled had something to do with the time of the Peloponnesian[*] War). [* I bet I haven't spelt that right!] [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 16:39, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::What does "widespread mean" in this context? I seem to remember that Athens some time during he 5th century had a population of about quarter of a million. Only about a sixth of that were fully paid up citizens. (BTW, citizenship was a bit more complicated than owning land - in act it was somewhat the other way around - only citizens were allowed to own land.) The rest were children, women, slaves, helots, criminals, etc. So, if ''every citizen could read and write'' there would be a literacy figure of less than 20%. (I would imagine some literacy amongst the helots.) But let's get down to the nitty-gritty:
*Schools appeared in Athens during the 6th century.
*They taught the "Three Rs" plus Music and Physical Education from age 7.
*Teachers were generally low-paid, not particularly highly thought of members of society. They were paid by the parents.
*It was generally accepted that the average '''male''' citizen could read and write.
*Athens - at least into the 5th century - was still a generally "bookless" society - kids were taught their Homer to recite, not to write.
*There were no "institutions of higher learning" until the 4th century. For specialist learning (say medicine) an "expert" was engaged. (There were ''sophists'', itinerant teachers who went from city to city teaching certain specialist subjects and cost an arm and a leg.) A formal system of secondary education didn't appear until Hellenist times.
[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 16:49, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
==Update==
I updated the list to contain more mysteries and to reflect the sources and arguments here. Mysteries that were not really mysteries (such as whether the Hebrews were Egyptian slaves) have been removed, and the rise of Islam mystery has been changed to "Why did Islam fail to conquer the West" in response to Fred's answer and question. I am posting this comment under a new heading because it is far too much trouble to make little comments under each relevant section on this page. [[User:JWeatherman|JWeatherman]]

: Your additions are fine, but censorship is not. So I will look at what you removed and may restore them. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:05, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

== The Gunpowder Plot ==

I have just noticed the addition of the apparent mystery 'Was there really a genuine "Gunpowder Plot"?' The Gunpowder Plot of 1605 was very much real and there are huge amounts of evidence for it. Personally, I would add that before today I have never even heard of anyone who would claim that it didn't happen. The only major debates on the issue are not over whether it was real, but over certain details, such as suspected conspirators and what the outcome would have been had the plot not been foiled. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 22:15, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

: If this is the first you're hearing of the dispute, then I guess you don't read the Oxford Dictionary of World History! As explained in [[World History Lecture Nine]], that authority recognizes the dispute about the genuineness of the "plot".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:39, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

::I think this is due to a misinterpretation of the dictionary's entry on the matter. The most recent version states:

::"It has been suggested that Robert Cecil manufactured the plot, in order to discredit the Catholic cause"

::This is the only part of the entry that in anyway alludes to what you suggest, but when read in the context of the rest of the entry, and with a better understanding of Cecil himself, this is cleared up. The rest of the entry clearly outlines the plot itself and what did actually happen. The statement regarding Cecil is not saying he manufactured the plot as in 'he made it up', but is stating that some suspect him of organising the plot itself (although this is disputed by many). Even if Cecil did devise the plot to serve his own aims, and it wasn't simply a case of a 'Catholic conspiracy' then it does not change the fact that the plot was real, only that it's exact origins are unclear. There is little doubt that those directly involved in carrying out the plot were doing it for the generally accepted reasons of simply destroying Parliament and the king, in which case if Cecil was involved he was using them. The plot was very much genuine, and those who planted the powder had every intention of carrying it out. Whether or not the plot was instigated for the reasons stated by these men does not change this fact. The mystery is over the overall aims of the plot, in terms of who was the person who was really behind it. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 23:42, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

::: You attempt to draw a distinction without a difference. If Cecil manufactured the plot, a possibility acknowledged by the Oxford source, then there was never any chance of the plot being carried out. Even under your view, the participants would then have been manipulated and guided toward committing a crime. At a minimum, they would be entitled to a new trial to determine their actual guilt, and they would likely raise the recognized defense of entrapment.

::: Note that you don't acknowledge how the Oxford source has proven your first comments to be incorrect. Significant doubts have been raised and published about the truth of the story as it is recounted and celebrated.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:10, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

::::Actually, the same people who suggest that Cecil manufactured the plot, and this is the minority opinion, suggest that whether the plot succeeded or failed then his aims would have been met. The very discovery of a plot, either failed or successful would have given rise to greater suppression of Catholics in the country as was his suspected aim. There is also a suggestion that Cecil wanted James' heir, who before his death in 1612, was Prince Henry, to be crowned, as this would also have helped his suspected aims. The implication is that even if Cecil was responsible then he may well have let the plot succeed or fail, and even then as the Oxford Dictionary implies, Cecil's direct involvement is not accepted by most historians in such a manner.

::::Besides, even if the plot was doomed to fail it does not change the existence of the plot itself. The PLOT existed, whether it was likely to be successful is a different matter. The motives and potential of the plot do not alter the fact that it did exist as a historical fact, and so I think the mystery is badly worded to suggest that this is not the case. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 11:45, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

::::: Robert, you learn about the defense of entrapment, as used successfully in the criminal defense of John DeLorean a few decades ago. "Manufactured" plots are not the same as real ones. Cecil may have misled and exploited some useful idiots who never would have done something like that on their own.

::::: Maybe you think John DeLorean should have been found guilty in his trial, but the jurors felt otherwise. He was entrapped to fabricate a crime that never would have happened otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:48, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Wheaton College

2009-04-23T14:16:27Z

JeffC:

'''Wheaton College''' is an increasingly [[liberal]] institution of higher education that was originally founded on [[Christian]] principles. It has about 600 students per grade and costs about $31,000 per year (including room and board); fewer than half who are offered admission decide to enroll.<ref>http://www.collegeguide.org/itemdetail.aspx?item=01a9c546-fd27-48cb-9a9d-287d674d70ac . In contrast, nearly 60% of those accepted by [[Grove City College]], a competitor of Wheaton College, choose to enroll.</ref> It is located in Wheaton, Illinois, which is a town west of [[Chicago]]. In contrast with [[Grove City College]] and other [[conservative]] schools, Wheaton College uses the tenure system that makes it nearly impossible to fire professors who push for [[liberal]] indoctrination. Famous Wheaton alumni include [[Billy Graham]] and former US House Speaker [[Dennis Hastert]].<ref>http://www.wheaton.edu/admissions/UndGrad/about/beamer-herald.htm</ref>

Wheaton College espouses [[liberal]] beliefs to [[Christian]] students, marketing itself heavily to the evangelical community but then indoctrinating them to believe in [[abortion]] and the [[theory of evolution]].

A typical presentation at Wheaton on the topic of [[abortion]] makes no mention of the medical and psychological harm that abortion causes to the mother, omits and distorts religious, Biblical, and economic arguments against abortion, uses deceptive terminology of abortion supporters, and conceals how abortionists do not fully disclose the adverse effects of the procedure to the patients.<ref>http://www.wheaton.edu/Biology/faculty/ppp/pdf%20files/abortion%20presentation%20biomed.pdf</ref> The executive director of [[Emily's List]], which channels tens of millions of dollars to pro-abortion politicians, is a graduate of [[Wheaton College]] and has been picked amid criticism by [[conservatives]] to be President-Elect [[Barack Obama]]'s communications director.<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15886.html</ref><ref>http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=92367</ref>

On the [[theory of evolution]], Wheaton professors promote belief in the theory despite its fundamental conflict with Jesus's redemptive sacrifice.<ref>http://www.wheaton.edu/ACG/essays/moshier1.html</ref>

Yet students would never expect the above indoctrination from the display of "For Christ and His Kingdom" at its entrance and on the front of Wheaton's website.<ref>http://www.wheaton.edu/</ref>

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:Colleges]]
[[Category:Liberal Christian Colleges]]

Talk:St. Thomas Aquinas

2009-04-22T17:00:58Z

JeffC:

{{Wikiproject Religion}}
==Summa Theologica Content==
I am wondering if some of the analysis and commentary on the Summa Theologica should be moved to it's own article. Right now the ''Summa'' article is so short I'm not sure its worth repeating there without some additional literary analysis. [[User:JeffC|JeffC]] 13:00, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

St. Thomas Aquinas

2009-04-22T16:54:27Z

JeffC:

{{Christianity}}
[[Image:Saint Thomas Aquinas.jpg|left|thumb|St. Thomas Aquinas]]
'''St. Thomas Aquinas''' (1225-1274) "The Angelic Doctor" was a [[Dominican]] friar who wrote [[Summa Theologica]]. Many consider this to be the most perfect and complete summary of [[Christian]] [[theology]], and he established an entire type of Christian [[philosophy]] known as "Thomism", which is followed to this day. Aquinas was somewhat controversial during his life, but was quickly revered by the [[Catholic Church]] after his death. Many of the controversies surrounding Aquinas stem from his synthesis of [[Aristotle]]an philosophy with Christian philosophy, causing him to break with many of the traditionally held philosophical and theological positions espoused by the dominant Augustinian synthesis of Neoplatonic philosophy and Christianity.

He developed five proofs for the existence of [[God]] using logic. The first three were "cosmological" proofs rather than the "ontological" approach of [[St. Anselm]]. A cosmological proof deals with the natural order of the universe. Aquinas' most famous cosmological argument was that whatever is in motion (for example, us) must have been put in motion by something else (our parents). They, in turn, must have been put in motion by something else (their parents). But this sequence cannot go on to infinity. There must have been a first mover. This we call "God".

Saint Thomas had a different view of the fall than [[Calvin]] or [[Luther]]. He did not view man as totally depraved, but rather that his will was weakened and his intellect clouded. Nonetheless, his nature was not totally corrupted, for as created by God he remained essentially good. Nevertheless, man cannot attain [[salvation]] on his own, but is in need of [[grace]]. Though human intellect is imperfect, unassisted human reason can still understand many of the truths about God. For instance: the existence of God can be shown from the nature of the created [[universe]]. However, certain things are only knowable through [[Divine Revelation]] such as the [[Catholic doctrine|doctrine]] of the [[Blessed Trinity]]. Because of his view of the power of the human mind, though harmed by the fall but not totally destroyed, the works of the classical, secular philosophers could be brought into the service of Christian theology. [[Charles Murray]] wrote, "Aquinas made the case, eventually adopted by the Church, that human intelligence is a gift from God, and that to apply human intelligence to understanding the world is not an affront to God but is pleasing to him." <ref>http://www.amconmag.com/11_17_03/review.html</ref>

Saint Thomas wrote many theological and philosophical books and composed several beautiful hymns. Hailed as a masterpiece, his works [[Summa Theologica]] gives humanity a child like revelation of [[God]]. The book was never completed, though it contains more than 2 million words. <ref>[http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=3266 Second Chance for Thomas] Religion-Online.org</ref> After a religious vision / experience, he stopped writing explaining, “All that I have written seems to me like straw compared to what has now been revealed to me.”<ref>[http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/?page_id=103], Philosophy of Religion- Historic Figures</ref> He died three months later at the monastery of Fossanova, one mile from Sonnino, on March 7, 1274

The entire ''Summa'' provides simple and direct illuminations into the nature of God: '''"It can be proved in five ways that God exists."''' <ref>[http://www.catholicism.org/thomas-aquinas.html], Saint Thomas Aquinas Biography</ref> The basic format of the arguments in the ''Summa'' begin with a few brief postulates about the nature of God followed by a series of reasonable objections to those assertions. A flaw in the [[logic]] of the objections is raised and the objections are systematically answered by logical counterarguments, bringing the argument to a conclusion supporting the original postulates.

[[Summa Theologica]] is divided into three parts and contains 27 questions:

The first part ''Prima Pars'' (God and what precedes from Him)

The second part ''Prima Secundae and Secunda Secundae'' (Law and Grace, Charity and Justice)

The third part ''Tertia Pars'' (Christ who as man is our way to God)

Concerning the nature of God, Aquinas found that the best approach, commonly called the "via negativa", is to consider what God is not. This led him to propose five positive statements about the divine qualities:

*1. God is simple, without composition of parts, such as body and soul, or matter and form.
*2. God is perfect, lacking nothing. That is, God is distinguished from other beings on account of God's complete actuality.
*3. God is infinite. That is, God is not finite in the ways that created beings are physically, intellectually, and emotionally limited. This infinity is to be distinguished from infinity of size and infinity of number.
*4. God is immutable, incapable of change on the levels of God's essence and character.
*5. God is one, without diversification within God's self. The unity of God is such that God's essence is the same as God's existence. In Aquinas's words, "in itself the proposition 'God exists' is necessarily true, for in it subject and predicate are the same."

St. Thomas Aquinas is further known for his famous observation that the [[Devil]] cannot withstand mockery.

July 18, 1323, Thomas Aquinas was canonized as a Saint by Pope John XXII at Avignon

In 1567, St. Thomas Aquinas received the title Doctor of the Church or 'Angelic Doctor'. In the 2000 year history of Christ, he is one of only 33 with that designation.

==Early in Life==
As a young child, his parents sent him to study at a monastery when five years old.

Thomas studied and earned his Masters degree at the University of [[Paris]], the year 1245.

== See also ==

*[[Christianity in Conservapedia]]

==External links==
*[http://www.amconmag.com/11_17_03/review.html Culture's Bell Curve] - a review of [[Charles Murray]]'s ''[[Human Accomplishment]]
*[http://www.qfrases.com/english/thomas_aquinas.php Thomas Aquinas quotes]

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Aquinas, St. Thomas}}

[[Category:Saints]]
[[Category:Theologians]]
[[Category:Catholic Church]]
[[Category:Philosophers]]

Theory of relativity

2009-04-21T20:25:16Z

JeffC: /* Political aspects of relativity */

'''Relativity''' refers to two closely-related theories in [[physics]], and to [[postulate]]s that led to the first [[theory]]. Special relativity (SR) is a theory which describes the laws of motion for non-accelerating bodies traveling at a significant fraction of the [[speed of light]]. As speeds approach zero, Special Relativity tends towards equivalence with [[Newton's Laws of Motion]]. Special Relativity was developed by [[Hendrik Lorentz]], [[Henri Poincaré]], Hermann Minkowski<ref>"German mathematician who developed the geometrical theory of numbers and who made numerous contributions to number theory, mathematical physics, and the theory of relativity." [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9052860/Hermann-Minkowski Hermann Minkowski -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia]</ref><ref>[http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Minkowski.html Hermann Minkowski, Biography]</ref>, and [[Albert Einstein]].

General Relativity (GR) is a theory which explains the laws of motion as viewed from accelerating reference frames and includes a geometric explanation for gravity. This theory was developed by [[David Hilbert]] and [[Albert Einstein]] as an extension of the postulates of Special Relativity.<ref>"[T]he German mathematician David Hilbert submitted an article containing the correct field equations for general relativity five days before Einstein."[http://nobelprize.org/educational_games/physics/relativity/history-1.html Nobel Prize historical account]</ref> A dramatic but later discredited claim by Sir [[Arthur Eddington]] of experimental proof of General Relativity in 1919 made Einstein a household name.

== Special Relativity ==
Special Relativity is usually explained in terms of two assumptions (postulates):

# ''The [[speed of light]] is constant for all (inertial) observers, regardless of their velocities relative to each other.''
# ''The laws of physics are identical in all inertial reference frames.''

In layman's terms, these two assumptions can be restated as:
# It is impossible ever to transmit information faster than the speed of light.<ref>This assumption is commonly restated in this manner. For example, a discussion of hypothetical [[tachyons]] talks "about using tachyons to transmit information faster than the speed of light, '''in violation of Special Relativity'''."[http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/tachyons.html] However, there is some question whether the Theory of Special Relativity really restricts faster-than-light communication of information.</ref>
# The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, in every location throughout the universe.
# The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, no matter how fast something is traveling (in the absence of acceleration).

Special Relativity (SR) was initially developed by [[Henri Poincaré]] and [[Hendrik Lorentz]], working on problems in electrodynamics and the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]], which had not found any sign of [[aether (science)|luminiferous aether]], which was believed to be the substance which carried electromagnetic waves. Special relativity alters [[Isaac Newton]]'s laws of motion by assuming that the speed of light will be the same for all observers, despite their relative velocities and the source of the light. (Therefore, if A sends a beam of light to B, and both measure the speed, it will be the same for both, no matter what the relative velocity of A and B. In Newtonian/Galilean mechanics, If A sends a physical object at a particular velocity towards B, and nothing slows it, the velocity of the object relative to B depends on the velocities of the object and of B relative to A.)

At low speeds (relative to light-speed), the Einstein-Lorentz relativity equations are equivalent to Newton's equations. The famous equation attributed to Einstein, ''E=mc2'', describes the relationship between energy and the rest mass of a body.

Relativity is essential for massive or fast-moving bodies; for electromagnetism; for light and other radiation; for quantum field theory; for spin; and for nuclear energy. Particles at low mass and low speed can be accurately approximated by [[classical mechanics]] (such as [[Isaac Newton]]'s laws of motion). At the two extremes, modeling the behavior of electrons requires that relativistic effects be taken into account (the chemically significant phenomenon of [[electron spin]] arises from relativity), and the course light passing through a region containing many massive bodies such as galaxies will be distorted ([[classical mechanics]], in which light travels in straight lines, does not predict this). These are both experimentally confirmed ([[electron spin]] was known before relativity arose, and telescopic observations confirm that galactic clusters distort the paths of the light passing through them).

== General Relativity ==

General Relativity is a theory of gravity that is compatible with Special Relativity. The theory was inspired by a thought experiment developed by Einstein involving two elevators. The first elevator is stationary on the Earth, while the other is being pulled through space at a constant acceleration of g. Einstein realized that any physical experiment carried out in the elevators would give the same result. This realization is known as the equivalence principle and it states that accelerating frames of reference and gravitational fields are indistinguishable. General Relativity is the theory of gravity that incorporates Special Relativity and the equivalence principle.

General Relativity is a mathematical extension of Special Relativity. GR views space-time as a 4-dimensional [[manifold]], which looks locally like [[Minkowski space]], and which acquires [[curvature]] due to the presence of massive bodies. Thus, near massive bodies, the geometry of space-time differs to a large degree from [[Euclidean geometry]]: for example, the sum of the angles in a triangle is not exactly 180 degrees. Just as in classical physics, objects travel along [[geodesic]]s in the absence of external forces. Importantly though, near a massive body, geodesics are no longer straight lines. It is this phenomenon of objects traveling along geodesics in a curved spacetime that accounts for gravity.

The GR field equations are
:<math> G_{uv} = 8\pi\, T_{uv} </math>
where ''Guv'' is the [[Einstein curvature tensor]], and ''Tuv'' is the [[stress-energy tensor]], ''Guv'' and ''Tuv'' are both rank 2 symmetric tensors. The GR field equations is a system of [[partial differential equations]] that relates the curvature of space to the mass occupying the space.

General relativity provides one explanation for the seemingly anomalous precession of Mercury's perihelion. There are other explanations based in Newtonian gravity, such as factoring in the pull of the other planets on Mercury's orbit. One Newtonian explanation requires a slight alternation to the precise inverse-square relation of Newtonian gravity to distance, which is disfavored by mathematicians due to its inelegance in integrating.

British Historian Paul Johnson declares the turning point in 20th century to have been when fellow Briton Sir [[Arthur Eddington]], an esteemed English astronomer, ventured out on a boat off Africa in 1919 with a local Army unit to observe the bending of starlight around the sun during a total eclipse. Upon his return to England declared that his observations proven the theory of relativity. In fact recent analysis of Eddington's work revealed that he was biased in selecting his data, and that overall his data were inconclusive about the theory of relativity. The prediction was later confirmed by more rigorous experiments, such as those performed by the [[Hubble Space Telescope]] <ref>[http://www.spaceimages.com/gravlen.html Hubble Gravitational Lens Photo]</ref><ref> [http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/galaxies/lensing.html Gravitational Lensing] </ref><ref>[http://www.iam.ubc.ca/~newbury/lenses/glgallery.html]</ref>. Lorentz has this to say on the discrepancies between the empirical eclipse data and Einstein's predictions.

::''It indeed seems that the discrepancies may be ascribed to faults in observations, which supposition is supported by the fact that the observations at Prince's Island, which, it is true, did not turn out quite as well as those mentioned above, gave the result, of 1.64, somewhat lower than Einstein's figure.''<ref>Lorentz, H.A. [http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm The Einstein Theory of Relativity]</ref>

The prediction that light is bent by gravity is predicted both by Newtonian physics and relativity, but relativity predicts a larger deflection.

Special relativity is the limiting case of general relativity where all gravitational fields are weak. Alternatively, special relativity is the limiting case of general relativity when all reference frames are inertial (non-accelerating and without gravity).

==Consequences of the Theories==

===Time dilation===

[[Image:Light cone.png|right|thumb|Light-cone diagram]]
One important consequence of SR's postulates is that an observer in one reference frame will observe a clock in another frame to be "ticking" more slowly than in the observer's own frame. This can be proven mathematically using basic geometry, if the postulates are physically true without exception.

The length of an event <math>t</math>, as seen by a (relative) stationary observer observing an event is given by:

<math> t = \frac{t_{0}} {\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}</math>

Where
:<math>t_0</math> is the "proper time" or the length of the event in the observed frame of reference.
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity between the reference frames.
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).

Evidence for time dilation was discovered by studying [[muon decay]]. [[Muons]] are [[subatomic]] [[particles]] with a very short [[halflife]] (1.53 microseconds at rest) and a very fast speed (0.994c). By putting muon detectors at the top (D1) and bottom (D2) of a mountain with a separation of 1900m, scientists could measure accurately the proportion of muons reaching the second detector in comparison to the first. The proportion found was different to the proportion that was calculated without taking into account relativistic effects.

Using the equation for exponential decay, they could use this proportion to calculate the time taken for the muons to decay, relative to the muon. Then, using the time dilation equation they could then work out the dilated time. The dilated time showed a good correlation with the time it took the muons to reach the second sensor, thereby supporting the existence of time dilation.

The time taken for a muon to travel from D1 to D2 as measured by a stationary observer is:

<math> t = \frac{s}{v} = \frac{1900}{0.994\times(3\times10^{8})} = 6.37\mu\textrm{s} </math>

The fraction of muons arriving at D2 in comparison to D1 was 0.732. (Given by <math> \frac{N}{N_0} = 0.732 </math>)

Since (from the equation for exponential decay) <math> \frac{N}{N_{0}} = e^{-\lambda t_{0}} </math> then

<math> t_{0} = \frac {ln(0.732)}{ln (0.2)} \times 1.53\times 10^{-6} = 0.689\mu\textrm{s}</math>

This gives the time for the proportion of decay to occur for an observer who is stationary, relative to the muon.

Putting this into the time dilation equation gives:

<math> t = \frac{t_{0}}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}} = \frac{0.689 \times{10^{-6}}}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{0.994^{2}}{1^{2}}}} = 6.3\times 10^{-6}\textrm{s}</math>

This is in good agreement with the value calculated above, thereby providing evidence to support time dilation.

====Time Dilation and Creation Science====

{{main|Starlight problem}}

Prevailing theories among creation scientists such as physicists Dr. [[Russell Humphreys]] and Dr. [[John Hartnett]] are time dilation explains why the earth is only 6,000 years old even though cosmological data (background radiation, supernovae, etc.) set a much older age for the universe.

===Length contraction===
When two inertial reference frames move past each other in a straight line with constant relative velocity, an observer in one reference frame would observe a metre rule in the other frame to be shorter.

The length, <math>l</math>, of an object as seen by a (relative) stationary observer is given by:

<math> l = l_{0} \sqrt{1- \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}</math>

Where
:<math>l_0</math> is the "proper length" or the length of the object in the observed frame of reference.
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity between the reference frames.
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).

===Mass increase===

We also see that as a body moves with increasing velocity its [[mass]] also increases.

The mass, <math>m</math>, of an object as detected by a (relative) stationary observer is given by:

<math> m = \frac{m_{0}} {\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}</math>

Where
:<math>m_0</math> is the "rest mass" or the mass of the object when it is at rest.
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity of the object.
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).

Since speed is relative, it follows that two observers in different inertial reference frames may disagree on the mass and kinetic energy of a body. Since all inertial reference frames are treated on an equal footing, it follows that mass and energy are interchangeable.

There is a logical difficulty, however, to an increase in relativistic mass. Such increase would only exist in the direction of motion, and the rest mass would remain intact with respect to a force applied in a direction orthogonal to velocity. But mass is not a vector, and the notion of the mass of an object having different values depending on the direction of an applied force is unacceptable. Accordingly, most physicists today avoid Einstein's original reliance on relativistic mass and his suggestion that mass increases. Instead, most physicists today teach that

<math>F=\frac{d}{d\tau} p</math>

where <math>p</math> is the momentum defined by <math>\gamma m v</math>, <math>\gamma</math> is the standard Lorentz factor, and <math>\tau</math> is the proper time. Force F defined this way is a vector and thus can handle the directional aspect of the relativistic effects better than the concept of relativistic mass can.

==Evidence for Relativity==

In 1972, scientists flew extremely accurate clocks around the world in both directions on commercial airlines, and were directly able to observe the relativistic "twin paradox" the eastbound clock gained 273 ns and the westbound clock lost 59 ns, matching the predictions of general relativity to within experimental accuracy <ref>[http://www.answers.com/topic/hafele-keating-experiment Hafele-Keating Experiment ]</ref><ref>As described in [http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?], a personal web page, which cites Haefele and Keating (1972), ''Science'' Vol. 177 pp 166-170 as its source</ref><ref>Sullivan, Walter (1972), "Relativity Theory Awaits Affirmation", September 23, 1972, p. 61. Note: Article refers to a different experiment, which Sullivan discusses, saying that if successful it would be "the second time within a year" that relativity had been confirmed, then proceeds to discuss Hafele[sic] and Keating's experiment as the first.</ref>

Predictions of relativity have historically been used to make the [[Global Positioning System]] ([[GPS]]) function properly. A 1996 article says:

:"The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein's general theory of relativity would seem to require - transformations to and from the individual space vehicles (SVs), the Monitor Stations (MSs), and the users on the surface of the rotating earth, and the geocentric Earth Centered Inertial System (ECI) in which the SV orbits are calculated. There is a very good reason for the omission: the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter - less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth."<ref>http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf</ref><ref>Some do claim that relativity is "vital" to GPS even though GPS developed independently of theoretical predictions and theoreticians disagree about how the relativistic effects for GPS should be calculated. ''See id. See also'' [http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR614/MR614.appb.pdf]</ref>

This article, which was published in 1996, goes on to propose relativistic corrections that might be used to design more accurate GPS systems. Clocks on board GPS satellites require adjustments to their clock frequencies if they are to be synchronized with those on the surface of the Earth.

Tom Van Flandern, an astronomer hired to work on GPS in the late 1990s, concluded that "[t]he GPS programmers don't need relativity." He was quoted as saying that the GPS programmers "have basically blown off Einstein."<ref>http://archive.salon.com/people/feature/2000/07/06/einstein/index.html See also [http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-3.ASP], where Van Flandern discusses how relativistic corrections might improve GPS accuracy.</ref> Asynchronization can be easily addressed through communications between the satellites and ground stations, so it is unclear why any theory would be needed for GPS. But other obscure physicists having no connection with GPS design claim that Van Flandern is wrong about GPS, and insist that relativity provides the best explanation for its timing adjustments.<ref>''Ibid.''</ref>

Some internet articles claim that GPS timing differences ''confirm'' the Theory of Relativity or its Lorentzian counterpart (which uses a preferred frame of reference). GPS clocks run slower in the weaker gravitation field of the satellites than on ground stations on Earth, with the effects predicted by general relativity far outweighing the effects predicted by special relativity. However, the articles claiming that the slower GPS satellite clocks confirm relativity do not address the effect, if any, of the weaker gravitational force under Newton's theory on the GPS satellite clocks.

[[Image:Cassini-science-289.jpg|right|thumb|signal dipping into a gravity well around the [[sun]]]]
The effects of relativity have been observed with the frequency shift of the signal being sent back to [[Earth]] several times as various spacecraft have dipped into the gravity wells around massive objects such as the [[sun]] (see image at right)<ref>[http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/press-releases-03/20031002-pr-a.cfm Saturn-Bound Spacecraft Tests Einstein's Theory]</ref> or Saturn<ref>[http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12517102.600-science-encounter-with-saturn-confirms-relativity-theory.html Encounter with Saturn confirms relativity theory]</ref>. A satellite called [[Gravity Probe B]] was put in orbit about the Earth to examine the effects of frame dragging and geodetic warping of space<ref>[http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/index.html NASA Gravity Probe B mission page]</ref><ref>[http://einstein.stanford.edu/ Gravity Probe B project page]</ref>, but the results were inconclusive. Note, however, that Newtonian mechanics also predicts deflection of light by gravity, and in the initial theory of relativity it predicted the same amount of deflection.<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-03/6-03.htm</ref> Adjustments to the theory of relativity resulted in a prediction of a greater deflection of light than that predicated by Newtonian mechanics, though it is debatable how much deflection Newtonian mechanics should predict.

None of the NASA spacecraft incorporates predictions of relativity into their own timing mechanisms, as Newtonian mechanics is adequate even for probes sent deep into space.<ref>There is no reported reliance on relativity by any space probe.</ref>

A decade of observation of the [[pulsar]] pair [[PSR 1913 16|PSR B1913+16]] detected a decline in its orbital period, which was attributed to a loss in energy by the system. It is impossible to measure the masses of the pulsars, their accelerations relative to the observers, or other fundamental parameters. Professors Joseph Taylor and Russell Hulse, who discovered the binary pulsar, found that physical values could be assigned to the pulsars to make the observed decline in orbital period consistent with the Theory of General Relativity, and for this they were awarded the 1993 [[Nobel Prize]] for Physics, which is the only award ever given by the Nobel committee for the Theory of Relativity.<ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1993/press.html</ref> In 2004, Professor Taylor utilized a correction to the derivative of the orbital period to fit subsequent data better to the theory.

The [[perihelion]] of Mercury's [[orbit]] [[precession|precesses]] at a measurable rate, but even after after accounting for gravitational perturbations caused all other planets in the [[solar system]], Newton's theory (assuming a precise inverse-square relationship for distance) predicts a rate of precession that differs from the measured rate by approximately 43 [[arcsecond]]s per century. General relativity was developed in part to provide an estimate for this rate of precession that better matches observations.<ref>http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node98.html#SECTION032121000000000000000</ref> <ref> http://www.alberteinstein.info/gallery/pdf/CP6Doc30_English_pp146-200.pdf</ref> <ref> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/336k/lectures/node117.html</ref>

General relativity predicts twice as much bending in light as it passes near massive objects than Newton's theory predicts,<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-03/6-03.htm</ref> a phenomenon known as [[gravitational lens|gravitational lensing]]. A large number of instances of gravitational lensing have been observed, and it is now a standard astronomical tool.<ref> http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/features/news/grav_lens.html</ref> <ref> http://astro.berkeley.edu/~jcohn/lens.html</ref> <ref> http://www.iam.ubc.ca/~newbury/lenses/glgallery.html</ref>

== Ostensible Paradoxes ==

The Theory of Relativity implies that physical constants like the speed of light have remained constant. But at least one study suggests that physical constants, and possibly even the speed of light, have changed as the universe has aged.<ref>James Glanz and Dennis Overbye, "Cosmic Laws Like Speed of Light Might Be Changing, a Study Finds," August 15, 2001.[http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/15/science/15PHYS.html?ex=1185076800&en=d6467b6e3e346796&ei=5070]</ref>

"For the first time, scientists have experimentally demonstrated that sound pulses can travel at velocities faster than the speed of light, c. William Robertson's team from Middle Tennessee State University also showed that the group velocity of sound waves can become infinite, and even negative. ... Although such results may at first appear to violate special relativity (Einstein's law that no material object can exceed the speed of light), the actual significance of these experiments is a little different. These types of superluminal phenomena, Robertson et al. explain, violate neither causality nor special relativity, nor do they enable information to travel faster than c. In fact, theoretical work had predicted that the superluminal speed of the group velocity of sound waves should exist. 'The key to understanding this seeming paradox is that no wave energy exceeded the speed of light,' said Robertson."<ref>http://www.physorg.com/news88249076.html</ref>

"A team of researchers from the Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) has successfully demonstrated, for the first time, that it is possible to control the speed of light – both slowing it down and speeding it up – in an optical fiber, using off-the-shelf instrumentation in normal environmental conditions. Their results, to be published in the August 22 issue of Applied Physics Letters, could have implications that range from optical [[computing]] to the fiber-optic telecommunications industry."<ref>http://www.scienceblog.com/light.html</ref> Both slowing down and speeding up of light within a substance other than a vacuum is made possible, because the light travels through the material, and that material affects the speed of light, i.e. a photon hits an electron, which then exits and emits a slightly lower energy photon out in the direction that the original photon was traveling, thus maintaining conservation of momentum. No matter how transparent an object may appear, it radically impacts the speed of the light traveling through it, as demonstrated by the refractive production of a rainbow by a crystal, which Newton himself discovered.

"A pair of German physicists claim to have broken the speed of light - an achievement that would undermine our entire understanding of space and time. ... Dr Nimtz told New Scientist magazine: 'For the time being, this is the only violation of special relativity that I know of.'"<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/08/16/scispeed116.xml</ref>

==Pending research==

Today some physicists are working on hypothesizing how general relativity might have related to the other three forces of nature during the first fraction of a second of the [[Big Bang]]. Two of the more commonly studied attempts are [[string theory]] and [[loop quantum gravity]], but they have failed to produce any evidence that science mandates a science must have, and both typically take large amounts of work to even conform to what scientists believe. Critics increasingly point out that string theory and loop quantum gravity are largely untestable and unfalsifiable, and thus potentially unscientific under the principles of science advanced by [[Karl Popper]].<ref>See, for example, ''Not Even Wrong'', by Peter Woit</ref>

Relativity continues to be tested and some physics professors remain skeptical of the theory, such as University of Maryland physics professor Carroll Alley, who served as the principle physicist on the Apollo lunar project.<ref>http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/21jul_llr.htm</ref>

== Political aspects of relativity ==

Some [[liberal]] politicians have extrapolated the theory of relativity to metaphorically justify their own political agendas. For example, [[Democratic]] presidential candidate [[Barack Obama]] helped publish an article by liberal law professor [[Laurence Tribe]] to apply the relativistic concept of "curvature of space" to promote a broad legal right to [[abortion]].<ref>Tribe and Obama argued that the [[Constitution]] should be interpreted to establish a right to federally funded [[abortion]] and that, more generally, ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' does not go far enough. They insisted that a relativistic "curvature of space" could achieve this result by expanding application of the [[Constitution]] based on its impact on personal choice. "The ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' opinion ignored the way in which laws regulating pregnant women may shape the entire pattern of relationships among men, women, and children. It conceptualized abortion not in terms of the intensely public question of the subordination of women to men through the exploitation of pregnancy, but in terms of the purportedly private question of how women might make intimately personal decisions about their bodies and their lives. That vision described a part of the truth, but only what might be called the Newtonian part. ... [A] change in the surrounding legal setting can constitute state action that most threatens the sphere of personal choice. And it is a 'curved space' perspective on how law operates that leads one to focus less on the visible lines of legal force and more on how those lines are bent and directed by the law's geometry." Laurence H. Tribe, The Curvature of Constitutional Space: What Lawyers Can Learn from Modern Physics, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1, 16-17 (1989).</ref> As of June 2008, over 170 law review articles have cited this [[liberal]] application of the theory of relativity to legal arguments.<ref>Search conducted by [[User:Aschlafly]] in the LEXIS database "US Law Reviews and Journals, Combined," conducted June 1, 2008.</ref> Applications of the theory of relativity to change morality have also been common.<ref>"Mistakenly, in the minds of many, the theory of relativity became relativism."[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38081]</ref> Moreover, there is an unmistakable effort to censor or ostracize criticism of relativity.<ref>Although the [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|liberally biased Wikipedia]] contains lengthy criticisms of the subjects of many entries, and even though publications like ''The Economist'' recognize the lack of scientific satisfaction in the theory (see, e.g., "Weighing the Universe," The Economist (Jan. 25, 2007)), Wikipedia's entry on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Relativity Theory of Relativity] omits one word of criticism.</ref>

Physicist [[Robert Dicke]] of Princeton University was a prominent critic<ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943324,00.html</ref> of general relativity, and Dicke's alternative "has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time."<ref>"Initially a popular alternative to General Relativity, the Brans-Dicke theory lost favor as it became clear that omega must be very large-an artificial requirement in some views. Nevertheless, the theory has remained a paradigm for the introduction of scalar fields into gravitational theory, and as such has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time."[http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Glossary/Essay_bekenstein.html] </ref> Despite being one of the most accomplished physicists in the 20th century, Dicke was never awarded a Nobel Prize.

There has been little recognition by the Nobel Prize committee of either theory of relativity, and particularly scant recognition of the Theory of General Relativity.

===Government Support for Relativistic research===
The Theory of Relativity enjoys a disproportionate share of [[federal funding]] of physics research today.<ref>The Democratic Congress insisted on the $250 million LIGO project despite substantial criticism by scientists that it was wasting scarce research dollars. John Travis, "LIGO: a $ 250 million gamble; Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory; includes related article," ''Science'' p. 612 (Apr. 30, 1993). "Adding to the acrimony is LIGO's $ 250 million price tag, which some hold responsible for NSF's recent funding woes." ''Id.''</ref> In at least one case that research has been unsuccessful. The $365 million dollar LIGO project has failed to detect the gravity waves predicted by relativity.<ref>http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2002/sept/gravitywaves/index.html</ref>

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

[[Category:Physics]]

==External Links ==
*[http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm The Einstein Theory of Relativity, by H.A. Lorentz.]
*[http://www.relativitycalculator.com Relativity Calculator - Learn Special Relativity Mathematics ] The mathematics of special relativity presented in as simple and comprehensive manner possible within philosophical and historical contexts.

Theory of relativity

2009-04-21T20:23:21Z

JeffC: /* Political aspects of relativity */

'''Relativity''' refers to two closely-related theories in [[physics]], and to [[postulate]]s that led to the first [[theory]]. Special relativity (SR) is a theory which describes the laws of motion for non-accelerating bodies traveling at a significant fraction of the [[speed of light]]. As speeds approach zero, Special Relativity tends towards equivalence with [[Newton's Laws of Motion]]. Special Relativity was developed by [[Hendrik Lorentz]], [[Henri Poincaré]], Hermann Minkowski<ref>"German mathematician who developed the geometrical theory of numbers and who made numerous contributions to number theory, mathematical physics, and the theory of relativity." [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9052860/Hermann-Minkowski Hermann Minkowski -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia]</ref><ref>[http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Minkowski.html Hermann Minkowski, Biography]</ref>, and [[Albert Einstein]].

General Relativity (GR) is a theory which explains the laws of motion as viewed from accelerating reference frames and includes a geometric explanation for gravity. This theory was developed by [[David Hilbert]] and [[Albert Einstein]] as an extension of the postulates of Special Relativity.<ref>"[T]he German mathematician David Hilbert submitted an article containing the correct field equations for general relativity five days before Einstein."[http://nobelprize.org/educational_games/physics/relativity/history-1.html Nobel Prize historical account]</ref> A dramatic but later discredited claim by Sir [[Arthur Eddington]] of experimental proof of General Relativity in 1919 made Einstein a household name.

== Special Relativity ==
Special Relativity is usually explained in terms of two assumptions (postulates):

# ''The [[speed of light]] is constant for all (inertial) observers, regardless of their velocities relative to each other.''
# ''The laws of physics are identical in all inertial reference frames.''

In layman's terms, these two assumptions can be restated as:
# It is impossible ever to transmit information faster than the speed of light.<ref>This assumption is commonly restated in this manner. For example, a discussion of hypothetical [[tachyons]] talks "about using tachyons to transmit information faster than the speed of light, '''in violation of Special Relativity'''."[http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/tachyons.html] However, there is some question whether the Theory of Special Relativity really restricts faster-than-light communication of information.</ref>
# The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, in every location throughout the universe.
# The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, no matter how fast something is traveling (in the absence of acceleration).

Special Relativity (SR) was initially developed by [[Henri Poincaré]] and [[Hendrik Lorentz]], working on problems in electrodynamics and the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]], which had not found any sign of [[aether (science)|luminiferous aether]], which was believed to be the substance which carried electromagnetic waves. Special relativity alters [[Isaac Newton]]'s laws of motion by assuming that the speed of light will be the same for all observers, despite their relative velocities and the source of the light. (Therefore, if A sends a beam of light to B, and both measure the speed, it will be the same for both, no matter what the relative velocity of A and B. In Newtonian/Galilean mechanics, If A sends a physical object at a particular velocity towards B, and nothing slows it, the velocity of the object relative to B depends on the velocities of the object and of B relative to A.)

At low speeds (relative to light-speed), the Einstein-Lorentz relativity equations are equivalent to Newton's equations. The famous equation attributed to Einstein, ''E=mc2'', describes the relationship between energy and the rest mass of a body.

Relativity is essential for massive or fast-moving bodies; for electromagnetism; for light and other radiation; for quantum field theory; for spin; and for nuclear energy. Particles at low mass and low speed can be accurately approximated by [[classical mechanics]] (such as [[Isaac Newton]]'s laws of motion). At the two extremes, modeling the behavior of electrons requires that relativistic effects be taken into account (the chemically significant phenomenon of [[electron spin]] arises from relativity), and the course light passing through a region containing many massive bodies such as galaxies will be distorted ([[classical mechanics]], in which light travels in straight lines, does not predict this). These are both experimentally confirmed ([[electron spin]] was known before relativity arose, and telescopic observations confirm that galactic clusters distort the paths of the light passing through them).

== General Relativity ==

General Relativity is a theory of gravity that is compatible with Special Relativity. The theory was inspired by a thought experiment developed by Einstein involving two elevators. The first elevator is stationary on the Earth, while the other is being pulled through space at a constant acceleration of g. Einstein realized that any physical experiment carried out in the elevators would give the same result. This realization is known as the equivalence principle and it states that accelerating frames of reference and gravitational fields are indistinguishable. General Relativity is the theory of gravity that incorporates Special Relativity and the equivalence principle.

General Relativity is a mathematical extension of Special Relativity. GR views space-time as a 4-dimensional [[manifold]], which looks locally like [[Minkowski space]], and which acquires [[curvature]] due to the presence of massive bodies. Thus, near massive bodies, the geometry of space-time differs to a large degree from [[Euclidean geometry]]: for example, the sum of the angles in a triangle is not exactly 180 degrees. Just as in classical physics, objects travel along [[geodesic]]s in the absence of external forces. Importantly though, near a massive body, geodesics are no longer straight lines. It is this phenomenon of objects traveling along geodesics in a curved spacetime that accounts for gravity.

The GR field equations are
:<math> G_{uv} = 8\pi\, T_{uv} </math>
where ''Guv'' is the [[Einstein curvature tensor]], and ''Tuv'' is the [[stress-energy tensor]], ''Guv'' and ''Tuv'' are both rank 2 symmetric tensors. The GR field equations is a system of [[partial differential equations]] that relates the curvature of space to the mass occupying the space.

General relativity provides one explanation for the seemingly anomalous precession of Mercury's perihelion. There are other explanations based in Newtonian gravity, such as factoring in the pull of the other planets on Mercury's orbit. One Newtonian explanation requires a slight alternation to the precise inverse-square relation of Newtonian gravity to distance, which is disfavored by mathematicians due to its inelegance in integrating.

British Historian Paul Johnson declares the turning point in 20th century to have been when fellow Briton Sir [[Arthur Eddington]], an esteemed English astronomer, ventured out on a boat off Africa in 1919 with a local Army unit to observe the bending of starlight around the sun during a total eclipse. Upon his return to England declared that his observations proven the theory of relativity. In fact recent analysis of Eddington's work revealed that he was biased in selecting his data, and that overall his data were inconclusive about the theory of relativity. The prediction was later confirmed by more rigorous experiments, such as those performed by the [[Hubble Space Telescope]] <ref>[http://www.spaceimages.com/gravlen.html Hubble Gravitational Lens Photo]</ref><ref> [http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/galaxies/lensing.html Gravitational Lensing] </ref><ref>[http://www.iam.ubc.ca/~newbury/lenses/glgallery.html]</ref>. Lorentz has this to say on the discrepancies between the empirical eclipse data and Einstein's predictions.

::''It indeed seems that the discrepancies may be ascribed to faults in observations, which supposition is supported by the fact that the observations at Prince's Island, which, it is true, did not turn out quite as well as those mentioned above, gave the result, of 1.64, somewhat lower than Einstein's figure.''<ref>Lorentz, H.A. [http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm The Einstein Theory of Relativity]</ref>

The prediction that light is bent by gravity is predicted both by Newtonian physics and relativity, but relativity predicts a larger deflection.

Special relativity is the limiting case of general relativity where all gravitational fields are weak. Alternatively, special relativity is the limiting case of general relativity when all reference frames are inertial (non-accelerating and without gravity).

==Consequences of the Theories==

===Time dilation===

[[Image:Light cone.png|right|thumb|Light-cone diagram]]
One important consequence of SR's postulates is that an observer in one reference frame will observe a clock in another frame to be "ticking" more slowly than in the observer's own frame. This can be proven mathematically using basic geometry, if the postulates are physically true without exception.

The length of an event <math>t</math>, as seen by a (relative) stationary observer observing an event is given by:

<math> t = \frac{t_{0}} {\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}</math>

Where
:<math>t_0</math> is the "proper time" or the length of the event in the observed frame of reference.
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity between the reference frames.
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).

Evidence for time dilation was discovered by studying [[muon decay]]. [[Muons]] are [[subatomic]] [[particles]] with a very short [[halflife]] (1.53 microseconds at rest) and a very fast speed (0.994c). By putting muon detectors at the top (D1) and bottom (D2) of a mountain with a separation of 1900m, scientists could measure accurately the proportion of muons reaching the second detector in comparison to the first. The proportion found was different to the proportion that was calculated without taking into account relativistic effects.

Using the equation for exponential decay, they could use this proportion to calculate the time taken for the muons to decay, relative to the muon. Then, using the time dilation equation they could then work out the dilated time. The dilated time showed a good correlation with the time it took the muons to reach the second sensor, thereby supporting the existence of time dilation.

The time taken for a muon to travel from D1 to D2 as measured by a stationary observer is:

<math> t = \frac{s}{v} = \frac{1900}{0.994\times(3\times10^{8})} = 6.37\mu\textrm{s} </math>

The fraction of muons arriving at D2 in comparison to D1 was 0.732. (Given by <math> \frac{N}{N_0} = 0.732 </math>)

Since (from the equation for exponential decay) <math> \frac{N}{N_{0}} = e^{-\lambda t_{0}} </math> then

<math> t_{0} = \frac {ln(0.732)}{ln (0.2)} \times 1.53\times 10^{-6} = 0.689\mu\textrm{s}</math>

This gives the time for the proportion of decay to occur for an observer who is stationary, relative to the muon.

Putting this into the time dilation equation gives:

<math> t = \frac{t_{0}}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}} = \frac{0.689 \times{10^{-6}}}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{0.994^{2}}{1^{2}}}} = 6.3\times 10^{-6}\textrm{s}</math>

This is in good agreement with the value calculated above, thereby providing evidence to support time dilation.

====Time Dilation and Creation Science====

{{main|Starlight problem}}

Prevailing theories among creation scientists such as physicists Dr. [[Russell Humphreys]] and Dr. [[John Hartnett]] are time dilation explains why the earth is only 6,000 years old even though cosmological data (background radiation, supernovae, etc.) set a much older age for the universe.

===Length contraction===
When two inertial reference frames move past each other in a straight line with constant relative velocity, an observer in one reference frame would observe a metre rule in the other frame to be shorter.

The length, <math>l</math>, of an object as seen by a (relative) stationary observer is given by:

<math> l = l_{0} \sqrt{1- \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}</math>

Where
:<math>l_0</math> is the "proper length" or the length of the object in the observed frame of reference.
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity between the reference frames.
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).

===Mass increase===

We also see that as a body moves with increasing velocity its [[mass]] also increases.

The mass, <math>m</math>, of an object as detected by a (relative) stationary observer is given by:

<math> m = \frac{m_{0}} {\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}</math>

Where
:<math>m_0</math> is the "rest mass" or the mass of the object when it is at rest.
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity of the object.
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).

Since speed is relative, it follows that two observers in different inertial reference frames may disagree on the mass and kinetic energy of a body. Since all inertial reference frames are treated on an equal footing, it follows that mass and energy are interchangeable.

There is a logical difficulty, however, to an increase in relativistic mass. Such increase would only exist in the direction of motion, and the rest mass would remain intact with respect to a force applied in a direction orthogonal to velocity. But mass is not a vector, and the notion of the mass of an object having different values depending on the direction of an applied force is unacceptable. Accordingly, most physicists today avoid Einstein's original reliance on relativistic mass and his suggestion that mass increases. Instead, most physicists today teach that

<math>F=\frac{d}{d\tau} p</math>

where <math>p</math> is the momentum defined by <math>\gamma m v</math>, <math>\gamma</math> is the standard Lorentz factor, and <math>\tau</math> is the proper time. Force F defined this way is a vector and thus can handle the directional aspect of the relativistic effects better than the concept of relativistic mass can.

==Evidence for Relativity==

In 1972, scientists flew extremely accurate clocks around the world in both directions on commercial airlines, and were directly able to observe the relativistic "twin paradox" the eastbound clock gained 273 ns and the westbound clock lost 59 ns, matching the predictions of general relativity to within experimental accuracy <ref>[http://www.answers.com/topic/hafele-keating-experiment Hafele-Keating Experiment ]</ref><ref>As described in [http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?], a personal web page, which cites Haefele and Keating (1972), ''Science'' Vol. 177 pp 166-170 as its source</ref><ref>Sullivan, Walter (1972), "Relativity Theory Awaits Affirmation", September 23, 1972, p. 61. Note: Article refers to a different experiment, which Sullivan discusses, saying that if successful it would be "the second time within a year" that relativity had been confirmed, then proceeds to discuss Hafele[sic] and Keating's experiment as the first.</ref>

Predictions of relativity have historically been used to make the [[Global Positioning System]] ([[GPS]]) function properly. A 1996 article says:

:"The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein's general theory of relativity would seem to require - transformations to and from the individual space vehicles (SVs), the Monitor Stations (MSs), and the users on the surface of the rotating earth, and the geocentric Earth Centered Inertial System (ECI) in which the SV orbits are calculated. There is a very good reason for the omission: the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter - less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth."<ref>http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf</ref><ref>Some do claim that relativity is "vital" to GPS even though GPS developed independently of theoretical predictions and theoreticians disagree about how the relativistic effects for GPS should be calculated. ''See id. See also'' [http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR614/MR614.appb.pdf]</ref>

This article, which was published in 1996, goes on to propose relativistic corrections that might be used to design more accurate GPS systems. Clocks on board GPS satellites require adjustments to their clock frequencies if they are to be synchronized with those on the surface of the Earth.

Tom Van Flandern, an astronomer hired to work on GPS in the late 1990s, concluded that "[t]he GPS programmers don't need relativity." He was quoted as saying that the GPS programmers "have basically blown off Einstein."<ref>http://archive.salon.com/people/feature/2000/07/06/einstein/index.html See also [http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-3.ASP], where Van Flandern discusses how relativistic corrections might improve GPS accuracy.</ref> Asynchronization can be easily addressed through communications between the satellites and ground stations, so it is unclear why any theory would be needed for GPS. But other obscure physicists having no connection with GPS design claim that Van Flandern is wrong about GPS, and insist that relativity provides the best explanation for its timing adjustments.<ref>''Ibid.''</ref>

Some internet articles claim that GPS timing differences ''confirm'' the Theory of Relativity or its Lorentzian counterpart (which uses a preferred frame of reference). GPS clocks run slower in the weaker gravitation field of the satellites than on ground stations on Earth, with the effects predicted by general relativity far outweighing the effects predicted by special relativity. However, the articles claiming that the slower GPS satellite clocks confirm relativity do not address the effect, if any, of the weaker gravitational force under Newton's theory on the GPS satellite clocks.

[[Image:Cassini-science-289.jpg|right|thumb|signal dipping into a gravity well around the [[sun]]]]
The effects of relativity have been observed with the frequency shift of the signal being sent back to [[Earth]] several times as various spacecraft have dipped into the gravity wells around massive objects such as the [[sun]] (see image at right)<ref>[http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/press-releases-03/20031002-pr-a.cfm Saturn-Bound Spacecraft Tests Einstein's Theory]</ref> or Saturn<ref>[http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12517102.600-science-encounter-with-saturn-confirms-relativity-theory.html Encounter with Saturn confirms relativity theory]</ref>. A satellite called [[Gravity Probe B]] was put in orbit about the Earth to examine the effects of frame dragging and geodetic warping of space<ref>[http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/index.html NASA Gravity Probe B mission page]</ref><ref>[http://einstein.stanford.edu/ Gravity Probe B project page]</ref>, but the results were inconclusive. Note, however, that Newtonian mechanics also predicts deflection of light by gravity, and in the initial theory of relativity it predicted the same amount of deflection.<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-03/6-03.htm</ref> Adjustments to the theory of relativity resulted in a prediction of a greater deflection of light than that predicated by Newtonian mechanics, though it is debatable how much deflection Newtonian mechanics should predict.

None of the NASA spacecraft incorporates predictions of relativity into their own timing mechanisms, as Newtonian mechanics is adequate even for probes sent deep into space.<ref>There is no reported reliance on relativity by any space probe.</ref>

A decade of observation of the [[pulsar]] pair [[PSR 1913 16|PSR B1913+16]] detected a decline in its orbital period, which was attributed to a loss in energy by the system. It is impossible to measure the masses of the pulsars, their accelerations relative to the observers, or other fundamental parameters. Professors Joseph Taylor and Russell Hulse, who discovered the binary pulsar, found that physical values could be assigned to the pulsars to make the observed decline in orbital period consistent with the Theory of General Relativity, and for this they were awarded the 1993 [[Nobel Prize]] for Physics, which is the only award ever given by the Nobel committee for the Theory of Relativity.<ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1993/press.html</ref> In 2004, Professor Taylor utilized a correction to the derivative of the orbital period to fit subsequent data better to the theory.

The [[perihelion]] of Mercury's [[orbit]] [[precession|precesses]] at a measurable rate, but even after after accounting for gravitational perturbations caused all other planets in the [[solar system]], Newton's theory (assuming a precise inverse-square relationship for distance) predicts a rate of precession that differs from the measured rate by approximately 43 [[arcsecond]]s per century. General relativity was developed in part to provide an estimate for this rate of precession that better matches observations.<ref>http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node98.html#SECTION032121000000000000000</ref> <ref> http://www.alberteinstein.info/gallery/pdf/CP6Doc30_English_pp146-200.pdf</ref> <ref> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/336k/lectures/node117.html</ref>

General relativity predicts twice as much bending in light as it passes near massive objects than Newton's theory predicts,<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-03/6-03.htm</ref> a phenomenon known as [[gravitational lens|gravitational lensing]]. A large number of instances of gravitational lensing have been observed, and it is now a standard astronomical tool.<ref> http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/features/news/grav_lens.html</ref> <ref> http://astro.berkeley.edu/~jcohn/lens.html</ref> <ref> http://www.iam.ubc.ca/~newbury/lenses/glgallery.html</ref>

== Ostensible Paradoxes ==

The Theory of Relativity implies that physical constants like the speed of light have remained constant. But at least one study suggests that physical constants, and possibly even the speed of light, have changed as the universe has aged.<ref>James Glanz and Dennis Overbye, "Cosmic Laws Like Speed of Light Might Be Changing, a Study Finds," August 15, 2001.[http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/15/science/15PHYS.html?ex=1185076800&en=d6467b6e3e346796&ei=5070]</ref>

"For the first time, scientists have experimentally demonstrated that sound pulses can travel at velocities faster than the speed of light, c. William Robertson's team from Middle Tennessee State University also showed that the group velocity of sound waves can become infinite, and even negative. ... Although such results may at first appear to violate special relativity (Einstein's law that no material object can exceed the speed of light), the actual significance of these experiments is a little different. These types of superluminal phenomena, Robertson et al. explain, violate neither causality nor special relativity, nor do they enable information to travel faster than c. In fact, theoretical work had predicted that the superluminal speed of the group velocity of sound waves should exist. 'The key to understanding this seeming paradox is that no wave energy exceeded the speed of light,' said Robertson."<ref>http://www.physorg.com/news88249076.html</ref>

"A team of researchers from the Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) has successfully demonstrated, for the first time, that it is possible to control the speed of light – both slowing it down and speeding it up – in an optical fiber, using off-the-shelf instrumentation in normal environmental conditions. Their results, to be published in the August 22 issue of Applied Physics Letters, could have implications that range from optical [[computing]] to the fiber-optic telecommunications industry."<ref>http://www.scienceblog.com/light.html</ref> Both slowing down and speeding up of light within a substance other than a vacuum is made possible, because the light travels through the material, and that material affects the speed of light, i.e. a photon hits an electron, which then exits and emits a slightly lower energy photon out in the direction that the original photon was traveling, thus maintaining conservation of momentum. No matter how transparent an object may appear, it radically impacts the speed of the light traveling through it, as demonstrated by the refractive production of a rainbow by a crystal, which Newton himself discovered.

"A pair of German physicists claim to have broken the speed of light - an achievement that would undermine our entire understanding of space and time. ... Dr Nimtz told New Scientist magazine: 'For the time being, this is the only violation of special relativity that I know of.'"<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/08/16/scispeed116.xml</ref>

==Pending research==

Today some physicists are working on hypothesizing how general relativity might have related to the other three forces of nature during the first fraction of a second of the [[Big Bang]]. Two of the more commonly studied attempts are [[string theory]] and [[loop quantum gravity]], but they have failed to produce any evidence that science mandates a science must have, and both typically take large amounts of work to even conform to what scientists believe. Critics increasingly point out that string theory and loop quantum gravity are largely untestable and unfalsifiable, and thus potentially unscientific under the principles of science advanced by [[Karl Popper]].<ref>See, for example, ''Not Even Wrong'', by Peter Woit</ref>

Relativity continues to be tested and some physics professors remain skeptical of the theory, such as University of Maryland physics professor Carroll Alley, who served as the principle physicist on the Apollo lunar project.<ref>http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/21jul_llr.htm</ref>

== Political aspects of relativity ==

There has been little recognition by the Nobel Prize committee of either theory of relativity, and particularly scant recognition of the Theory of General Relativity.

Some [[liberal]] politicians have extrapolated the theory of relativity to metaphorically justify their own political agendas. For example, [[Democratic]] presidential candidate [[Barack Obama]] helped publish an article by liberal law professor [[Laurence Tribe]] to apply the relativistic concept of "curvature of space" to promote a broad legal right to [[abortion]].<ref>Tribe and Obama argued that the [[Constitution]] should be interpreted to establish a right to federally funded [[abortion]] and that, more generally, ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' does not go far enough. They insisted that a relativistic "curvature of space" could achieve this result by expanding application of the [[Constitution]] based on its impact on personal choice. "The ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' opinion ignored the way in which laws regulating pregnant women may shape the entire pattern of relationships among men, women, and children. It conceptualized abortion not in terms of the intensely public question of the subordination of women to men through the exploitation of pregnancy, but in terms of the purportedly private question of how women might make intimately personal decisions about their bodies and their lives. That vision described a part of the truth, but only what might be called the Newtonian part. ... [A] change in the surrounding legal setting can constitute state action that most threatens the sphere of personal choice. And it is a 'curved space' perspective on how law operates that leads one to focus less on the visible lines of legal force and more on how those lines are bent and directed by the law's geometry." Laurence H. Tribe, The Curvature of Constitutional Space: What Lawyers Can Learn from Modern Physics, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1, 16-17 (1989).</ref> As of June 2008, over 170 law review articles have cited this [[liberal]] application of the theory of relativity to legal arguments.<ref>Search conducted by [[User:Aschlafly]] in the LEXIS database "US Law Reviews and Journals, Combined," conducted June 1, 2008.</ref> Applications of the theory of relativity to change morality have also been common.<ref>"Mistakenly, in the minds of many, the theory of relativity became relativism."[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38081]</ref> Moreover, there is an unmistakable effort to censor or ostracize criticism of relativity.<ref>Although the [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|liberally biased Wikipedia]] contains lengthy criticisms of the subjects of many entries, and even though publications like ''The Economist'' recognize the lack of scientific satisfaction in the theory (see, e.g., "Weighing the Universe," The Economist (Jan. 25, 2007)), Wikipedia's entry on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Relativity Theory of Relativity] omits one word of criticism.</ref>

Physicist [[Robert Dicke]] of Princeton University was a prominent critic<ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943324,00.html</ref> of general relativity, and Dicke's alternative "has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time."<ref>"Initially a popular alternative to General Relativity, the Brans-Dicke theory lost favor as it became clear that omega must be very large-an artificial requirement in some views. Nevertheless, the theory has remained a paradigm for the introduction of scalar fields into gravitational theory, and as such has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time."[http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Glossary/Essay_bekenstein.html] </ref> Despite being one of the most accomplished physicists in the 20th century, Dicke was never awarded a Nobel Prize.

There has been little recognition by the Nobel Prize committee of either theory of relativity, and particularly scant recognition of the Theory of General Relativity.

===Government Support for Relativistic research===
The Theory of Relativity enjoys a disproportionate share of [[federal funding]] of physics research today.<ref>The Democratic Congress insisted on the $250 million LIGO project despite substantial criticism by scientists that it was wasting scarce research dollars. John Travis, "LIGO: a $ 250 million gamble; Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory; includes related article," ''Science'' p. 612 (Apr. 30, 1993). "Adding to the acrimony is LIGO's $ 250 million price tag, which some hold responsible for NSF's recent funding woes." ''Id.''</ref> In at least one case that research has been unsuccessful. The $365 million dollar LIGO project has failed to detect the gravity waves predicted by relativity.<ref>http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2002/sept/gravitywaves/index.html</ref>

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

[[Category:Physics]]

==External Links ==
*[http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm The Einstein Theory of Relativity, by H.A. Lorentz.]
*[http://www.relativitycalculator.com Relativity Calculator - Learn Special Relativity Mathematics ] The mathematics of special relativity presented in as simple and comprehensive manner possible within philosophical and historical contexts.

Wheaton College

2009-04-19T20:28:14Z

JeffC:

'''Wheaton College''' is a [[liberal]]-leaning institution of higher education that was originally founded on [[Christian]] principles. It has about 600 students per grade and costs about $31,000 per year (including room and board). It is located in Wheaton, Illinois, which is a town west of [[Chicago]]. In contrast with [[Grove City College]] and other [[conservative]] schools, Wheaton College uses the tenure system that makes it nearly impossible to fire professors who push for [[liberal]] indoctrination.

Wheaton College has perhaps the smartest student body among evangelical colleges, but professors and graduates associated with Wheaton sometimes defend [[abortion]] or advocate the [[theory of evolution]].

For example, one presentation at Wheaton on the topic of [[abortion]] makes no mention of the medical and psychological harm that abortion causes to the mother, omits and distorts religious, Biblical, and economic arguments against abortion, uses deceptive terminology of abortion supporters, and conceals how abortionists do not fully disclose the adverse effects of the procedure to the patients.<ref>http://www.wheaton.edu/Biology/faculty/ppp/pdf%20files/abortion%20presentation%20biomed.pdf</ref> The executive director of [[Emily's List]], which channels tens of millions of dollars to pro-abortion politicians, is a graduate of [[Wheaton College]] and has been picked amid criticism by [[conservatives]] to be President-Elect [[Barack Obama]]'s communications director.<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15886.html</ref><ref>http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=92367</ref> Other famous Wheaton alumni include [[Billy Graham]] and former US House Speaker [[Dennis Hastert]].<ref>http://www.wheaton.edu/admissions/UndGrad/about/beamer-herald.htm</ref>

On the [[theory of evolution]], a Wheaton professor promotes belief in the theory despite its fundamental conflict with Jesus's redemptive sacrifice.<ref>http://www.wheaton.edu/ACG/essays/moshier1.html</ref>

Wheaton displays "For Christ and His Kingdom" at its entrance and on the front of Wheaton's website.<ref>http://www.wheaton.edu/</ref>

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:Colleges]]
[[Category:Christian Colleges]]

User talk:PhillipA

2009-04-17T00:16:42Z

JeffC:

{{welcome|sig=[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 13:36, 14 April 2009 (EDT)}}

:Long answer to your "liberal facts" question on my user talk page. Cheers! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:58, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
::Dear PhillipA, I think 'neutral' is the operative word in attempting to edit this site. Basically, by vocalizing any sort of political view you will find yourself branded as either a liberal or a parodist. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to find myself in hot water for even speaking so candidly. [[User:JeffC|JeffC]] 20:16, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

Debate:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?

2009-04-16T23:45:18Z

JeffC: /* The Freedom to Choose! */

The Home School movement, definitely.

The home school movement provides parents the responsibility and wonderful opportunity to educate and enrich their children's minds. I go to classes where we study Logic, Latin, and read college books. I have been home schooled for four years and I went to a private school for five years. Home schooling has provided me with enormous amounts of extra-curricular and social activities, as well as academic privileges. Home schoolers '''do''' have a social life, contrary to what the liberals will have you believe. Actually, home-schoolers are more eloquent and insightful in their writing and speech. I am in a home school speech and debate club and I see home schoolers who are speaking with the clarity of . me to any speech and debate tournaments and you will see for yourself. I encourage you to home school your child for it will be one of the best things you can ever do for your child.

: Too bad not everyone can afford the time.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 19:57, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

: Strictly from personal experience, a homeschool environment is fertile ground for brainwashing, and usually of the conservative religious bent as well. Public school, for all its flaws, at least exposes students to a far more diverse environment than the other options.
--[[User:Hektor|Hektor]] 00:26, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== Public School ==
Public school is necessary for those who can't afford private school and don't have the time for home school.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 19:57, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

The establishment of public school systems (in the 18th and 19th centuries?) brought about mass literacy as never before seen by humans. Although private schools are a nice option for the rich, and homeschooling for those who have the time and access to resources, the backbone of western civilization as we know it - at its best, even - is the ''right'' to a good education implied in tax-supported free schools for everyone. [[User:Human|Human]] 03:00, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

The fundamental problem with claiming that home schooling and/or private schooling are superior to public schools is that both of them ''rely'' on the existence of public schools to ensure that superiority.

Why do many private schools post superior academic results to comparable public schools? Because, of course, they have the option of expelling students who refuse to work...or not accepting such students in the first place.

Now, the problem is this: what is to be done with the children who don't meet the standards of the private school, or who lack parents who have the time/financial stability/inclination to home school? Simply leaving those children to their own devices strikes me as an extraordinarily bad plan; I can't imagine a surer way to ensure a substantial population of criminals.

Public schools have their faults, to be certain--but I have yet to see a proposal for a truly workable system that doesn't include them.

==The Freedom to Choose!==
To be able to choose which philosophy will teach your children. Which one is the best is a subjective endeavor depending on the individual. There is no absolutes between private, public, or home-schools. But to be able to choose which is the best at any given time is the only good philosophy for a society to give its citizens.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:36, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]
:Clearly if one chooses public schools, one relinquishes their children to the bias and whim of the district school board, whom themselves serve the agenda of the State and Federal Departments of Education. I agree this still constitutes choice, but I disagree with the notion that atheistic dogmatism constitutes any philosophy in the proper sense. [[User:JeffC|JeffC]] 19:45, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

United States presidential election, 2000

2009-04-10T22:28:36Z

JeffC:

[[Image:00-main.jpg|right|thumb|300px|George W. Bush and Al Gore]] In 2000, the United States presidential election was one of the closest and most controversial presidential elections in history. A month of recounts and court challenges followed, culminating in the Supreme Court case ''[[Bush v. Gore]]''. Following the court's 5-4 decision, [[George W. Bush]] was declared the winner over [[Vice President]] [[Al Gore]] by 537 votes in the state of [[Florida]]. Domestic issues as opposed to [[foreign policy]] dominated the campaign. Key issues were prescription drug prices, campaign finance reform, [[Social Security]], and [[education]]. Each candidate claimed their economic plan would reduce the deficit. Bush parodied himself as a "compassionate conservative." The Bush campaign did not make an issue over the sex scandal and impeachment of [[Bill Clinton]]'s Presidency less then two years ago.

In an interesting twist, based upon what was to occur, a few days before the election polls were suggesting that Bush would win the popular vote by a small margin come election day, but that Gore could win the electoral college. The Bush campaign floated the idea of the unfairness of such a situation occurring and it the Gore camp that strongly reiterated that the popular vote didn't matter -- it was the electoral college that determined the rightful President.

==Primaries==

The contest for the Republican nomination came down to two men: Governor George W. Bush and [[Arizona]] Senator [[John McCain]], an ex-POW in [[North Vietnam]]. Most Republican leaders endorsed Bush, who was popular with [[social conservative]]s. Despite early victories for McCain in the [[New Hampshire]] and [[Michigan]] primaries, Bush went on to win [[South Carolina]] and 9 out of 13 super Tuesday states. McCain dropped out in March after a bitter primary.

Incumbent Vice President Al Gore faced a challenge from former [[New Jersey]] Senator [[Bill Bradley]]. Bradly ran to left of Gore on universal [[health care]], [[gun control]], and campaign finance reform. Gore eventually trumped Bradly, winning all 50 primary states.

==Campaign==

As a Vice President for eight years to a popular President during a time when the economy was still believed to be doing well, Gore appeared to have some strong starting plusses. Indeed, he easily won the Democratic primary. But due to Clinton's scandal and [[impeach]]ment near the end of his term, Gore sought to distance himself from the sitting President. Clinton, for his part, did little to help Gore. Indeed, when Clinton gave his big speech where he was supposed to pass the baton to Gore, he could never quite do so - instead talking about his own accomplishments and saying little more than 'and Al Gore was there too'. During the campaign political pundits stressed the need of Gore to show that he was the 'alpha dog', but he never quite achieved that breakthrough and it would 'dog' him throughout his campaign. Gore tried to find a balance between adopting the economy and yet steering clear of Clinton's moral failings, but could never quite find the right mix. He was also hampered by the public perception that the economy under Clinton was due more to good fortune than any Clinton initiatives. With Republicans controlling Congress for the last 6 years of Clinton's terms, there was a view that Clinton's role was one of not doing anything to stop the expansion more than doing something to cause it.

Bush also came out of the Republican primary relatively unscathed, and had a 'pedigree' of being the son of a previous President and a strong record as governor of Texas and being well liked by the hispanic populace, a group that Republicans had struggled to vote their way. The press began to attack Bush and his speaking style where he had a tendency to sometimes mispronounce or garble words. Indeed, going into the debates there was even mention of the idea that Bush was a "moron", a contention that the Gore camp quitely Chuckled along with.

==Debates==

The two candidates had a series of three debates. Gore, a seasoned Ivy league debater, was declared the winner by the press and 'ivory tower' pundits in each of the debates -- even as Bush's poll numbers increased. Bush's speaking style, while causing disgust to the elites, played well in middle America who considered him real. Also, the downgrading of Bush's intellect within the press before the debates led Bush to easily exceed expectations. Gore also confounded himself, as he showed a different style in each of the debates leading the American people to wonder who he was. It was especially apparent in the last debate, when, after hearing that he didn't attack enough in the previous debates, Gore actually walked over to where Bush was while Bush was giving an answer and started to question him. Bush gave a quick retort and Gore continued to ask more questions. Bush finally turned to the moderator who restored order. The press was ecstatic after the debate saying that Bush had to cry out to be saved, but the American people had a different view of such blatant breaking the rules and Bush's numbers continued to increase.

== Last minute surprise ==

While Gore had enjoyed a lead through much of the campaign, a few days before the election Bush's bounce from the debates was enough to put him in the lead by a small margin. It was then that a "surprise" was dropped that Bush had a DUI in 1976, over two decades ago.<ref>http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/02/bush.dui/</ref> Blasted on the airwaves continuously before the election itself and with little time to defend it, undecided voters in the last days went heavily for Gore and actually gave him a majority of the popular vote.

== The Networks rush to be wrong ==

The networks, in a rush to be the first station to present results, began to call the election for Gore while voting was still going on in most of the country. As it turned out afterwards, the networks were all using the same polling data, which made a math error in their presentation of the results in the state of Florida. As was shown in the Carter-Reagan election in 1980, the belief your candidate has been defeated has a tendency to demoralize the voters for that candidate and make them less likely to come out to vote. Pat Buchanan pointed out afterwards that voters in western Florida, which is prime Republican territory, heard that Florida had gone for Gore and that Gore had won while they were still voting. Many got out of line and went home without casting their ballots. By the time the networks realized their error as the Florida numbers kept coming in showing Bush as leading, voting across the country had already shut down. The networks then called the state for Bush, which turned out to compound their error when a sudden influx of Gore votes from Democratic precincts made the state too close to call at the end of the evening. Indeed, the seeds of [[Bush v. Gore]] had been sown.

==Recount==

This was the 16th time in history that a candidate won the [[Electoral College]] vote without receiving the majority of the nation's popular vote.<ref>It also happened in 1844, 1856, 1860, 1876, 1880, 1884, 1888, 1892, 1912, 1916, 1948, 1960, 1968, 1992, and 1996. It was the first time since [[United States presidential election%2C 2000|Kennedy in 1960]] that the presidential winner failed to win a plurality of the popular vote. </ref>

The campaigns of both [[Ralph Nader]] on the [[Green Party]] ticket and [[Pat Buchanan]] on the [[Reform Party]] ticket gained major media attention during the campaign. Although this failed to translate into any electoral votes for either, with the final margin of victory being so small, the role of both and what impact they had on the election received prominence during the time when neither major party candidate would concede.

There has also been much speculation on what might have happened if there had been additional recounts. A consortium of newspapers did an investigation, and concluded that Bush would have won under the recounts that Gore had proposed. However, the Florida supreme court had attempted a closed-door recount using unspecified procedures, and no one knows how it might have manipulated the outcome.

In a rare situation in Presidential elections, Al Gore lost his home state of [[Tennessee]] to George Bush. Had he carried that state, the whole question of how Florida voted would have been moot.

The Election Results eventually showed<ref>Leip, Dave. [http://www.uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/ Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections]. Retrieved 7/1/2007</ref>
:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Candidates
! Popular Vote
! Percent
! Electoral Vote
|-
| George W. Bush
| 50,460,110
| 47.9%
| 271
|-
| Albert Gore, Jr.
| 51,003,926
| 48.4%
| 266
|-
|Ralph Nader
| 2,883,105
| 2.7%
| 0
|-
|Patrick J. Buchanan
| 449,205
| 0.4%
| 0
|-
|Other
| 620,892
| 0.6%
| 0
|}

== Aftermath==

Unknown to the voting public at the time, the economy had already begun a steep decline before the election. The uncertainty over who would be President and the court battle that ensued caused a steep drop in the stock market leading to the loss of 5 trillion dollars of equity on paper. Such a huge loss would start the next Presidency in a very difficult situation economically and would only be compounded with the complete breaking of the dot com bubble.

==Further reading==
*[http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=65000590 ''A Blatant Conflict of Interest], [[Theresa LePore]] should recuse herself from the Palm Beach vote-count process'', John Fund, OpinionJournal, November 12, 2000.

==See Also==

[[Bush v. Gore]]

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:2000, United States presidential election,}}
[[Category:United States Presidential Elections]]

United States presidential election, 2000

2009-04-10T22:25:20Z

JeffC:

[[Image:00-main.jpg|right|thumb|300px|George W. Bush and Al Gore]] In 2000, the United States presidential election was one of the closest and most controversial presidential elections in history. A month of recounts and court challenges followed, culminating in the Supreme Court case ''Bush v. Gore''. Following the court's 5-4 decision, [[George W. Bush]] was declared the winner over [[Vice President]] [[Al Gore]] by 537 votes in the state of [[Florida]]. Domestic issues as opposed to [[foreign policy]] dominated the campaign. Key issues were prescription drug prices, campaign finance reform, [[Social Security]], and [[education]]. Each candidate claimed their economic plan would reduce the deficit. Bush parodied himself as a "compassionate conservative." The Bush campaign did not make an issue over the sex scandal and impeachment of [[Bill Clinton]]'s Presidency less then two years ago.

In an interesting twist, based upon what was to occur, a few days before the election polls were suggesting that Bush would win the popular vote by a small margin come election day, but that Gore could win the electoral college. The Bush campaign floated the idea of the unfairness of such a situation occurring and it the Gore camp that strongly reiterated that the popular vote didn't matter -- it was the electoral college that determined the rightful President.

==Primaries==

The contest for the Republican nomination came down to two men: Governor George W. Bush and [[Arizona]] Senator [[John McCain]], an ex-POW in [[North Vietnam]]. Most Republican leaders endorsed Bush, who was popular with [[social conservative]]s. Despite early victories for McCain in the [[New Hampshire]] and [[Michigan]] primaries, Bush went on to win [[South Carolina]] and 9 out of 13 super Tuesday states. McCain dropped out in March after a bitter primary.

Incumbent Vice President Al Gore faced a challenge from former [[New Jersey]] Senator [[Bill Bradley]]. Bradly ran to left of Gore on universal [[health care]], [[gun control]], and campaign finance reform. Gore eventually trumped Bradly, winning all 50 primary states.

==Campaign==

As a Vice President for eight years to a popular President during a time when the economy was still believed to be doing well, Gore appeared to have some strong starting plusses. Indeed, he easily won the Democratic primary. But due to Clinton's scandal and [[impeach]]ment near the end of his term, Gore sought to distance himself from the sitting President. Clinton, for his part, did little to help Gore. Indeed, when Clinton gave his big speech where he was supposed to pass the baton to Gore, he could never quite do so - instead talking about his own accomplishments and saying little more than 'and Al Gore was there too'. During the campaign political pundits stressed the need of Gore to show that he was the 'alpha dog', but he never quite achieved that breakthrough and it would 'dog' him throughout his campaign. Gore tried to find a balance between adopting the economy and yet steering clear of Clinton's moral failings, but could never quite find the right mix. He was also hampered by the public perception that the economy under Clinton was due more to good fortune than any Clinton initiatives. With Republicans controlling Congress for the last 6 years of Clinton's terms, there was a view that Clinton's role was one of not doing anything to stop the expansion more than doing something to cause it.

Bush also came out of the Republican primary relatively unscathed, and had a 'pedigree' of being the son of a previous President and a strong record as governor of Texas and being well liked by the hispanic populace, a group that Republicans had struggled to vote their way. The press began to attack Bush and his speaking style where he had a tendency to sometimes mispronounce or garble words. Indeed, going into the debates there was even mention of the idea that Bush was a "moron", a contention that the Gore camp quitely Chuckled along with.

==Debates==

The two candidates had a series of three debates. Gore, a seasoned Ivy league debater, was declared the winner by the press and 'ivory tower' pundits in each of the debates -- even as Bush's poll numbers increased. Bush's speaking style, while causing disgust to the elites, played well in middle America who considered him real. Also, the downgrading of Bush's intellect within the press before the debates led Bush to easily exceed expectations. Gore also confounded himself, as he showed a different style in each of the debates leading the American people to wonder who he was. It was especially apparent in the last debate, when, after hearing that he didn't attack enough in the previous debates, Gore actually walked over to where Bush was while Bush was giving an answer and started to question him. Bush gave a quick retort and Gore continued to ask more questions. Bush finally turned to the moderator who restored order. The press was ecstatic after the debate saying that Bush had to cry out to be saved, but the American people had a different view of such blatant breaking the rules and Bush's numbers continued to increase.

== Last minute surprise ==

While Gore had enjoyed a lead through much of the campaign, a few days before the election Bush's bounce from the debates was enough to put him in the lead by a small margin. It was then that a "surprise" was dropped that Bush had a DUI in 1976, over two decades ago.<ref>http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/02/bush.dui/</ref> Blasted on the airwaves continuously before the election itself and with little time to defend it, undecided voters in the last days went heavily for Gore and actually gave him a majority of the popular vote.

== The Networks rush to be wrong ==

The networks, in a rush to be the first station to present results, began to call the election for Gore while voting was still going on in most of the country. As it turned out afterwards, the networks were all using the same polling data, which made a math error in their presentation of the results in the state of Florida. As was shown in the Carter-Reagan election in 1980, the belief your candidate has been defeated has a tendency to demoralize the voters for that candidate and make them less likely to come out to vote. Pat Buchanan pointed out afterwards that voters in western Florida, which is prime Republican territory, heard that Florida had gone for Gore and that Gore had won while they were still voting. Many got out of line and went home without casting their ballots. By the time the networks realized their error as the Florida numbers kept coming in showing Bush as leading, voting across the country had already shut down. The networks then called the state for Bush, which turned out to compound their error when a sudden influx of Gore votes from Democratic precincts made the state too close to call at the end of the evening. Indeed, the seeds of [[Bush v. Gore]] had been sown.

==Recount==

This was the 16th time in history that a candidate won the [[Electoral College]] vote without receiving the majority of the nation's popular vote.<ref>It also happened in 1844, 1856, 1860, 1876, 1880, 1884, 1888, 1892, 1912, 1916, 1948, 1960, 1968, 1992, and 1996. It was the first time since [[United States presidential election%2C 2000|Kennedy in 1960]] that the presidential winner failed to win a plurality of the popular vote. </ref>

The campaigns of both [[Ralph Nader]] on the [[Green Party]] ticket and [[Pat Buchanan]] on the [[Reform Party]] ticket gained major media attention during the campaign. Although this failed to translate into any electoral votes for either, with the final margin of victory being so small, the role of both and what impact they had on the election received prominence during the time when neither major party candidate would concede.

There has also been much speculation on what might have happened if there had been additional recounts. A consortium of newspapers did an investigation, and concluded that Bush would have won under the recounts that Gore had proposed. However, the Florida supreme court had attempted a closed-door recount using unspecified procedures, and no one knows how it might have manipulated the outcome.

In a rare situation in Presidential elections, Al Gore lost his home state of [[Tennessee]] to George Bush. Had he carried that state, the whole question of how Florida voted would have been moot.

The Election Results eventually showed<ref>Leip, Dave. [http://www.uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/ Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections]. Retrieved 7/1/2007</ref>
:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Candidates
! Popular Vote
! Percent
! Electoral Vote
|-
| George W. Bush
| 50,460,110
| 47.9%
| 271
|-
| Albert Gore, Jr.
| 51,003,926
| 48.4%
| 266
|-
|Ralph Nader
| 2,883,105
| 2.7%
| 0
|-
|Patrick J. Buchanan
| 449,205
| 0.4%
| 0
|-
|Other
| 620,892
| 0.6%
| 0
|}

== Aftermath==

Unknown to the voting public at the time, the economy had already begun a steep decline before the election. The uncertainty over who would be President and the court battle that ensued caused a steep drop in the stock market leading to the loss of 5 trillion dollars of equity on paper. Such a huge loss would start the next Presidency in a very difficult situation economically and would only be compounded with the complete breaking of the dot com bubble.

==Further reading==
*[http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=65000590 ''A Blatant Conflict of Interest], [[Theresa LePore]] should recuse herself from the Palm Beach vote-count process'', John Fund, OpinionJournal, November 12, 2000.

==See Also==

[[Bush v. Gore]]

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:2000, United States presidential election,}}
[[Category:United States Presidential Elections]]

United States presidential election, 2000

2009-04-10T22:24:52Z

JeffC:

[[Image:00-main.jpg|right|thumb|300px|George W. Bush and Al Gore]] In 2000, the United States presidential election was one of the closest and most controversial presidential elections in history. A month of recounts and court challenges followed, culminating in the Supreme Court case ''Bush v. Gore'. Following the court's 5-4 decision, [[George W. Bush]] was declared the winner over [[Vice President]] [[Al Gore]] by 537 votes in the state of [[Florida]]. Domestic issues as opposed to [[foreign policy]] dominated the campaign. Key issues were prescription drug prices, campaign finance reform, [[Social Security]], and [[education]]. Each candidate claimed their economic plan would reduce the deficit. Bush parodied himself as a "compassionate conservative." The Bush campaign did not make an issue over the sex scandal and impeachment of [[Bill Clinton]]'s Presidency less then two years ago.

In an interesting twist, based upon what was to occur, a few days before the election polls were suggesting that Bush would win the popular vote by a small margin come election day, but that Gore could win the electoral college. The Bush campaign floated the idea of the unfairness of such a situation occurring and it the Gore camp that strongly reiterated that the popular vote didn't matter -- it was the electoral college that determined the rightful President.

==Primaries==

The contest for the Republican nomination came down to two men: Governor George W. Bush and [[Arizona]] Senator [[John McCain]], an ex-POW in [[North Vietnam]]. Most Republican leaders endorsed Bush, who was popular with [[social conservative]]s. Despite early victories for McCain in the [[New Hampshire]] and [[Michigan]] primaries, Bush went on to win [[South Carolina]] and 9 out of 13 super Tuesday states. McCain dropped out in March after a bitter primary.

Incumbent Vice President Al Gore faced a challenge from former [[New Jersey]] Senator [[Bill Bradley]]. Bradly ran to left of Gore on universal [[health care]], [[gun control]], and campaign finance reform. Gore eventually trumped Bradly, winning all 50 primary states.

==Campaign==

As a Vice President for eight years to a popular President during a time when the economy was still believed to be doing well, Gore appeared to have some strong starting plusses. Indeed, he easily won the Democratic primary. But due to Clinton's scandal and [[impeach]]ment near the end of his term, Gore sought to distance himself from the sitting President. Clinton, for his part, did little to help Gore. Indeed, when Clinton gave his big speech where he was supposed to pass the baton to Gore, he could never quite do so - instead talking about his own accomplishments and saying little more than 'and Al Gore was there too'. During the campaign political pundits stressed the need of Gore to show that he was the 'alpha dog', but he never quite achieved that breakthrough and it would 'dog' him throughout his campaign. Gore tried to find a balance between adopting the economy and yet steering clear of Clinton's moral failings, but could never quite find the right mix. He was also hampered by the public perception that the economy under Clinton was due more to good fortune than any Clinton initiatives. With Republicans controlling Congress for the last 6 years of Clinton's terms, there was a view that Clinton's role was one of not doing anything to stop the expansion more than doing something to cause it.

Bush also came out of the Republican primary relatively unscathed, and had a 'pedigree' of being the son of a previous President and a strong record as governor of Texas and being well liked by the hispanic populace, a group that Republicans had struggled to vote their way. The press began to attack Bush and his speaking style where he had a tendency to sometimes mispronounce or garble words. Indeed, going into the debates there was even mention of the idea that Bush was a "moron", a contention that the Gore camp quitely Chuckled along with.

==Debates==

The two candidates had a series of three debates. Gore, a seasoned Ivy league debater, was declared the winner by the press and 'ivory tower' pundits in each of the debates -- even as Bush's poll numbers increased. Bush's speaking style, while causing disgust to the elites, played well in middle America who considered him real. Also, the downgrading of Bush's intellect within the press before the debates led Bush to easily exceed expectations. Gore also confounded himself, as he showed a different style in each of the debates leading the American people to wonder who he was. It was especially apparent in the last debate, when, after hearing that he didn't attack enough in the previous debates, Gore actually walked over to where Bush was while Bush was giving an answer and started to question him. Bush gave a quick retort and Gore continued to ask more questions. Bush finally turned to the moderator who restored order. The press was ecstatic after the debate saying that Bush had to cry out to be saved, but the American people had a different view of such blatant breaking the rules and Bush's numbers continued to increase.

== Last minute surprise ==

While Gore had enjoyed a lead through much of the campaign, a few days before the election Bush's bounce from the debates was enough to put him in the lead by a small margin. It was then that a "surprise" was dropped that Bush had a DUI in 1976, over two decades ago.<ref>http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/02/bush.dui/</ref> Blasted on the airwaves continuously before the election itself and with little time to defend it, undecided voters in the last days went heavily for Gore and actually gave him a majority of the popular vote.

== The Networks rush to be wrong ==

The networks, in a rush to be the first station to present results, began to call the election for Gore while voting was still going on in most of the country. As it turned out afterwards, the networks were all using the same polling data, which made a math error in their presentation of the results in the state of Florida. As was shown in the Carter-Reagan election in 1980, the belief your candidate has been defeated has a tendency to demoralize the voters for that candidate and make them less likely to come out to vote. Pat Buchanan pointed out afterwards that voters in western Florida, which is prime Republican territory, heard that Florida had gone for Gore and that Gore had won while they were still voting. Many got out of line and went home without casting their ballots. By the time the networks realized their error as the Florida numbers kept coming in showing Bush as leading, voting across the country had already shut down. The networks then called the state for Bush, which turned out to compound their error when a sudden influx of Gore votes from Democratic precincts made the state too close to call at the end of the evening. Indeed, the seeds of [[Bush v. Gore]] had been sown.

==Recount==

This was the 16th time in history that a candidate won the [[Electoral College]] vote without receiving the majority of the nation's popular vote.<ref>It also happened in 1844, 1856, 1860, 1876, 1880, 1884, 1888, 1892, 1912, 1916, 1948, 1960, 1968, 1992, and 1996. It was the first time since [[United States presidential election%2C 2000|Kennedy in 1960]] that the presidential winner failed to win a plurality of the popular vote. </ref>

The campaigns of both [[Ralph Nader]] on the [[Green Party]] ticket and [[Pat Buchanan]] on the [[Reform Party]] ticket gained major media attention during the campaign. Although this failed to translate into any electoral votes for either, with the final margin of victory being so small, the role of both and what impact they had on the election received prominence during the time when neither major party candidate would concede.

There has also been much speculation on what might have happened if there had been additional recounts. A consortium of newspapers did an investigation, and concluded that Bush would have won under the recounts that Gore had proposed. However, the Florida supreme court had attempted a closed-door recount using unspecified procedures, and no one knows how it might have manipulated the outcome.

In a rare situation in Presidential elections, Al Gore lost his home state of [[Tennessee]] to George Bush. Had he carried that state, the whole question of how Florida voted would have been moot.

The Election Results eventually showed<ref>Leip, Dave. [http://www.uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/ Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections]. Retrieved 7/1/2007</ref>
:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Candidates
! Popular Vote
! Percent
! Electoral Vote
|-
| George W. Bush
| 50,460,110
| 47.9%
| 271
|-
| Albert Gore, Jr.
| 51,003,926
| 48.4%
| 266
|-
|Ralph Nader
| 2,883,105
| 2.7%
| 0
|-
|Patrick J. Buchanan
| 449,205
| 0.4%
| 0
|-
|Other
| 620,892
| 0.6%
| 0
|}

== Aftermath==

Unknown to the voting public at the time, the economy had already begun a steep decline before the election. The uncertainty over who would be President and the court battle that ensued caused a steep drop in the stock market leading to the loss of 5 trillion dollars of equity on paper. Such a huge loss would start the next Presidency in a very difficult situation economically and would only be compounded with the complete breaking of the dot com bubble.

==Further reading==
*[http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=65000590 ''A Blatant Conflict of Interest], [[Theresa LePore]] should recuse herself from the Palm Beach vote-count process'', John Fund, OpinionJournal, November 12, 2000.

==See Also==

[[Bush v. Gore]]

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:2000, United States presidential election,}}
[[Category:United States Presidential Elections]]

Libertarianism

2009-03-30T19:39:27Z

JeffC:

'''Libertarianism''' is a [[Political Philosophy|political philosophy]] that believes in minimizing or entirely eliminating government interventionism in all aspects of life; including economic, personal and in foreign policy matters. Libertarians tend to oppose the rules established by traditional marriage and religious values. The [[French]] [[term]] of ''[[Laissez faire|Laissez-Faire]]'', or ''let us do'', is a term that describes some aspects of the libertarian belief. <ref>"Libertarians are neither. Unlike Liberals or Conservatives, Libertarians advocate a high degree of both personal and economic liberty. For example, Libertarians advocate freedom in economic matters, so we're in favor of lowering taxes, slashing bureaucratic regulation of business, and charitable -- rather than government -- welfare. But Libertarians are also socially tolerant. We won't demand laws or restrictions on other people who we may not agree because of personal actions or lifestyles.

Think of us as a group of people with a "live and let live" mentality and a balanced checkbook." [http://www.lp.org/article_85.shtml]</ref> Libertarianism tends to emphasize an amoral form of individual ''liberty'', and tends to support rights of private property.

The first systematic libertarian was [[Herbert Spencer]] (1820-1903), an English political philosopher whose books such as ''The Man Versus the State'' (1884) had a major impact in Europe and America in the late 19th century.<ref>Chris Matthew Sciabarra, "The First Libertarian," ''Liberty'' (Aug 1999) [http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/essays/spencer.htm online] </ref>

[[Ronald Reagan]] stated, "If you analyze it, I believe the very heart and soul of [[conservatism]] is libertarianism."

== Libertarian Philosophy ==

Libertarianism is best summed up in the so-called Non-Aggression Principle, which states that government (or "private police agencies" in the anarcho-capitalist variant) should only exist to protect life, liberty, and property from force and fraud.

Libertarianism is closely related to liberalism, if this word is interpreted according to its original meaning of [[classical liberal|classical liberalism]]. Libertarians in America tend to be [[liberal]] on social issues but [[conservative]] on economic issues. Libertarians generally oppose government regulation of drugs, prostitution, marriage (including bans of [[same-sex marriage]] or [[polygamy]]), and [[euthanasia]]. The Libertarian Party officially supports legalized [[abortion]], however, libertarians themselves are divided on the issue, since government protection from force depends on the personhood of the unborn baby (or fetus). They oppose restrictions on [[pornography]]. However, they also oppose [[universal health care]], [[taxes]] and the [[welfare state]]. They are strong supporters of [[school choice]], and oppose continuing the [[public school]] system. Some libertarians support [[school vouchers]], while others are skeptical due to the issue of government influence over [[private education]].

Libertarians support an expansive view of liberty as the proper basis for organizing civil society. They tend to define liberty as the freedom to do whatever one wishes up to the point that one's behavior begins to interfere with another's person or property through coercive means. At the point of interference, each party would become subject to certain principled rules for adjudicating disputes, generally accepting that one who has demonstrated a proven lack of respect for the rights of others should be subject to sanctions, including possible constraints on their freedom. They believe that liberty is the right of every individual.

Libertarians generally defend the ideal of freedom from the perspective of how little one is constrained by authority, i.e., how much one is allowed to do (also referred to as negative liberty). This ideal is distinguished from a view of freedom focused on how much one is able to do (also called positive liberty).

== Libertarian Factions ==

Libertarians tend to use the word "libertarian" (small "l") to refer to the philosophy, and "Libertarian" (capital "L") to refer to the party. Thus, more libertarians exist than members of the [[Libertarian Party]]. Two general factions exist in the libertarian movement. The first are those libertarians who apply the principles of right to person and property to an absolute. They believe that no person, group, or government is above the right to violate these two things. They thus believe that government itself is illegitimate because it violates person and property. These libertarians subscribe to [[anarcho-capitalism]], as first named by [[Murray N. Rothbard]]. They believe that law and security can be handled by private means in the free market. The other faction believes in a very limited government. They are often referred to as [[Minarchism|minarchists]]. Libertarian minarchists want the state to only enforce law and order but generally nothing else. [[Ayn Rand]] was a minarchist.

Libertarians tend to view liberalism as a philosophy advocating less government interference in private morality and more government control of business, and view conservatism as a philosophy advocating more government interference in private morality and less government control of business, while they view libertarianism as advocating less government control in all areas. However, there have been fusionist attempts to mix libertarianism and with social conservatism. This is noted in particular by [[paleolibertarianism|paleolibertarians]]. They believe that social conservatism is a natural entity in a free society, but do not believe that it can be enforced by state interventionism.

== Libertarian Thought in America ==

While there are libertarian factions within the [[Democratic]] and [[Republican]] [[parties]], neither party is particularly well aligned with libertarian thought. While the Republican Party sometimes adopts libertarian-sounding rhetoric of small government in economic affairs, many libertarians see it as being a force that has increased government interventionism in these affairs. Libertarians generally, for example, are opposed to the [[USA PATRIOT Act]], which they believe increases government power and removes protections on the liberty and privacy of the public. Most conservatives, on the other hand, view it as a necessary government program and believe security to be more important than personal liberty and privacy. Libertarians point out that such a view contradicts those of the founding fathers, such as Benjamin Franklin, who summarized it most eloquently, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Libertarians are also generally opposed to the [[Iraq War]], unlike the majority of conservatives.

While all libertarians agree in general on the principles of the desirability of maximizing individual liberty and avoiding excessive government interference with the operation of the free market, individual libertarians have opinions that differ wildly within these general principles.

The libertarian movement generally praises the [[United States Constitution]], regarding it as the proper scope of the national government. They believe that the Democratic and Republican parties have overstepped constitutional limits. Anarcho-capitalist libertarians, on the other hand, view the implementation of the constitution as the very reason the national government is the size it is today.

== Notable Libertarians ==
Libertarian-oriented historic figures include [[Adam Smith]], Thomas Paine, [[George Mason]], [[Herbert Spencer]], [[William Graham Sumner]], [[Carl Menger]], [[C.S. Lewis]], [[Ludwig von Mises]], H. L. Mencken, Rose Wilder Lane, [[Albert Jay Nock]], [[Frédéric Bastiat]], Richard Cobden, and [[Henry David Thoreau]].

The most influential libertarian of the 20th century was [[Milton Friedman]] (1912-2006), a leader of the [[Chicago School of Economics]].

*[[Ron Paul]], 1988 Libertarian Party and 2008 Republican Party presidential candidate. Ron Paul is considered to be of the Constitutionalist and [[paleolibertarianism|paleolibertarian]] schools of libertarian thought.
*The psychiatrist Thomas Szasz, opponent of the therapeutic state and compulsory mental institutionalization.
*Nobel Laureate economists [[Milton Friedman]], [[F.A. Hayek]], [[Ronald Coase]], Gary Becker, James Buchanan, [[George Stigler]], and Vernon Smith.
*The novelist [[Ayn Rand]] advocated a philosophy of ''Objectivism'', embodying some libertarian thought, although differing from libertarianism in many ways. Some of her novels, such as ''Atlas Shrugged'', have become icons of some people in the libertarian movement, while others find her materialism and [[atheism]] incompatible with moral ethics and natural rights and law.
*[[Robert LeFevre]], significant in promoting libertarian philosophy in the 1950s and 1960s before it was a well-defined movement, with his "Freedom School" seminars on political and economic philosophy.
*[[Karl Hess]], speechwriter for [[Barry Goldwater]] credited with penning Goldwater's famous 1964 statement "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice". Hess later became a major figure in the Libertarian Party.
*[[Murray N. Rothbard]] was nicknamed "Mr. Libertarian." He brought to life the anarcho-capitalist movement. Rothbard was an economist of the [[Austrian School of Economics|Austrian School]].
*[[Samuel Edward Konkin III]], a significant figure in 1970s libertarianism, whose influence waned considerably after the rise of the Libertarian Party as he opposed political parties and voting as being against libertarian principles. He proposed instead a purely marketplace-based route to a free society, such as [[tax resistance]] and doing business "off the books".
*[[Robert A. Heinlein]], science fiction author, whose 1966 novel ''The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress'' was an influence on the movement.
*[[L. Neil Smith]], [[J. Neil Schulman]], and [[Brad Linaweaver]], science fiction writers.
*Several popular financial writers including [[Harry Browne]] and [[Howard J. Ruff]]. Browne would later run for President, twice, on the Libertarian Party ticket. Ruff declared his political philosophy as libertarian but as a socially conservative [[Mormon]] made an exception on issues like abortion and prostitution, where he disagreed with the libertarian view.
*[[Penn and Teller]], stage magicians turned libertarian evangelicals preaching [[atheism]] and promoting libertarian philosophies, including controversial positions such as legalization of prostitution and drugs in their Showtime series, which sports a name that cannot for reasons of good taste be expressed here.
*The Canadian rock band [[Rush]], which has been together since 1968, often explores libertarian themes in their lyrics.
*Humorist Dave Barry, actor/comedian Drew Carey, actor Denis Leary, former MTV VJ Lisa "Kennedy" Montgomery, actor Kurt Russell, investigative reporter [[John Stossel]], and the late rocker Frank Zappa have all referred to themselves as being aligned with or openly supporting the Libertarian Party.
*Trey Parker and Matt Stone, the creators of [[South Park]], proclaimed that they are libertarians. While South Park often offend conservative positions like religion, are vulgar, and support evolution they also make fun of liberals positions such as political correctness and environmentalism. <ref>[http://www.reason.com/news/show/116787.html] Parker and Stone, Reason Magazine</ref>. The phrases "South Park Conservative" (the name of a book) and "South Park Republican" are used to describe the followers of these beliefs.
*[[Ed Clark]], the Libertarian Party's 1980 nominee for President. Clark obtained the highest popular vote percentage to date for a Libertarian candidate.

== External links ==
* [http://www.faqs.org/faqs/libertarian/faq/ Libertarian FAQ]
* [http://dmoz.org/Society/Politics/Liberalism/Libertarianism/ Open Directory libertarian links ]
* [http://chelm.freeyellow.com/black_index.html Black Libertarians]
* [http://libertarianwiki.org/Main_Page Libertarian Wiki]
* [http://www.l4l.org/ Libertarians for Life]
* [http://www.independent.org/ The Independent Institute]
* [http://www.mises.org/ Ludwig von Mises Institute]
* [http://www.fee.org/ Foundation for Economic Education]

== See also ==
* [[Herbert Spencer]]
* [[Democratic Freedom Caucus]]
* [[Republican Liberty Caucus]]
==Further reading==
* Boaz, David. '' The Libertarian Reader: Classic and Contemporary Writings from Lao Tzu to Milton Friedman'' (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Libertarian-Reader-Contemporary-Writings-Friedman/dp/0684847671/ref=sr_1_18?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223323253&sr=8-18 excerpt and text search]
* Doherty, Brian. ''Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement'' (2008)
* Hamowy, Ronald, ed. ''The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism'' (Sage, 2008), 644pp, sponsored by the Cato Institute; [http://www.sage-ereference.com/PublicBrowse.html Online at some academic libraries]
* Murray, Charles. ''What It Means to Be a Libertarian'' (1997) [http://www.amazon.com/What-Means-Libertarian-Charles-Murray/dp/0767900391/ref=sr_1_16?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223322878&sr=8-16 excerpt and text search]
* Tilman, Rick. ''Ideology and Utopia in the Social Philosophy of the Libertarian Economists'' (2001) [http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Libertarian-Economists-Contributions-Economics/dp/0313315582/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223322878&sr=8-5 excerpt and text search]

== References ==
<references/>
[[Category:Libertarianism]]