Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Should gay marriage be allowed?

2010-06-03T17:49:17Z

Jinxmchue: /* Yes */

{{Debate-religion}}
{{Debate-politics}}
{{Debate}}
This is basically a forum. You can chat with your friends, and reminise with them about that special person that you will never meet because you were too busy here answering if gay marrage should be legaized. So, answer. The sooner you do, the faster you might meet that special someone. 
 
==Yes==
Yes, it should be allowed. For all too long, there has been discrimination in this country. For instance, racism was considered normal for a long time. However, although people might think that there is no discrimination going on in America today, there is prejudice against the homosexual population. The discrimination is that they are denied their free right to, well, equal rights. The right of being married. One of this country's fundimental principals was to have everyone come here and be equals. Although that promise wasn't nessicerally held up (slaves are still people, yet they were still imprisoned for many years after this country was founded), do we need to fight another war in order to try to get homosexual marrage allowed (a very long strech, but you get the point). Discrimination was tolerated at one point in America. Can't we leave that point behind us? --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

You say it should be legalized because of equality. But, it’s because of equality that it shouldn’t be legalized. Homosexuals already have the exact same rights as heterosexuals. A homosexual man can marry any woman he chooses (assuming that she is of legal age and is consenting) just as any heterosexual man can. They already have the exact same rights. Allowing homosexuals to marry one another would be giving them special rights based on a behavioral preference. They choose to engage in homosexuality. Note that when I say they’re “choosing”, I’m not talking about whether they’re born that way or not. I mean they’re choosing their lifestyle. Born that way or not, they still choose to engage in that particular sexual behavior, just like heterosexuals choose to engage in their sexual acts. So, it is a behavioral choice, and legalizing it would be giving them a special right based on a behavior. That is inequality. [[User:BillyJ|BillyJ]] 01:44, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

:I don't quite see why they would marry someone that is heterosexual if they are homosexual. I mean, look at it this way. Let's say that it was illigal for everyone that was not Roman Catholic to be married. Should it not be legalized for other religons to do that. Because, I mean, religion is simply the truth that you prefer to believe (for catholics, it is that Jesus was the messiah, for example). Should it not be legal for other religions to marry, even though they prefer not to be Roman Catholics? --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

The point is that they can marry. You're giving examples of people who can't marry at all, but that doesn't fit the current scenario of things. Homosexuals might not want to marry the opposite gender, but they have the right to, just like a heterosexual person can. The point is that they all have the same rights, and to allow them to wed the same sex would be to give out special rights. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:05, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::Yes, homosexuals can marry those of opposite gender, but, if gay marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will be able to marry people of the same gender, so everyone will still have equal rights. If gay marriage doesn't hurt anybody, why shouldn't it be allowed? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 23:11, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

Because you're giving out rights based on a behavioral preference. It's saying, "I prefer to do this, so it should be legal because I want to do it." Besides, who says that gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone? I would dispute that. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:26, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

If you want to do something why shouldn't it be legal? The only answer I can think of is if it hurts someone. If gay marriage indeed hurts someone, who does it hurt? (And I'm not giving out rights based on behavioral preference; everyone would get the right to a homosexual marriage just like everyone gets the right to a heterosexual marriage.) [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 23:32, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

It hurts society. We already have moral standards that are in place that have been there a long time. The standard for marriage is one man and one woman who are of legal age. If we redefine the standard, then we move the line back a little. If you set the precedence that it's okay to move that line in regards to morality as we see fit, then where does it end? Polygamy? Bestiality? Pedophilia? And it is a special right, because it is giving out a right because a particular group of people hold to that behavior. It's like drug users who want drugs to be legalized because they like to use them. That's giving in to a person's behavior. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:40, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::Actually, the Biblical standard for marriage is "One man, and as many wives and concubines as he can afford". You need to start getting all huffy about how abandoning this Godly standard has hurt our country. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 23:30, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Is society really hurt just because it stops reflecting your morals? There have been other opinions that had "been there a long time" before they got changed: see [[slavery]]. The government has to protect its citizens and residents and so it cannot allow bestiality or pedophilia because neither a (non-human) animal nor a child is mentally capable of consenting to sex. Polygamy is a little trickier. While I don't object to it in principle, it generally seems to lead to abusive husbands and male-dominated societies and so the government could certainly outlaw it.
And homosexuality is not like drug use because drug users actually ''do'' harm society; they make roads more dangerous and tend to commit more crimes than non-drug users. [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 23:56, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::Don't forget that [[Miscegenation]] used to be illegal, too. :-P --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 23:30, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

How are you asking that first question? Are you asking my morals in particular, or in a generalistic sense? If it's my morals that society no longer reflects, well, I think it's morally wrong to steal, rape, murder, etc. So, yea, socitey would be hurt real bad. What I'm saying about changing values is that it makes things easier to pass that were at one time considered terrible. Let me give you an example:

An 18 year old can marry anyone they want without their parents permission. But, a 17 year old can't. But is a 17 year old that much different from an 18 year old? Most would say they're not. So shouldn't a 17 year old be able to marry as he chooses as well? Really, that makes pretty good sense. But, a 16 year old isn't that different from a 17 year old, so why can't he marry as he wants? And on and on it goes until you get to, "Well, a 5 year old isn't that much different than a 6 year old, so hey should be able to get married." My point is that it's just a real slippery sloap. Simillarly, how do you tell the very next thing after homosexuality that they can't when you just made the exception for homosexuals? [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:07, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

To answer your first question, yes, I am asking about your morals. I really don't care what society thinks. If society thinks that it is okay to steal, rape, and murder, I don't care. I do care about what the government thinks, because, even if society condones murder, people will not be allowed to murder each other as long as the government opposes it. The government does not need any moral standard to outlaw theft, rape, and murder, as I said before: the government has to protect its citizens. As a result, the government should, and would, outlaw theft, rape, and murder without any morals.

As to your slippery slope example, in 1971 the minimun voting age was lowered from 21 to 18. 37 years later, there are still no supporters of suffrage for 15 year olds. I can't see why allowing gay marriage would be so different. Finally, I haven't made an exception for homosexuals until you prove that they harm society. If you do that I will oppose gay marriage. [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 00:31, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Wait. Government doesn't need any moral standards? I disagree. There have been lots of governments that kill their own citizens when it's convenient for them to do so. Everybody needs an objective standard, otherwise your just making you morals up out of your own preferences. The voting age was changed from 21 to 18 because 18 years olds were dieing in Vietnam but couldn't elect the officials who sent them there. That made no sense. The reason it isn't continuing to be lowered is because people realize that there must be some standard. If you lower to 17, then why not 16. If 16, why not 15? But we realize that you have to keep some standard otherwise where does it end? The same goes for marriage. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:41, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

I would like to add something. If the government does not have any moral stadards, then the government will end up deciding to destroy it's people and if anyone speeks out against it, then they will stop at nothing to make sure you will not say anything. However, I would like to say this. In a way, heterosexual marrages are based upon one's behavioral preferance. For instance, let's say that a man likes women. Isn't that a preference? Why, then should a homosexual not be able to marry because of their behavioral preference? --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

::"Because gays are icky" seems to be the basis for all the arguments I've heard. If these folks REALLY think that gay marriage will Destroy the Institution of Marriage (possibly by giving it AIDS), you have to wonder why they don't try to outlaw [[Divorce]], FIRST. There are a LOT more divorced heterosexuals than there are gays, period.
::Especially [http://www.acupofambition.com/index.php?s=marriages celebrity marriages]! They're doing more damage to the Sacredness of Marriage than all they homosexuals in the world could. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 23:30, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Ultimahero, my morals say that it is wrong to deny homosexuals the right to marry. Since these are the same morals that are against pedophilia, wouldn't your slippery slope argument say that we must allow gay marriage or risk pedophilia becoming legal? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 00:35, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Okay, let me try to hit all those points one at a time. First off, yes, people being involved in heterosexual relationships is a behavioral preference, too. But, it's a little different in the sense that heterosexuality is generally considered to be the natural way. It's what we predominantly see in nature, the male and female bodies are obviously meant to couple, the vast majority of people are heterosexual, etc. So, my argument is that there's the so called "normal" way that has been perfectly accepted and legal since this nation's foundation, and everyone is given the same rights to perform that way. Then there is another lifestyle that is only preformed by a small minority, and they are engaging in an activity which they choose to do. (Not the choice to be gay, but the choice to "act" gay, or to engage in that behavior.) So for it to be asked that this alternative choice be given just as much legitimacy as the first option is somewhat of a push. It's almost as if homosexuals are saying "we choose to act differently then you, but we want you to treat us like we're not." But wait. Your making that choice, not me. I don't force it on you. You do it by your own free will. You can't turn around and then act like your not making that choice. That's having your cake and eating it too.

I can't speak for all, but I'm not against homosexuality because it's "icky". I'm against it because I believe it's morally wrong. Yes, divorce is bad, too. People treat marriage far too flippantly, with the attitude of, "if it doesn't work, we'll get a divorce". That's wrong, too. But the problem is that there are some scenarios where divorce could be legitimate. In cases of unfaithful partners, abusive spouses, etc. So there are cases that make it impossible to outlaw divorce.

I think that I get your point about turning my slippery slope argument against me. (Correct me if I'm misinterpreting you.) No, the slippery slope doesn't occur because of my personal values or yours. It occurs because of what is already in place in society. What there is one man, one woman of legal age and they consent. That's the standard. So if you lower that standard to suit homosexual marriage, then where does it end? The slippery slope has to do with what's already in the society, not my personal beliefs. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 02:03, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

OK, so we're talking about society's morals then. But wouldn't the slippery slope mean that nothing that society disapproves of could ever be allowed? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 00:56, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

The argument is that anything will be allowed if you get on the slippery slope, because once you start down it there's no real way to stop. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 01:29, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Is that a yes then? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 19:08, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm sorry; I think I'm missing the question. Yes to what? [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 19:15, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Wouldn't the slippery slope argument mean that nothing that society disapproves of could ever be allowed? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 00:00, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Okay. The slippery slope is saying that if you get onto that road then you can't stop any possible outcome that fits within that context. Things still could get passed and changed, because society could get on the slope. It's just a caution for society to be careful of which way it heads because it might not like where it ends up. But it still could change and allow things. That's why the argument is there. There's no point in arguing it if it can't change anyway. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 01:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Incestuous relationships: "but they love each other shouldn't they be allowed to marry whoever they want without any circumstances that is discrimination they love each other but you won't let them marry it may not be the ideal but how could you prevent two people who really love each other from marrying, marriage is based on love, is it not, honestly why do you care what they do in their bedroom it is there business" It is the same argument as that of homosexual relationship, both are stupid views incestuous marriages and homosexual marriages -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 09:37, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Liberals don't think they follow their emotions -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 09:37, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Immorality anywhere is a threat to morality anywhere, if you actually cared about homosexuals instead of the radical ones, you'd feel sorry for them according to Center for Disease Control, 71% of the people with HIV are homosexual, homosexuals are overrepresented for all STDs extensively-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 09:45, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps gay marriage would encourage monogomy and thus reduce STD's among homosexuals. Also I think the problem with incest is not a moral one but rather a genetic one. The children of close relatives are far more likely than others to get rare genetic diseases. [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 00:44, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

But even monogamy in a homosexual relationship can lead to STD's. As for the incest thing, you're right. Even from a Biblical standpoint that's the view. Early on in creation it was okay for brothers and sisters to marry. How else could the Earth be populated by two people? Cain had to marry his sister. But back then the genetic line was pure enough to allow for that sort of thing, where now it is not. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:53, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

STD's can be transmitted in even in a monogomous relationship (homosexual or heterosexual), but it is far less likely than if someone has many different partners. The odds of 1 in 2 people having an STD are far less than the odds of, say, 1 in 10 [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 23:29, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

Certainly. But the form of sexual intercourse with the highest STD rate would be anal. I know both heterosexual and homosexual couples are capable of that, but homosexuals are more likely to engage in it because, well, count the holes... [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:20, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

Question, why do you even care about gays having STDs? That is our problem to deal with, not yours. We can't have children (not biologically anyway) so we cannot pass it on, we are gay and therefore will not engage in sex with heterosexual persons, and thus won't spread it within the heterosexual community (which is all you seem to care about). Thus, why does it even matter to you? What business is it to you if a person (gay or straight) gets a STD. That is their problem to deal with, not yours. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 6:30, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

Well first of all someone else raised the point and I was simply addressing it. Secondly, it can be passed on, just not through hereditary means. Say someone with HIV gave blood and it got passed on, that would be a problem. (I know that's unlikely because they test for that stuff before they take blood, but I'm just saying it can still be passed by means other than sex.) Thirdly, I care because I don't want gay people to get diseases. It may not have a direct impact on me, but I still don't want them to be sick. I don't like homosexuality and I think it's wrong, but I don't want them to get sick and die. I care about a lot of things that don't necessarily impact me. Children starving to death in Africa doesn't affect me personally, but I still care about them and don't want it to happen. People I don't know who go to Hell might not affect me personally, but I still don't want them to have to suffer like that. I think it‘s just a sign of humanity to care about other people.[[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:30, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

It is fine to "care" about other people, but not when it negatively impacts their lives. Starving children in Africa will not deny your help or aid because they want it, and it makes their lives better. People's interference with private social lives, however, is not wanted. And just a FYI, under current law, any individual with a same-sex sexual experience since 1977 cannot give blood. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 16:43, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

Who said anything about interfering with your life? That's putting words in my mouth. You have every right to live that way if you want to. I care about homosexuals and don't want them to get diseases, but I fully recognize that individuals have the right to make their own choices. Where the discrepancy comes up is when we're dealing with legalizing it and it becoming a societal factor. That's when it interferes with my life and negatively impacts me. That's when I have to say "no." [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 22:36, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

My question is, why is it alright to negatively impact my life, but not yours. What makes the negative impact of my life so inferior to yours that it is okay for mine to continue, but it is an abomination that your life is somehow impacted. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 12:51, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

It's not. I'm not trying to negatively impact your life. That's why I don't push for homosexuality to be made illegal. (As some people have suggested be done.) Your have the right to live that way if you want. But, it's not fair to negatively impact my life, either. That's why I'm against it being legalized and pushed onto society. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:02, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

You may not specifically be trying to negatively impact my life (as neither am I) but you are in your attempts to prevent such legislature legalizing gay marriage. So my question still stands, why is the negative impact on your life worse than the negative impact on mine? Considering just what legally will change, it seems that the negative impact on my life is greater than yours. You will loose no rights whatsoever, you will not have to recognize gay marriages in a religious sense. The gay community, however, is suffering from inability to receive benefits of legally married couples such as child custody protection, inheritance priority, and visitation rights. Unless if you are some form of insurance representative, or a member of any other such industry that would change due to gay marriage, your life is not effected directly at all. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 13:27, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Define negative impact. Because a child molester could say, "Hey, you're not allowing me to legally molests kids! I consider that a negative impact on me!" (I'm certainly not trying to say homosexuals are the same as child molesters, just making an analogy.) The point is that society has determined that there are certain things that have a negative impact on society so those things aren't acceptable. The whole point of this debate is why you should now be able to do something that was previously unacceptable. You might not like the status, but you have to prove why homosexuality should be accepted as an acceptable alternative lifestyle. And it does affect me, as I've explained numerous times. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:43, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

:I think this conversation keeps going off onto tangents about slippery slopes, child molestation and allowing 6-year-olds to marry, so let me ask this succinctly and hopefully I'll get a succinct answer in return.
:I'm in favor of allowing same-sex marriage because when you strip away all the rhetoric and politics, it's simply about letting two people who love each other and are dedicated to a relationship together solemnize their commitment, and enjoy the same legal rights as any other couple the state considers "legally married". The gender of the individuals in this commitment should matter as much to the government as their race (not at all), because it has no bearing on their ability to be a functional couple or good citizens. Even the mostly conservative/republican judges in California understood that when you define something like "domestic partnership" to be separate but equal to "marriage", it enables ''society' to discriminate anyway regardless of the law, so it's not equal in the end.
:One hundred years ago, interracial marriage was illegal in many places because it violated the traditions and norms of society. This is no longer the case because it's clear that interracial marriage itself causes no actual harm to society, so there is no legitimate basis in law to deny the legal benefits of marriage to mixed-race couples. Arguing that marriage does not apply to same-sex couples because they cannot bear children on their own is invalid as well - the government does not require fertility before marrying men and women.
:My simple question to the opponents of same-sex marriage is this, then: ''If you remove "religion" and "tradition" as reasons for a government to establish law granting equal rights, what is the objective, quantifiable harm that is done to society by allowing two people to be legally married, with as little regard for gender as there is for race?''"--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:51, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

I've said it before, I'll say it again: If two people should be allowed to marry because they "love each other", then by that definition two kids should be able to marry as long as they "love each other". That's not a tangent, it's using the same logic to bring up a valid point. Don't even look at it from a religious standpoint. Would kids getting married be a good thing? No. So, if you say two people love each other and that's all that matters, then anyone should be able to marry as long as they love each other. That logic is simply flawed.

No, race and sexual orientation is different. Race is something you have no control over, where as sexual orientation you do. (I'm not saying you can choose your sexuality, but you can choose to act on it. No one forces two homosexuals to engage in homosexual behavior, so it is a choice. On the other hand, you can't "act black", etc. So there's an obvious difference.)

Alright, completely outside of religion or tradition. Would two homosexuals be as good at raising kids as two heterosexuals? No. Ideally, you need a mom and dad.

Besides, legalizing homosexuality is forcing it upon the rest of us. Want to talk about California? Okay. When the people vote and 61% say they don't want homosexuals to marry, and then despite this, four people on court bench say "regardless of what the people want, we're going to ignore them and do what we want." Four people can overrule 61% of the largest state in the nation. That's forcing it on others. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:43, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Four people can overrule the legislation because that is their job. Our government was set up in the way it is as system of checks and balances. The founding fathers recognized what is known as the "tyranny of the majority" and established federal and state supreme courts on that basis, as a check of the people. The people can, and will, vote for a constitutional amendment (California's in November) which the SCOC cannot touch. "The rights of the minority should never be restricted by the majority." As per the child argument, you again are warping the argument presented by DinsDaleP and myself. The key point is that homosexuals are legal adults. Now you may claim that one day the marriage age will be dropped, which, though I don't foresee it, is possible. But the key there is that it will be dropped for both gay and straight couples. We are not asking for rights that only apply to us, but an extension of all citizens rights. Currently all citizens (above the age of 18) can marry the opposite sex. If gay marriage is legislated, all citizens (above the age of 18) will be able to marry both sexes. It is not special rights, you will get them too. To the argument "but I am not gay, I do not want those rights" well I am not straight, I don't want the right to marry the opposite sex. The actual legal argument against gay marriage is pretty tenuous. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 16:23 21 May 2008 (EDT)

::Ultimahero, AndrasK made the same point about age that I would have - it's misdirection to add in age as a factor when we're talking about the rights of legal adults. That's why kids don't vote, drink or drive cars. It's true that you don't choose race, but even if you accept that sexual orientation is a choice and not a preference some are born with, so what? We choose our religions, and as adults, any male-female couple of any religion (or atheists for that matter) can get married without the state weighing in.

::Ideally, you need parents who love and support you, who help you grow to be a happy, productive and well-adjusted adult. Many single parents raise their kids great, and many male-female couples raise their kids terribly. Your assumption that kids would be raised best by a pair of male-female parents is based on opinion, not fact. There's a lot more to being a good parent than gender or gender-orientation, and the government does not make parenting skills a criteria for getting married (although it'd be a good thing if it did).

::Finally, I don't see how allowing same-sex marriage forces anything on you. You can marry whoever you want, and you don't have to associate with anyone you don't want to either. We all hear people using their first amendment rights to express ideas that may offend us, but we're not harmed by the words themselves. In the same way, you need to accept that responsible, law-abiding adults should have a right to marry who they want because their marriage may offend you, but it isn't hurting you. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:41, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

To AndrasK:

Trust me, I know all about how the government is set up. The judiciary is all about interpreting the law. If something violates the Constitution, then the court can rightfully say a law is unconstitutional. But, if something is not addressed, then it is left up to the people of the states to decide what should happen. (As per the 10th Amendment.) So I ask you: is marriage ever defined in the Constitution? The answer is no, it’s not. So, since that isn’t brought up, then it’s left up to the people of the states to determine who should marry. And in California 61% of the people said they want for marriage to remain between one man and one woman. 61%. That is a solid majority. So when the courts overrule that, that isn’t overruling an unjust law. That’s liberal activism; judicial tyranny. Tyranny is when a view held by a few is forced on the whole. That’s exactly what’s happening here. We are being forced to accept something that is absolutely wrong and that we don’t want. That is unconstitutional.

No, I’m not warping the child argument. You’re missing my point, or perhaps I’m not being clear enough. I’m not saying that the age limit is going to be dropped. What I’m saying is that if someone says that “love is all that matters”, then by that definition anyone who loves someone else should be able to marry. (I know you personally acknowledge that there are other factors involved, as we have already had this discussion.) I use the child argument as an example, but there’s a lot dog things I could use. I could say that as long as I love my dog and it loves me, we should be able to marry. I could say as long as me and my fifty girlfriends love one another, we should be able to marry. Heck, I could say that as long as my table and I love each other we should be able to marry. I know those are extreme examples, but I’m trying to illustrate why “love” isn’t a sufficient requirement. I’m simply asking you for a better definition.

Yes, we could all get the same rights if homosexuality is legalized. But, by that argument I suppose we could say that is car theft is legalized, then it won’t benefit just the thieves because we all have that right now. Obviously, that erroneous. Just because we can make something legal doesn’t mean we should. Legal doesn’t mean it’s beneficial or good. I’d argue homosexuality would hurt society (a claim which I know you will inherently disagree with) and that’s why it shouldn’t be legalized.

To DinsdaleP:

Again, I was trying to demonstrate the fallacy of using “love” as requirement. It simply doesn’t work because there are to many problems with that. You need better requirements to determine who should marry other than “love”.

Comparing people’s religions when they are getting married to when there sexual orientation is like comparing apples to oranges. They’re different categories. It doesn’t matter what your religious beliefs are when you get married. Two Atheists heterosexuals who wed is fine. One’s religion is irrelevant. But, the gender and sexual orientation of a person isn’t. I would argue that a mom-dad couple is the ideal partnership. Boys need a fatherly influence to see how a man should act, and a girl needs a motherly influence to see how a woman should act. And, kids need to see how men and women interact in a healthy relationship. So if they be Atheists, Christians, etc., heterosexual couples still provide that example, whereas homosexuals don’t. (Besides, we can debate whether or not homosexuality is Constitutionally protected, but there is no debate that religion is.)

Heterosexuality can be terrible parents, certainly. And I’m not saying it’s impossible for homosexuals to be good parents. I am saying that male-female parents are the ideal thing. (For the reasons I mentioned in the above paragraph, as well as others.) Doe it always work that way? No. But just because something doesn’t always work doesn’t mean you abandon it. For example, we have laws against rape, murder etc. Those laws don’t always bring successful results, but that doesn’t mean that we should get rid of the laws. (Again, it’s an extreme example, but it serves a point.)

It does force it on me. First, it’s an attempt to force those moral on me. Secondly, if the laws says that homosexuals can be married, then that means that anyone who refuses to recognize that is guilty of discrimination and is breaking the law. And who might object? Churches. If a church refuses to perform a marital service for two homosexuals, then that legally qualifies as sexual orientation discrimination. Churches can be sued, fined, etc. So that is forcing it on me. When these things get taken into the schools, with classes on “the homosexual struggle” being taught alongside the black and women’s movements, then that is forcing it on me and my family. So it is forcing it on me. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:23, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Love is not the only requirement for a marriage. Love ''and'' consent are. The only argument you've given, or at least that I've seen, for homosexuality harming society is that it goes against society's morals. I still do not see, however, how that actually harms society. As for forcing churches to marry homosexuals, I am unaware of any law that forces churches to marry anyone who asks to be married. If you know of one, please, show me. Finially no morals are forced on you. You are more than welcome to dislike homosexuality and consider it immoral. No one is trying to take that right from you. All homosexuals want is their right to marry. [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 23:37, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Okay. Love and consent. A child can love someone and give consent. That brings us right back to where we were.

I’ve offered many arguments. One is that it does lower the morals of society and make things easier to get through in the future. I also pointed out that homosexuals aren’t the best parenting couples. I’ve said that it’s giving special rights out for a personal behavioral preference. I’ve said that churches will be in serious legal trouble if homosexuality is legalized. Whether you agree or not, I’ve offered a lot.

There doesn’t nee to be any additional law specifically saying churches must administer marriages. The law would be that homosexuals can be married the same as heterosexuals. So, if a church refuses to marry two homosexuals, then the homosexual couple could sue over discriminatory purposes. They could argue that since legally they have the same rights, then their legal right is being denied. Just like a discrimination suit could come in a work place over not hiring a homosexual, a lawsuit could come just the same against a church for “discriminating against homosexuals legal rights.” Churches can’t disobey the law, and could be forced to obey with fines, jail time, etc.

It does force morals on me. The church thing, as I already mentioned. Also, a churches could be forced to hire openly homosexual personnel. If they don’t, then that would be called discrimination. It’s in the schools being presented as an “acceptable alternative lifestyle”. You don’t want to force it on me? Fine. Get it out of schools and away from children and then I’ll believe you. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:54, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Again, a child cannot LEGALLY consent to ANYTHING. Keyword is LEGAL. Unless if Congress LEGALLY lowers the legal adult age, the child argument is null. The church argument, a marriage in a church is in no form a legal contract. What legally marries a couple is the marriage license that they must apply for and obtain from the government. That is civil marriage, religious marriage has no standing in a legal sense without that document. A person can have the entire ceremony and be married in the eyes of the church but not the law. As the Church does not provide the legal aspect of the marriage, just the religious one, there would be no grounds for a discrimination lawsuit against a church. If you don't want your children in public schools, take them out. I personally think it is a poor choice, but it is your right as a parent to do such. I laugh at how this site thinks that public schools are so gay-friendly and "promoting homosexuality." Have any of you ever even stepped foot in a school? Have any of you ever experienced what it is like to be gay in public schools? It is laughable honestly. Not only that, it is arrogant and superior. You claim we try and force our morals on you, but then you try and do the same exact thing with yours. We are at least willing to look at things from a purely legal standpoint, as is necessary to remove religion from the legislature. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 00:13 22 May 2008 (EDT)

If the keyword is legal, then let’s end the debate because homosexual marriage is not legal. Debate over, I guess… No, the point isn’t null, because we’re talking in a future hypothetical sense about all of this. But if the child thing really bugs you, then I can switch to a polygamist standpoint or bestiality, etc. Any of things would be legitimate if love is all that matters. Again, I know you personally don’t hold to that view. But others have presented that and that’s what I’m arguing against. The church marriage service may not be relevant in the legalistic sense, but it still could be argued as discrimination. If a church refuses to recognize homosexuals, they could respond that it is a violation of there legal rights and based on “discriminatory” purpose. So are you saying that homosexuality should be pushed in public schools? I think that’s a poor choice. I wouldn’t argue that we should promote anything anti-homosexual in the schools. That’s simply not something you force on kids. (What you teach your own kids in your home, that’s your business and your free to choose. But in the school that’s different.) And who said that I had kids? You’re making an assumption. I actually just graduated from a public high school last year, so I’ve definitely stepped foot in a school. And in junior year US History, we were taught civil rights. And at the end of the segment was a homosexual unit. (I’ll point out for clarification that we didn’t finish it due to time constraints, but it was there nonetheless.) No, I don’t force my morals on you. I don’t support outlawing homosexuality or throwing homosexuals in jail. What you do in your own house is your business. But it’s when you want to go beyond that and bring it out in the open, where it automatically becomes my business, that it’s forced on me. When it’s in the schools is when it’s forced on me. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:27, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Just because something is not legal currently does not make it a null argument....that is the entire point of debating; we are debating if it SHOULD be legal. As to the polygamist standpoint, I personally would not oppose such legislation. Polygamy, however, presents MUCH larger legal problems than gay marriage, in that the legal infrastructure is set up to handle a two-member couple (Spouse 1 and spouse 2). Inheritance rights, visiting rights, custody rights, tax exemptions etc are designed in a two-person marriage. So while I do not oppose polygamy (I personally am not a polygamist) on the basis that the government should have no right to restrict activities that do not directly effect others. Bestiality, like child marriage, is a null argument in that animals cannot legally consent. When we say consent, we do not mean the physical ability (which animals still lack) but the legal authority to do so. As to the discrimination against the Church, you keep saying gays will say its "discrimination" but discrimination on what grounds. The topic of this debate is gay marriage, not sexual orientation as a hate crime basis or any other anti-discrimination measure (which is another topic entirely). I have already established that legalizing gay marriage will offer no legal basis for discrimination lawsuits on the fact that churchs have no legal standing in marriage already. Gays could indeed sue the government for discriminatory practices, but not churchs because churchs are under no legal obligation to perform any wedding (straight or gay). I did not mean to assume you had kids, sorry I read your respoonse at 12AM and read the line "keep it away from kids" as "keep it away from my kids." A simple error. As to the homosexual unit in your history class, that is not promoting homosexuality or trying to force any form of morality into you, it is presenting historical fact. Homosexuals, just like African Americans, Women, Whites, Indians, or ANY other group (and don't tell me we don't learn about straight or white history because learning US history is basically learning the history of straight, white males, as they have had almost all the power since the creation of the nation). It would be historically ignorant NOT to mention homosexuals in history class as they played a role in history. This is not 1984, you cannot just remove portions of history and call them insignificant or non-existent. The homosexual movement has, and continues to have, a role in American history, and it is ignorant to say we can just ignore that because its a "controversial" issue. Should we remove learning about African Americans in history because it is pushing African Americans into the classroom and upsetting the racist (not accusing you of being racist, just using this as an example), of course not. It is important to try and learn history in its entirety, it is then we can truly learn from it in seeing how every individual aspect fit together to form the chain of events of history. The "it's in schools and therefore forced upon me" argument could be used to remove the teaching of ANYTHING. I dislike Irish authors, I think that they are a scourge upon the Earth and are harmful to American society, does that mean that we should stop teaching Joyce? Think about what you are implying with your words. You are implying that just because an individual does not like something, means it should stop being discussed or studied. I personally don't like the Catholic Church (surprised?) but I learned about it almost every day in World History. Did I particularly want to learn the history of the church? No. But I recognized its vast importance in the history of the world, got over my dislike because I KNEW that it was important to learn if I was to understand human history. Just because something is not like, does not remove its historical importance. [[User: AndrasK|AndrasK]] 8:23 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Once again, AndrasK addressed many points I would have myself, so I'll just offer a "Nicely said!" and add a brief comment. Ultimahero, what keeps coming up in your statements is that your principal objection to same-sex marriage is not based on it causing any direct, material harm, but that it's based on offensiveness to your values. That's a legitimate reason to object to anything, and your values aren't being judged. What's key here is that in a free society, the best government is one that provides the greatest equality among people with the least intervention. The government is not going to tell a religion who it can and can't marry, but at the the same time, it shouldn't be telling two adults they can't be legally married based on their gender if all the other criteria for getting a marriage license are met. What the conservative, mostly-republican judges ruled is that society treats married people differently than unmarried people or "domestic partners", and that there's no compelling reason for the state to draw that distinction in law. Maturity and wisdom comes in part from accepting differences in others that we don't approve of, when those differences are not harming us in any material way. The older I get, the more I realize though my own experiences that I was wrong for judging people with different values in my youth, because I don't want to be judged for mine. (For example, I'm tired of being told I'm going to spend an eternity in Hell for not being a born-again Christian, and when I worked for one, I always wondered if that affected my reviews and promotions no matter how good my performance was). At this point in life, I appreciate the vision of Dr. King when he dreamed of a world where people were judged for the content of their character - period. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:00, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

To AndrasK:

The whole point of my arguing about polygamy, child marriage, etc. is simply to say that anything can be allowed if love is all that matters. We have already agreed previously that this is an insufficient standard, so I’m trying to continue this point with you. We’re already in agreement on that. Churches are under no obligation to perform marriage, but they can’t disregard the law. If homosexual marriage is legalized, then both they and heterosexuals will have the same legal rights. So, if the church permits one and refuses another, homosexuals could argue it as discrimination. There’s lot’s of examples like this. Businesses are under o obligation to provide whatever product they produce. Yet if a business were to come out and say “we refuse to serve gays”, would you honestly say that that would get taken to court at some point? It would be based on the fact that legally homosexuals have the right to marry, just like heterosexuals, yet churches only accept the latter. That could be discrimination, depending on your perspective.

Interesting perspective on the history fact. The problem is that is isn’t an unbiased presentation. The various black, women, etc. movements are presented with the underlying tone of, “see how wrong this was.” Which it should be. Slavery and oppression was wrong. But homosexuality doesn’t fit in that same category. Homosexuality isn’t being opposed out of prejudice (well, I suppose that some might be, but mot aren’t) but rather on moral grounds. If this were just unbiased issue, then it might not be that bad to simply learns facts of what have happened. But it never will be, because the people involved are just that: people. People, whether consciously or not, people will inject their own bias into this. True, I suppose on could say they don’t like anything and have it be taken out. But, ‘Irish authors’ or other things would not face realistic opposition. That, as well as most things, would face no serious risk f being removed. The church is not being presented along with theology and saying, “kids, Jesus died from your sins”. It’s simply being presented as a historical institution. I certainly agree that we shouldn’t take things out of discussion just because it’s controversial. But when you’re talking about a controversial moral issue, then is it right to take one side in the schools? I say it’s not. You and me talking about it? Fine. We’re two private citizens engaging in our own conversation. But a school is different. It’s influential kids who are by law required to go to school and sit in on those courses.

To DinsdaleP:

Yes, I am primarily opposed to homosexuality on moral grounds. I think it is wrong. Easy as that. But, when it comes to the overall society, I look at it differently. I think it will lower the overall values of society. I’m not looking at things from my moral, but a societal stance as a whole. I think homosexuals would not make as effective parents as heterosexuals. That’s not morality. That’s looking out for the well-being of kids. I worry about the ramifications on churches. That’s a legal stance. Yes, people can do whatever they want in there own homes. But, when it comes out into the streets and into the courts and into the classrooms, then it’s a different matter. I agree that people should have equality. But, that’s tricky because “equality” means different things depending on whose defining it. Obviously, you and I see it differently. You may not like being told that without Christ your going to Hell. Well, I don’t like constantly being told that homosexuality is an acceptable alternative lifestyle. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 12:15, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:Okay, I think AndrasK and I have addressed the point that love is not all that matters where marriage is concerned, so tangents about polygamy, bestiality or loving one's table are not relevant. It's also a given that the government has no right to interfere in the practices of a religion, unless it involves criminal acts like statutory rape, human sacrifice, etc. Your have the right to your opinions, and it's not my place to declare them invalid. It's just that as a society, we have to have laws that are based on reason and not opinions. You can assert that homosexuality lowers the overall values of society, but I doubt you can prove it in any objective way.

:If you look at the stories about the 1950's and 1960's civil rights movement in the south, you'd see many examples of everyday citizens believing deeply that an unsegregated society would be worse off than a segregated one. There was no basis in fact for this - it was all about "values" and "traditions" and maintaining "a way of life that's important to people". It is also something most people would disavow today. You feel that allowing same-sex marriage sends the wrong message in schools, but kids in public schools aren't being taught that same-race marriage is better or worse than mixed-race marriage, and they're not going to be taught that homosexuality is good or bad - just that like race, it's not grounds for discrimination in the eyes of the law.

:You would also be hard-pressed to provide any objective proof that a same-sex couple would not raise a child as well as a mixed-gender couple. We would never expect the government to require single parents to immediately marry or to turn their kids over to be raised by couples for the well-being of the kids. Parenting is personal, and as long as there's no abuse or neglect it's not the government's place to tell anyone how to raise their kids. That standard carries over by extension to same-sex parenting. Frankly, it's a shame that there are kids living in orphanages instead of homes with parents because of adoption policies that prevent adoption by single-sex couples. Are the kids really better off being raised by an institution?

:What I'd like to know then, is this. On the streets and in the courts and in the classrooms, it doesn't matter who's married or single, or what their religion is. Why would it cause anyone material harm if some people are married to the same gender, when it doesn't cause harm based on whether they were married in a church or not, or to the same race? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:58, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

No, you haven’t. There have been repeated attempts to refute why those groups can’t marry. But that’s not the point. The point I’m raising is that your standard is problematic. Love isn’t enough. If it is, then anyone can marry as long as they love each other. Neither is love and consent, because that doesn’t deal with polygamy, etc. I’m not asking you to refute these other groups. I’m asking for a better standard.

Well proof is different than persuasion. I might be able to prove a point, but that doesn’t mean that I’ll convince you. It lowers societies standards in regards to marriage because society has for a long time said “one man, one woman.” Now we’re trying to lower that bar. (That effectively proves the point in and of itself because we are indeed lowering the standard.) But, to go further, it effectively makes it easier to lower the standard in the future. If the definition for marriage can just be tweaked a little bit, just pushed a little farther, then the next thing in line is permissible. Then the next, and so on.

You keep playing the race card. But the way blacks were treated is much different that they way the gays are treated. Blacks were slaves, weren’t allowed to vote, were forced to use separate facilities, etc. That’s not what’s happening to gays. They aren’t being enslaved or having their freedoms taken away. Quite frankly, it’s an outlandish and offensive example.

Kids in schools aren’t being taught that same-race marriages are good or bad. But that’s because no one talks about same-race marriages. Why? Because it’s irrelevant. Race has no bearing on marriage. Gender, however, does. What sex the people are does matter. And that is being brought up, and they are being taught that it’s okay. When schools are told to report if there are any kids who “speak out” against homosexuality, then that’s a negative influence. “Speak out” could include someone saying it’s wrong. Pretty soon, it becomes impossible to even object to it. That’s teaching them it’s okay by silencing the opposition.

I can easily demonstrate that same-sex couples aren’t as effective as heterosexual couples. Where do kids primarily learn things such as what’s okay and what’s not, how to treat each other, etc.? From their families. They see what goes on at home and that is their primary example to model. Boys need their fathers to see what men act like, girls need their mothers to see how women act. And both need to see the opposite sex to see how it’s proper to treat the other. (Are they respectful to one another, etc.) But with same-sex couples, you run into a road block: There inherently won’t be only a mother and a father. Granted, one could say what about divorced families or single parents. But kids who grow up in divorced homes still have a mom and dad. They may not live together, but they still have them. And single parents still do as well, assuming that one hasn’t died. But in that case do you take the kids away because a parent died? Of course not. With mom-dad couples, you might run into instances where the kid doesn’t have a mom or dad. But with same-decouples you will never have both a mom and a dad because you can’t be definition.

There needs to be more adoption certainly, and less premarital sex that brings kids into unwanted families, certainly. But that doesn’t mean that we let homosexual couples adopt to remedy that. That just creates more problems.

I’m not sure I fully understand the last question. Race, as I’ve already said, is irrelevant to marriage. It has no bearing. Same goes for religion. They simply have no bearing on marriage, and it’s a category mistake to put them into the same category as gender. Gender and sexual orientation have to have an impact by definition. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:45, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Yes, because even if you disagree with the principle of what Homosexual people do (I perosnally have no problem with it), it makes no dfference to YOU if they can or cannot. How does it affect YOU if the person someone loves wants to legally leave their possessions behind once they die? Wants it to be officially known that they want to spend the rest of their life with the person they love? You can disagree with it via what you read in the Bible, but there are laws in place that contradict the Bible's message, Mr. Schlafly. [[User:SIMONR2|SIMONR2]]

Here are my questions that no one has yet been able to answer: In what way does homosexuality threaten "straight" marriage? Something I'm not sure if you're aware of: Making same-sex marriage legal doesn't make it mandatory. As to the arguments about it being a behavioral issue, so what if it is? It's attraction. That means it's wrong? You're saying anything we do because we choose to should be illegal? As to gay marriage being against the Bible, so is shaving your face, eating shellfish, and wearing poly-cotton blends. Oh, and you know, stoning people to death for disobeying God's will. Let's reinstate THOSE things, shall we? The fact of the matter is, Congress cannot make laws because God says so, because we do not live in a theocracy. For that same reason, Congress cannot mandate churches to perform same-sex marriages. Now explain to me where you (as in, the collective of heterosexuals who oppose gay marriage) are hurt by this? You say it is your moral decision; and yet, are you not infringing upon my morals with what I view as discrimination? As long as we're following that train of logic. My problem is, this is a "values voting" issue, and that entire concept is wrong to me--values are something you develop through life based on experiences. Values are not something you vote on. I don't think this should even be an issue--as long as it's not hurting anybody, let people make their own moral decisions, and that means, yes, legalizing something because it's behavioral and people want to do it. Because you don't have the right to tell them whether what they do, when it isn't hurting anyone else, is immoral.[[User:KatieCol|KatieCol]] 01:39, 9 December 2009 (EST)

::Now we're getting somewhere! Could someone for the Anti-LGBT Marriage side kindly clarify as to why LGBT marriage is "immoral" or "damaging to society"? Please don't bombard me with "It's God's will" and other crap because being a human, you do '''NOT''' know the will of God.--[[User:TomRobinson|TomRobinson]] 12:53, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

:::That's a sort of silly argument - the notion that because we are not divine we know nothing of the divine. I think the Bible is pretty articulate of the will of God.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 12:57, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

:::It's rather simple, actually. If you allow gay marriage, then what reason is there not to allow any other type of marriage? Now, you probably will simply dismiss the question as a "slippery slope" argument and never, ever provide a serious answer. It's okay. It won't be the first time I've run into gay marriage advocates who refuse to answer that question, but it is an important question to answer. In fact, I suspect you already know the answer to the question, just as everyone who opposes gay marriage does. You just refuse to answer it because it would embarrass you and undermine your position. The fact is that if you allow gay marriage, there is absolutely no reason to bar any other type of marriage no matter how extreme. Bigamy and polygamy will be first, of course. (In fact, the Netherlands has already started down that road after legalizing gay marriage.[http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/301]) Then you will move into "unthinkable" territory: people with animals (which people have already tried[http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/01/01/1136050339590.html]), adults with kids (as is commonplace in Middle Eastern and Eastern societies), etc. But don't worry. I'm sure you can work out deciphering God's will when you meet Him face-to-face and impotently try to explain yourself. [[User:Jinxmchue|euHcM xniJ]] 13:49, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

==No==
It's said that it is discrimination to be against homosexual marriage. But, whether you agree with it or not, you have to look at things from the Christian perspective to see where we are coming from. As a Christian, I see the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, therefore I am against it. It's not about prejudice. It's just the fact I have a moral obligation to stand against anything that is wrong. I am against homosexuality in the same sense that I am against stealing. I consider them both to be wrong. Would someone say that I'm discriminating against thieves when I say that's wrong? Of course not. I don't think that homosexuals should be treated badly, or made fun of, but it is wrong and Christians have to say so.
: I do agree that Christians should say it's wrong if that is what they believe in. But I do believe that not allowing them to marry is unconstitutional, because of the first amendment that states "no law should be made enforcing or discriminating religion" (I'm paraphrasing here.) and if a law were to be passed, it would be enforcing a religious value on people that may not believe in what the people that put that action into law believe. But, even though I think gay marriage is OK, I also support peoples right to say its wrong, start up "rehab" for gay people (If the homosexual chooses to go there and its not tax-funded), and tell the world what they think about the issue. As long as the wall of separation between church and state is intact, and that homosexuals are not verbally or physically harassed, I believe it is OK for Christians (and any other religion) to say its wrong and not like it. --[[User:ITSAMEMARIO|ITSAMEMARIO]] 18:47, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

The first amendment deals with not being able to keep some one from practicing a particular religion, or force to them to practice it. Homosexuality is not a religion. And although it is opposed on religious grounds, there are also cultural and sociological factors involved, so it really doesn't fit into what the first amendment outlines. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 17:42, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Why is it that you consider it a moral obligation to believe the part of the Bible that says that homosexuality is a sin when other parts of the Bible are discarded as culturally antiquated or irrelevant to a given sect (i.e. the eating of shellfish, the call to embrace revenge over forgiveness in the Old Testament)? The Bible is not a single document, but a compilation of a number of different sources with diverse perspectives and (at times) contradictory values.
--[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 19:47, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

With all due respect, you don't know what I believe, so you can't really make a claim that I only believe part of the Bible and not another. Now, nothing is ever "disregarded" when you consider culture, etc. It is simply looking at things in their proper context. But, what you gave as examples don't fit the culture aspect.

The Old Testament law is split up into three basic categories: the priestly laws, the civil laws, and the moral laws. The priestly laws are no longer applicable today because they were fulfilled by Christ. (Ex: The Old Testament required animal sacrifice for the remission of sins, but in the New Testament Christ is sacrificed once for all sins.) The civil laws are also not applicable because they were in place in the Old Testament in a Theocratic system. Obviously, we live a democracy, not a theocracy, so the same laws don't apply. (I would also point out that as Christians we are no longer under the law, according to Romans 6:14-15.) The moral laws, however, are still in effect because they reflect the nature and character of God. (Ex: Lying is wrong because God can't lie.) So because God's character never changes, neither do the moral laws.

Plus, in the New Testament we don't see the civil or priestly laws reestablished, but we do see the moral law reestablished. That is why the New Testament still calls homosexuality wrong, but not with the associated death penalty.

And the Bible does not present contradictory values. Maybe things that are difficult, but not contradictory. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 01:01, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

Gay marriage doesn't exist. The term is an inherent oxymoron. Marriage by definition is the union of one man and one woman, This is God's definition is will always be the true definition. A lie told a million times is still a lie--[[User:TedM|TedM]] 23:18, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

==It Depends==
*If the marriage is going to be carried out as a religious service, it should be up to the relevant religious authorities. If the marriage is nonreligious (carried out by a justice of the peace, or Elvis, for example), then it should be allowed. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 18:38, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

But a religious group can't refuse to follow the law. So if homosexual marriage is legal, they would be forced to adhere to that law, regardless of what they believe. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 20:27, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

That is not the intent of homosexual marriage advocated, myself included. I fully recognize any religion's right to refuse to marry homosexuals. Marriage in the religious sense should be left up to each religion. If the Catholic church wishes not to recognize gay marrriage, that is 100% their prerogative. What I am advocating, however, is legal gay marriage. In that a gay couple can obtain a marriage license via the same requirements that heterosexual couple can. No church would be forced to perform a ceremony, and they would not be forced to recognize the marriage as marriage licenses offer legal, not religious benefits. Only churches that desire to perform gay ceremonies would. The gay marriage issue is about LEGAL rights and LEGAL recognition by the government, not RELIGIOUS recognition by any church or organization. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 20:27, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

I understand what your saying, but it is about religion. Right now it's being pushed for homosexuality to be added to the list of hate crime victims. This means that if Christians don't like it and speak out against it, and then someone who overheard it went out and beat up a homosexual (I'm certainly not advocating that) , then the church that originally spoke out could be sued or shut down for promoting 'hate speech'. Similarly, if homosexuality was legalized, and a church refused to perform a ceremony for two homosexuals, then that could be labeled as discrimination and that church would suffer consequences. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 20:42, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

So as I can tell, you fear that if gay marriage was legalized and if gays were added to hate crime lists, then churches would face discrimination? May I ask why it is okay that gays are discriminated against, but not churches. As to the specific cases you mentioned. In this country, we thankfully still have (more or less) have first amendment rights. Nazi groups, white supremacy (and I am not comparing the church to these groups, just using them as examples) still can exist, as they should be able to, as long as they don't actively advocate violence against Jews, African Americans, whoever. Much like any group (be it Nazis, gay rights advocates, or anyone else) churches could continue to speak as they will as long as they don't advocate direct violence. As to the marriage aspect of it, as long as the law clearly states that no religious organization can be forced to marry any two individuals, then there is no basis for legal discrimination. Socially, people who think that the church discriminate will continue to do the same, and those that don't won't. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 20:51, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Yes, I do fear that Christians will face discrimination. I think hate crimes are stupid (not to debate that; it's a different topic) because they deal will motivation and intent. If I as a Christian exercise my Constitutional right to free speech and say I think something is wrong, then I can risk punishment. I know you might advocate that churches should be able to still voice opinions, but not everyone thinks that way. And yes, discrimination against homosexuals is wrong, too. But the marriage thing is not discrimination, because everyone has the same rights. Giving homosexuals the right to marry based off of their sexual preference, which is a behavior, would be discrimination. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 21:03, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Just because not everyone believes that churches should be able to voice anti-homosexuality opinions does not mean they won't be allowed to. As before mentioned, other groups face much more dissent than the Catholic Church, but they are allowed to voice their opinions under 1st amendment protection. As to the marriage aspect once again. I wouldn't call gay marriage discrimination but I understand your point. However, history has shown that specific legislature is often needed to protect the rights of minorities. We have specific laws regarding women (although no equal rights amendment amazingly) that protect them and give them specific protections (not rights, just protections) under the law. The same is true for African Americans, and other minorities. Minorities often need to be recognized legally to ensure the mantainence of their rights. And to use a very popular argument on this site, if gay marriage were to be passed, then heterosexuals would have the same rights to marry someone of their sex. That may seem odd to you, but the argument that we gays have equal rights in that we can marry members of the other sex is equally odd.[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 21:16, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Your right in that just because some don't want Christians to be able to speak out against homosexuals doesn't mean it will happen. But there are signs that we, in reference to us Christians, are going to be in trouble. I've heard there's a law out here in California that if a homosexual feels he or she has been discriminated against, then they can file a law suit and the state will pay all their legal fees. The defendant, on the other hand, would have to pay their own way. This has scary implications, because a homosexual could file a law suit and be backed up by the state, which has in all practical terms unlimited resources, while a church would have to pay for itself when most churches are struggling financially anyways. And I know that the homosexual movement is sometimes compared to the black or women's movement, but it's not the same. Blacks were fighting against slavery, which was clearly wrong, as well as Jim Crows laws sending to the back of the bus, etc. And women for a long time couldn't even vote. But homosexuals aren't facing that. No serious person is saying that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to vote or should have to use separate facilities. It is simply in regards to marriage and sexual preference, which is a behavioral issue. And you could say that allowing homosexuality would still give everyone the same rights, but I could say that if murderers wanted to legally murder and a law was passed to allow it, then would it be okay because "you can now legally murder too?" (I'm not equating murderers and homosexuals, just using that as a rather extreme example to prove a point.) [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 21:42, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

To identify the issue with the whole California thing. This type of extreme legislature (which I am against by the way. If the state is paying for one side, it should pay for the other as well) is often suggested, and even if passed, quickly altered. For example, under LBJ's presidency, federal funds were given to schools to allow busing for inner-city schools to outer-city schools to try and reduce de facto segregation (I am using the Civil Rights movement because it is a good historical precedence. You say that the gay rights movement cannot be compared to the African American or Women's movements. Its specifics and severity is certainly different, however, the theory and ideology behind it is not). This law was overturned rather quickly. We find that this country operates in knee-jerk reactions and extremes. Yes there may be some extreme legislature at the very beginning, but such legislature rarely lasts. Time ultimately smooths out the extremes in social policy.

As to the murder idea, that is different in that murder (or other such crimes such as rape, assault etc) physically harm other people. I can hardly see an argument that gay marriage somehow directly, physically harms people.
[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:08, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Oh, I wasn't trying to say that homosexual marriage physically harms people like murder does. Like I said, I wasn't trying to equate the two. The point was that you had mentioned if homosexuality was made legal, then everyone would still have the same rights because heterosexuals would have that right by extension. So I was just saying that is if murder was hypothetically made legal, then everyone still has the same rights because even non-murderers would be able to legal murder. My point is that, yes, the rights would still be the same, but that doesn't make murder right, and, similarly, homosexual marriage being passed doesn't make it right or beneficial to society. And the ideology of the black movement compared to the homosexual movement isn't quite the same. Blacks were being picked on because of racism and prejudice. When it comes to homosexuality, yes, there are some who are motivated by prejudice, but many such as myself come at it from a strictly moral stance. I'm against it because the Bible says it's wrong. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 22:17, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

I understand that gay marriage is against your moral code, and I respect that, but what this country is based on is the allowance of multiple opinions to coexist in harmony. You don't have to recognize gay marriage, think it is right, think it is natural or any other such thing. It is you perogative to have any such views you desire on the subject. It is important to realize the difference between secular marriage (perhaps I should use the word union?) and religious marriage. The Bible indeed dictates religious marriage for christianity, but it does not dictate secular marriage. The Bible also says (correct me if I am wrong, I am not very versed in the Bible. I mean this seriously, not sarcastically) that atheism is a sin, as is sex before marriage? Yet you do not oppose the secular marriage of two atheists, or two non-virgins. Now to clarify my stance, I do not believe the Bible should have any authority in dictating governmental and legal marriage. In this socio-political climate, however, I must be pragmatic. Now my question is, why is it that homosexuality is cornered out as massively sinful and thus not eligible for marriage, when atheists and non-virgins are? By the way, I would like to thank you for being logical and rational in this debate. Both sides are much to prone to sensationalism; rational debate seems to be less and less common these days. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:56, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

As a Christian, I hold the Bible in the utmost regard. I consider it to be the holy word of God, infallible and inherent. But, this being said, I fully recognize that not everyone holds that same opinion. Your an Atheist, correct? I definitely don't expect you to hold the Bible in any special light, and that's fine. You're entitled to your own worldview. So I also wouldn't say that we should create any law "just because the Bible says so". I run my life, to the best of my ability, based on what the Bible says. But I don't want to force you to. I primarily oppose homosexuality because of Biblical reasons, but the reasons why I think homosexual marriage should not be legalized has to do with societal issues, such as I don't see it as being beneficial to society, etc. As for why Atheists can marry and non-virgins as well, it has to do with context. I wouldn't oppose two heterosexual Atheists marrying because heterosexual marriage is good, regardless of whether the participants are Christians, Atheists, or whatever. And for non-virgins, yes, it is a sin to have sex outside of marriage. But there is nothing in the Bible that says that someone who has committed that sin couldn't later get married, so I see no reason to be against it. (Besides, the Jesus said that to lust after a woman in your heart is to commit adultery of the heart, so even if someone hasn't committed the physical act, everyone is guilty of lust.) And once they marry, then they're no longer committing the sin of sex outside of marriage, so it's better in that sense. So it’s about context. With homosexual marriage, homosexuality is the problem. Even if both homosexuals claimed to be Christian I would still be against it because homosexuality is the sin. And yes, thank you for being very logical and friendly. I often hear a lot of insults, (and they come from both sides), so thanks for being polite. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:16, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

My question is this. I see some benefits to society to allow gay marriage, and I see no societal harms. Benefits include financial and legal aid which can be helpful for the raising of a child. One of the societal arguments I hear most often is that gay marriages cannot produce children (I would like to point out that neither can marriages in which the couple is sterile, or simply choose not to). Gay couples can adopt one or more of the hundreds of thousands of parentless children in the country and world as a whole. The idea that marriage is simply for procreation seems ludicrous to me, coupled with the fact that we currently face overpopulation, it seems as if the human race can surely survive. I am not quite sure what societal issues you are referring to when you say they oppose gay marriage. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 23:29, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Well first off I think that we can both agree that the male and female is the natural option. Obviously they're bodies are designed to fit together. And yes, there is overpopulation. (One of the reasons why I and other Christians would stress abstinence until marriage, for the sake of not bringing yet another unwanted child into the world.) And yes, a gay couple could try to raise the child, sure. But the question is: would a homosexual couple be as effective at raising a child as a heterosexual couple? And I think that the answer is no, they couldn't. Keep in mind that I'm not saying that homosexuals are incapable of raising kids, but rather that they would simply not be as good as a mom and a dad. Because no matter how feminine a man may get, he can't substitute for a mother. And no matter how masculine a woman gets, she will never be a true father. Men and women are different. One's not better than the other, but they do posses different qualities that when coupled together compliment each other nicely. They're like the two different pieces to a puzzle. They just fit together. So I would wonder if same-sex couples could adequately raise kids when they won't have the full range of characteristics that men and women together posses. And, considering how kids can get made fun of in school for practically anything, having homosexuals parents just adds one more thing to shoot at them. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 01:15, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Please keep in mind that many gay couples who want to get married don't do so to have (or get) children, but instead to receive recognition of their love to each other. In some countries non married couples including homosexuals are able to adopt children, so banning homosexual marriages will not stop gays raising kids, this is an entirely different issue. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 01:22, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Granted. But I was addressing a previous point about how homosexual couple could adopt kids and help with overpopulation and I was simply comparing parenting ability. As for what other nations do, I can’t really comment on that. I don't have enough knowledge about how they go about things to say one thing or another, so I can really only talk about what happens in the United States. That's what I'm familiar with. But to address just homosexuality in general apart from kids? I understand that they want to show their love, but that's not enough. Love isn't all there is to it. Should kids be able to marry just because they love one another? [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 01:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

As to the children aspect of this conversation. You say that a man can never replace a mother and a woman a father. Yet we have hundreds of thousands of single parent families. Single people are allowed to adopt children and/or have children. If it is acceptable for a child to have only one mother and no father, what is wrong with having two mothers? @StatsMsn, yes many gay couples just want recognition of their love. But so do hundreds of thousands of couples who marry and choose not to have children. If they are allowed to marry for recognition why not gays? Finally, regarding the child marriage. Please do not insult this hereto rational debate. We are speaking purely in the realm of acts and legal standing of legal and consensual adults.
[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 10:02, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Yes, they're are lots of single parents. Many come by in the case of one parent dying. In those cases, you can't really say much, because they tried to raise the kids with both parents, but one unfortunately passed on. You can't really take kids away from them. Some are single because of divorce. I am against divorce, but as I've said before on this post, there are times when divorce is necessary. Adulterous or abusive spouses, etc, so you can't make divorce illegal because it can be legitimately necessary. And, even if they divorce, the kid still has a mom and dad. They might not live together, but they still have them.

Now, to what I said about child marriage. Please do not take away the courteously that we have so far had towards one another. That was a perfectly rational point. Yes, child marriage is not legal, but neither is homosexual marriage. If we can only discuss what's legal, then we shouldn't be having this debate at all. My point was that love is not all you need. It is certainly the single biggest factor, but there are other things that matter, too. If love is the only thing, then why can't kids marry if they love one another? It's a somewhat extreme example, certainly, but it's intended to show that more than just love is required. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

I am not saying love is all that is required in marriage, one large aspect of marriage is responsibility, commitment, and maturity. That is why children are not allowed to marry. The country has deemed that children, and rightly (there are a few outliers, and I would include myself in this group, that are more mature) that under the age of 18, children are not legal adults. Thus they cannot sign legal documents without a guardian as well, they cannot enter contracts without a guardian, they cannot be treated as adults. The question of gay marriage is not are gays mature enough to enter marriage, but do we/should we have the right to under the US constitution. The reason why kids cannot marry is one of maturity, the reason why gays cannot marry, well I don't quite know, but it is not of maturity. Also I would like to ask, though I do not concur with your argument, how is a heterosexual couple getting married "just for love" any less threatening to the concept of adolescent marriage than homosexual couples getting married. I understand you think that "it is a slippery slope" but just on pure theory, where does that discrepancy lie.
As per the child argument, you have neglected the demographic of single parents that adopted/gave birth to a child purely on their own. Some people simply never find their life partner, and choose to have children on their own anyway. That is legal, and as it should be. If a single person all on his or her lonesome can decide to adopt/have a child, why should a two people of the same sex not have the same right? The child will undoubtedly receive more attention that way (seeing as there are two parental figures, not one) as well as enjoy the benefits of having possibly two incomes, or one income and one staying at home etc. Children of single parents by choice grow up into model citizens and valuable members of society every day, as do the children of gay couples where it is legal. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 13:36, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

I know your not saying that love is the only requirement, and I'm not trying to advocate child marriage. I know why kids can't marry, and I think that the reasons for that are good ones. It's just that one common argument that I hear is, "They love each other so they should marry." But, as we both agree, there are more factors. As far as do homosexuals have the right to marry under the Constitution, it isn't addressed or defined. As I said before, the reason for gay marriage to not be allowed (at least in my opinion) is an issue of morality and the potential benefit for society. I'm not sure I understand what your asking about heterosexuals couples marrying "just for love". Can you specify that a little more? I want to make sure I accurately understand you so I can properly respond. The slippery slope thing is that hypothetically you should line up all the various issues of marriage in order of least harmful to most harmful, (heterosexual marriage, homosexual marriage, polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia, etc.). Now, we've had a standard in place (one man and one woman). So if you move the bar down to allow for homosexuals, then it will make it easier for society to accept the next thing in line. After all, homosexuality was seen as being really bad but now it's okay, so why not _______. (Fill in the blank with whatever might come next.)

The child that is born of just one parent, presumably the mother, still has a mom and dad. She's not the virgin Mary, so there had to be conception. Now did the father take off or the parents don't want to marry, etc. I guess there's lots of theoretical scenarios there, so I can't possibly address them all. But if the dad takes off you can't punish mom and the child for that. Or if she doesn't tell the father and has the baby n her own, again, you can't take away the child and punish the kid because of the mom. Again, a single parent is not the ideal way to raise kids, either. A mom and a dad together are. But you can't reasonably say, "Single parenthood isn't ideal but it's allowed, so homosexual marriage should be allowed." That's creating more un-ideal situations and doesn’t help. And I'm certainly not saying that kids raised by homosexuals will grow up to be dysfunctional. It's just not the best way to do it. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 17:07, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Civil partnerships rather than marriages==
I would suggest, to avoid the moral and religious issues associated with the term "marriage", that it should simply be removed from the whole question. Rather than talking about "gay marriage", there should be civil partnerships which are available to any two cohabiting consenting adults. This is the approach which has been taken in the UK, and which (as far as I know) some US states are considering.

People in a civil partnership will have the same legal rights as married people regarding inheritance, welfare, etc., but they won't be "married" as regards the religious sense of the term. Civil partnerships should also be available to people living together in a non-sexual sense, e.g. cohabiting siblings.

There is already a distinction between civil and religious marriage; for instance, if you are Roman Catholic, you may be legally divorced under the civil law but still married under Catholic canon law, unless you seek an annulment of your marriage from the Church. So churches and other religious organisations would ''not'' be required to recognise secular civil partnerships.

Thus homosexual couples can have the same legal/financial advantages as married couples, without redefining the concept of marriage or upsetting the many religions which disapprove of homosexual relations. [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 12:51, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

I understand what your saying, but that wouldn't work. (At least from my perspective.) That's still legalizing gay marriage and just simply calling it something else. It's not the word marriage that should be treasured, but the institution itself, regardless of what name it's under. Besides, everyone says that government doesn't have the right to enforce religious values on everyone else. But then government also doesn't have the right to enforce secular values on society. Legalizing gay marriage is the government putting a stamp of approval on marriage and saying that it is an acceptable alternative. But it's not. I don't mean that in an insulting way, but I simply don't agree with it.

Besides, that doesn't address all of the other issues about child raising, etc. that were previously brought up. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:36, 5 May 2008 (EDT) 
 
Acceptible alternative to what? I think (and this is just me), if two people love each other, should they not have the right to be married and share that happyness in the greatest way. Besides, by doing this, it shows that two heterosexual people that hate each other have more of a right than two homosexuals that have a perfect right to get married. --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

Marriage is not a government institution and marriage should not be corrupted by sexual perverts, yes I said it, sexual perversion: deviating from mainstream sexuality -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 19:44, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Every time a liberal talks to me I get more conservative -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 19:45, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Debrah, no offense, but you kind of seem to be freking out. Let me just say, in defense to my liberal nature, that I am from Massachussets, the most liberal state in the country. Anywho, sexual perverts? Perverts, although I see what your saying, is very strong (then again, so was my comment on the front page). But, let's face it, does a homosexual have a choice in the matter? Before I would say that they are sexual perverts, lets take this into consideration, do you know any homosexuals and if so, have you asked them why they are homosexual? It seems to me that people don't listen to homosexuals enough and thereby try to make it seem that they are chosing it on their own free will. Am I saying they are not? No. What I am saying is that someone should at least find out. --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

I know homosexuals, and my best friend Jessica used to be a lesbian but became straight -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 19:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:How does one change? If one changes, would that not mean that she (and this is no offense to your friend) was bisexual? I mean, how is it possible for one to change the way that they love (and who they can love) in one thing. If she was, then does that not mean that she was part stright to begin with? This would not make her lesbien, but rather, bisexual. Again, this is all a spitball (I am going to ask a gay person I know tomarrow about this). --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

She experimented with women then she started becoming more interested in men as time went by and less interested in women, she isn't interested in women anymore, she just changed -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 20:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

For example, people can slowly become liberal, and eventually not be conservative anymore -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 20:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

That is not becoming "straight" that is just realizing your true sexuality. She had doubts, she experimented, and slowly realized her true sexuality as being heterosexual. That indeed does happen, as sexuality is a highly confusing and complicated concept within a person. Some people discover that though they had homosexual inklings, they are overall heterosexual. Others, however, discover that they are completely homosexual. Showing one example of someone discovering their sexuality isn't proof that conversion is possible. [[User: AndrasK|AndrasK]] 20:50, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Again, just because two people love each other, that's not enough. As I said earlier, should kids be able to marry if they love one another? I know it's an extreme example, but it illustrates that more than love is required. As far as whether or not homosexuals are born that way or not, well, that's debatable. From a Christian standpoint, I'd say that's somewhat legitimate. Everyone is born with things that tempt them to sin, but not everyone is tempted in the same way. Some people are naturally arrogant, some are very humble. Yet that arrogant person might be honest, while the humble man could have a problem with lying. It just depends. So homosexuals might be born that way in the sense that they are born with that natural temptation. Of course, that's no excuse to do it, since people are still not supposed to sin. (Obviously if you aren't a Christian, then you won't accept this basic premise. But I'm just illustrating this from a Christian perspective.) And there are cases where homosexuals who are adamant about their sexuality will be cured. It does happen. Whether or not you accept those results is a different matter, but there's no denying it happens. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:32, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:I understand that, and I am aware of the fact that conservative Christians believe homosexuality to be immoral, and that there is Biblical support for this standpoint. However, in modern society there is a distinction between law and morality; not everything which is immoral is necessarily illegal. The fact remains that (for better or worse) in modern society, homosexuality is a legal and accepted practice, and homosexual couples are legally entitled to live together without interference by the state. So why should the state not allow them the same practical legal rights as married couples?

:Our society tolerates practices which we do not necessarily condone. I respect your viewpoint that homosexuality is sinful, and this is a widely held viewpoint; but we don't live in a theocracy, and not all sins are crimes. I just don't understand the basis for your argument. If you are arguing that same-sex civil partnerships are a bad idea because the state should not approve or condone homosexuality, then why aren't you going the whole way and arguing for homosexuality to be made illegal? [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 11:57, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

I myself am Conservative for secular reasons, this country doesn't allow incestuous marriages, because they are immoral, the same should be true for homosexual marriage, I don't care if people love each other in a non-platonic manner, for example if a brother and a sister love each other in a non-platonic manner they shouldn't get marriage because it is sick, and the same goes for homosexual marriage -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 12:06, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Homosexuals are not born that way Columbia University did a study on twins and found out if one twin is gay the chance the other one is gay is 7% -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 12:09, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

No offense, but this why you shouldn't come into the debate in the middle of it. I already acknowledged earlier that just because the Bible says something is wrong that doesn't mean it should be illegal. I can't force moral principles onto you, and I don't want to. I'm against it from a legal standpoint because I don't think it's beneficial to society, I doubt that a homosexual couple would be as effective in raising kids as a heterosexual couple, etc. I've already outlined and given reasons for these arguments several times.

Now people do have the right to do what they want. If two homosexuals want to live together and have relationships, that's their business. I don't like it and I think it's wrong, but they have the freedom to do it. But they don't have the right to be legally married, for those earlier stated reasons and because the government doesn't have the authority to say "this is morally okay" and force it upon the rest of us. I'm not arguing for homosexuality to be illegal because, as you stated, we're not in a theocracy and I can't force that on you. But, in all fairness, homosexuality shouldn't be forced on me as an "acceptable alternative lifestyle" either. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:39, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Actually, immediate siblings and immediate family marriages are not legal because they have huge genetic implications in terms of children. Marrying further family is still actually legal in this country (depending on the relation and how the genetics would work out) [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 19:23, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

That's true. Inbreeding can lead to retardation and other problems. You don't want children coming out of those families when there's a really high statistical chance that they'll have genetic issues. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:41, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:Exactly - that's why there is an objective, secular reason for incestuous relationships to be illegal. But there is no such reason for homosexual relationships. Some people believe them to be immoral, based on religious views; others don't.

:In response to what you (Ultimahero) said earlier, allowing homosexuals to have ''civil partnerships'' (not marriages) hardly "forc[es] homosexuality" on you as "an acceptable alternative lifestyle". It doesn't affect you at all. I can understand that you would object to a law which required religious groups to conduct same-sex marriages - and I would also strongly object to such a law. Religious groups have the right to define marriage however they wish according to their doctrines, and the government should not force anything on them. But we're not talking about that. We're talking about a law which allows homosexual couples to have ''secular'' civil partnerships. So I don't see how it forces anything on you or anyone else. [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 06:37, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Okay. I just said that the reason I'm against homosexuality from a legal standpoint is because of it's not beneficial to society, homosexual parents wouldn't be as effective as heterosexual one, etc. I'm not basing the legal factor on religious values. I'm primarily against it for religious reasons, but when it comes to the legal aspect I'm not.

A civil union is the same thing as a marriage with one key difference: you don't call it marriage. As I said earlier, it's not the word "marriage" that matters, but the institution itself, whatever you may call it. And it certainly does affect me. If it affects society, it affects me. When homosexuality is strongly being pushed to be added to the list of hate crime groups, meaning that if I say anything negative about homosexuality I could get fined or jailed for spreading "hate speech", that affects me. When the "homosexual struggle" is being taught in public schools, to children nonetheless, alongside blacks-Americans struggle against racism and women’s struggle for equality, as if those movements were the same thing (which they aren't, not even close) then yes, that affects me. When a private organization like the Boy Scouts of America can be sued and forced to include homosexual scout masters, then yes, that affects me. When homosexual parades come down the street and the cries are "We're here, we're queer, get used to it", then that affects me. If gay couples were off doing there own things and keeping to themselves, then it wouldn't be an issue. But they aren't. It's an in-your-face mentality. So, yea, it affects me. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:28, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:I completely agree that homosexuality should not be added to the list of hate crime groups (I believe in free speech, and that you should have the right to criticise homosexuality if you wish to), and that the Boy Scouts of America should not be forced to include homosexual scoutmasters if it doesn't want to. As a libertarian conservative, I believe in the right of private organisations to make their own inclusion choices based on their own moral beliefs. However, that has no bearing on whether same-sex civil unions should be allowed. It isn't the same issue, and introducing civil unions will not have any effect on any of the other issues which you highlighted.

:I also wasn't making any argument about homosexual parents. As it happens, I do think that some homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt children (subject to careful vetting), but that isn't the issue here. Civil unions have nothing to do with the right to adopt children; it's a completely separate issue. [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 15:15, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

The adoption of children is relevant in the sense that if civil unions are allowed, then it is a recognized family. I suppose it subjective to how you define it, but the gay couple in question would be legally recognized the same way that any heterosexual couple would be. So the issue of children being raised is an inevitable follow up.

Granted, civil unions aren't directly related to those other issues. But, this basically has the to do with the Domino Effect. First gay marriage isn’t even thinkable. Then civil union's are allowed, because that gives homosexuals some recognition, but it's not quite marriage. (I would still argue it is the same basic thing, but I digress.) But of course gay couples won't be happy with that. No, because we call it something else instead of marriage, then they'll feel like they're not really equal and will demand full-blown marriage. And since we've already conceded most of the basic rights of marriage to them anyways, why not just go the extra mile? But then when some Christian group in some church somewhere refuses to do a service for a homosexual couple based on moral principles, and they will be sued. After all, if homosexuals are added to the hate crime list (I know you personally said your against it, but still bear with me) then it's discrimination to treat them that way. You can’t talk badly about their sexual orientation or refuse them service of any kind because of it. The churches will either be forced to recognize them, or will be shut down, or the members fined or jailed. It's all one thing that leads to another. So, no, a civil union isn't directly causing those other issues, but they are all inherently linked. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:47, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:This is a slippery slope argument, which, formally speaking, is a logical fallacy. I do understand what you're saying, but I am arguing that we should allow civil unions and ''stop there''. As I said, I believe in the libertarian principles of free speech and association - thus you should be able to criticise homosexuality if you wish, and churches and other private organisations should not have to recognise same-sex marriage or perform other services for homosexuals if they don't wish to. This is why I'm against "hate speech laws" in general, and why I think anti-discrimination laws have gone too far. On the other hand, I firmly believe that the ''government'' (as opposed to private organisations) should be required to treat all people equally, homosexual or heterosexual. Thus, the government should recognise same-sex civil unions, but private organisations (including churches) should not be forced to. I don't accept your argument that recognising civil unions is going to lead to this massive landslide which will lead to churches being shut down and their members arrested; that isn't realistically going to happen (especially given that the "free exercise of religion" is explicitly protected by the US Constitution). [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 16:39, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Which logical fallacy applies here? I can't see how it is illogical. The example I gave is hypothetical, I acknowledge that. But it's a realistic possibility. I know that you might say stop at civil unions, but it won't end there. Even now, when civil unions aren't allowed, there's a push for gay marriage. Logically, if it's being pushed for now, without any precedent, then why should we assume that it will end if they do get civil unions? That's like saying we want X, but we'll stop once we get 90% of it. That doesn't make sense. If you can get 90%, why not go for the whole thing? It will lead to full marriage. And I understand that you don't want private organizations to be forced to accept homosexuality. But, we've already seen it happen. I gave the Boy Scouts as an example. Again, the precedent has been set that homosexuals can impose their will upon private organizations if they push hard enough. Why should I believe that they won't do it to churches? We're the biggest one opposing them. If they can shut us up then that just helps them. I know this is all just theory because we're talking about something that has yet to happen, but I see no logical reason to assume that it will stop at civil unions. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:18, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

And the Constitution gets reinterpreted all the time. All it takes is for a majority on the Supreme Court, which would currently be five people, to rule that the Constitution doesn't protect religion if they are "discriminating". [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:20, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Excellent point with the Supreme Court Ultimahero, it happens all the time with The Bill of Rights. Does anyone know what infringe means compared to gun control. The slippery slope arguement is very valid (gun control are examples). You are talking about changing laws to your liking and not the majority. I would like the "adult" age lowered to 12 (just to emphasis the point)so the children can legally give condent. Texas recently (within the last 10 years) raised the marriage age from 14 to 18 after the Mormon church moved in.So much for religious freedom since the marriages where already in place.
Just because you are an adult does not mean you can do anything you wish. 18 is the adult age but you still can not legally drink alcohol. There are other examples where adults can not do things until they are of appropiate age. Homosexual marriage does affect everyone. What legal statuses are you trying to obtain that doesn't affect the entire population and isn't already available elsewhere (other laws)?

Moon

2010-06-03T16:04:37Z

Jinxmchue: Undo revision 784485 by JamesAnderson (Talk) - Not sure what you think it being contradicted.

{{Planet|image=Moon2.jpg
|caption=The Moon one week after [[full moon]]
|primary=Earth
|periapsis=363,300 km<ref name=moonfact>"[http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/moonfact.html Moon Fact Sheet]," [[NASA]], April 19, 2007. Accessed May 3, 2008.</ref>
|apoapsis=405,500 km<ref name=moonfact/>
|semimajor=384,400 km<ref name=moonfact/><ref name=ssdorbit>"[http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?sat_elem Planetary Satellite Mean Orbital Parameters]." [[Jet Propulsion Laboratory|JPL]], [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration|NASA]]. Accessed March 25, 2008.</ref>
|orbitradius=378,000 km
|eccentricity=0.0549<ref name=moonfact/><ref name=ssdorbit/>
|sidereal=27.3217 da
|synodic=29.530588 da
|orbitspeed=1.023 km/s
|inclination=18.28°<ref name=moonfact/>
|siderealday=27.3217 da<ref name=moonfact/><ref name=ssdorbit/>
|solarday=29.530588 da
|mass=7.35 * 1022 (1.23% earth)<ref name=moonfact/>
|density=3350 kg/m³<ref name=ssdphys>"[http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?sat_phys_par Planetary Satellite Physical Parameters]." [[Jet Propulsion Laboratory|JPL]], [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration|NASA]]. Accessed March 25, 2008.</ref>
|surfacegrav=1.62 m/s² (0.165 ''g'')<ref name=moonfact/>
|escapespeed=2.38 km/s<ref name=moonfact/>
|meanradius=1737.1 km<ref name=moonfact/><ref name=ssdphys/>
|equatorradius =1738.1 km<ref name=moonfact/>
|polarradius =1736.0 km<ref name=moonfact/>
|surfacearea=37,919,000 km² (7.434% earth)
|mintemp=100 K
|meantemp=250 K
|maxtemp=400 K
|albedo=0.12<ref name=moonfact/>
|pmdm=1.3 * 1015 N-m/T<ref name=Humphreys>Humphreys, D. R. "[http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/21/21_3/21_3.html The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields]." ''Creation Research Society Quarterly'' 21(3), December 1984. Accessed April 29, 2008.</ref>
|cmdm=1.73 * 1022 N-m/T<ref name=Humphreys/>
|mdt=364 a<ref name=Humphreys/>
|mhl=252.3 a<ref name=calc>Calculated</ref>
}}The '''Moon''' is a natural [[satellite]] orbiting the [[Earth]] at an average distance of about 238,000 miles (380,000 km).

Unlike most planets in the [[solar system]], [[Earth]] has only one moon. To those on Earth the Moon appears as a pale disc which goes through phases in which greater or lesser amounts of the side lit by the sun are visible from Earth.

==The Moon as God's creation==

The Earth's moon has several striking characteristics. To many Christians, these characteristics appear as "clues" or "hints" left by God for men to discover. <ref>http://www.math.nus.edu.sg/aslaksen/gem-projects/hm/0102-1-phase/CALENDARS.htm</ref>

===Size of its disc===

The Moon appears to have approximately the same size as the [[Sun]] when viewed from Earth. This creates a unique symmetry and phenomenal [[solar eclipse|solar eclipses]].
The Moon is just far enough away from the Earth to appear the same size of the Sun.
The odds of this occurring by chance are nearly zero.

===Rotation and revolution===

The Moon presents the same side to [[Earth]] at all times. That means that the rotation of the Earth offsets the separate effects of the revolution of the Moon. Physical explanations rely on [[tidal locking]], asserting that tidal forces on Earth caused a bulge on the Moon, thereby creating a drag on the rotation of the Moon until its same face always presents to the Earth.<ref> The same theory suggested that the planet [[Mercury]] had a similar locked rotation due to gravitational forces from the sun, such that the same side of Mercury always faces the sun. In fact, that is false. [[Mercury]]'s tidal locking is incomplete and it does not always present the same face to the sun.</ref> In fact, current tidal forces exerted by the [[Earth]] on the Moon cannot account fully for its bulge or egg shape.<ref>"[http://physics.fortlewis.edu/Astronomy/astronomy%20today/CHAISSON/AT308/HTML/AT30803.HTM Chapter 8, Section 3: The Rotation of the Moon]," "Astronomy Today", Department of Physics, Fort Lewis College, Durango, [[Colorado|CO]]. Accessed February 18, 2008</ref>

===Origin theories===

Most astronomers assert that the Moon originated from a collision early in Earth's history which created an orbiting ring of debris from the [[iron]]-poor surface of the planet which eventually coalesced into the moon.<ref>http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=2198</ref> This theory, however, is contrary to key observations of the Moon, such as the relatively low levels of [[iron]] in the Moon's crust.<ref>J. H. Jones: [http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/origin98/pdf/4045.pdf Tests of the Giant Impact Hypothesis]</ref> Biblical history records the Moon being created on the fourth day of [[creation week]], along with the Sun.

===Rate of recession===

The Moon currently recedes from the Earth at a rate of 1.5 inches (3.8 cm) per year<ref>NASA [http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html Measuring the Moon's Distance], LPI Bulletin, No. 72, August, 1994.</ref>, and is believed by mainstream scientists to be 4.6 billion years old <ref>NASA, [http://history.nasa.gov/SP-350/ch-15-2.html Apollo Expeditions to the Moon], Chapter 15.2.</ref>. The Moon could never have been closer than about 11,000 miles or it would have been broken up by tidal forces.<ref name="js">Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/764/ The moon: the light that rules the night], ''Creation'' 20(4):36–39, September 1998.</ref> If the rate of recession stayed constant at 3.8 cm per year, it would take 9.6 billion years for the lunar distance to migrate from 11,000 miles to the present distance of about 240,000 miles. 

===Impact Craters===
Astronomers assume that crater impacts are a reliable indicator of the age of a celestial body. True to the form and principles of [[uniformitarianism]] (as applied to [[astronomy]] rather than to [[geology]]), any such estimation relies upon uniform constants and weather/erosion trends. Recent research into crater impacts on the moon suggests that many of the assumptions previously made are unwarranted. Bonnie Buratti of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory has asserted that space weathering "takes place very rapidly on the Moon."<ref>David, Leonard. "[http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/lunar_impact_021214.html Lunar Crash of 1953: Impact Crater Identified]." <http://www.space.com>, December 14, 2002. Accessed January 16, 2008.</ref> Peter Brown of the University of Western Ontario insists that there is no absolute criteria for the dating of craters.<ref>Hecht, Jeff. "[http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3242 New crater revives Moon mystery]." <http://www.newscientist.com>, January 11, 2003. Accessed January 16, 2008.</ref>

===Creationist models===
Danny Faulkner of the [[Institute for Creation Research]] has observed that many of the lunar maria contain ''ghost craters'', or craters that the lava flow that produced the maria seem to have filled only partially. In the [[deep time]] scale required by [[uniformitarianism]], the ghost craters are the result of impacts that occurred as much as half a gigayear before the crust-fracturing impacts that caused the lava flows.<ref name=Henderson>Henderson, Thomas H. "[http://www.hal-pc.org/~tom/HeavyCratering.html Do heavily cratered planets and moons demand an old age for the solar system]?" ''Tom Henderson's Creation Resources'', July 25, 2003. Accessed March 25, 2008.</ref> This is not a reasonable assumption, because any impact strong enough to crack the crust should have obliterated any craters previously extant. Faulkner thus concludes that the impacts that formed the ghost craters, and those that let loose the lava flows that formed the maria, occurred within days of one another<ref name=Faulkner1>Faulkner, Danny. "[http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_df_r01/ The Current State of Creation Astronomy]." ''Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism,'' Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, pp. 201–216, August 3-8, 1998. Hosted at ''[[Institute for Creation Research]].'' Accessed March 25, 2008.</ref> and were probably part of at least one system-wide catastrophe involving a narrow stream of meteoroids and/or comets that delivered a concentrated bombardment of the Earth and Moon in a short interval.<ref name=Faulkner2>Faulkner, Danny. "[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1637 A Biblically-based cratering theory]." ''Technical Journal'' (now ''Journal of Creation''), 13(1):100-104, April 1999.</ref>

Faulkner assumes that this system-wide catastrophe occurred during the year of the [[Great Flood]]. But in 1984, Russell Humphreys, then at the Sandia National Laboratories, developed evidence suggesting different dates entirely. Specifically, the [[Project Apollo]] exploration teams brought back many samples of [[basalt]] (an [[igneous rock]]) and [[brecchia]] (pulverized meteor-impact remains). Geologists analyzed both types of samples and found evidence that each type of rock had once been in a magnetic field far more powerful than that which the Moon has today. Using his model for the creation and decay of magnetic fields<ref name=Humphreys/>, Humphreys determined that the basalt had been laid down about 370 years after creation, and the brecchia had been laid down 1840 years after creation, or about 190 years after the Flood.<ref name=Humphreys2>Humphreys reasoned that the higher the magnetic dipole moment of the samples, the earlier in lunar history they were formed.</ref> These findings clearly suggest that the Moon, and presumably all other bodies in the solar system, have been subject to two separate system-wide bombardments, one occurring in the second or third generation after the [[fall of man]] and the other occurring well after the Flood.

==Tides==

The gravitational force of the Moon causes the ocean [[tides]]; these tidal forces have other effects as well. These tidal forces have the effect of creating resistance which slows down the rotation of both objects. In the case of the Earth, the result is that the Earth's rotation slows on the order of one millisecond per century. The Moon's rotation is locked in to its period of revolution, and the same side of the Moon always faces the Earth.

==The "dark" or far side==

The phrase "the ''dark'' side of the Moon" is inaccurate because the Moon does rotate relative to the Sun, with the same period as its period of revolution, once every 29 days. Our view of the Moon from the Earth always shows the same side of the Moon, with the same markings and features. When the Moon is full, the entire side that faces us is experiencing lunar "day" and is lit by the Sun. Two weeks later, when the Moon is new, the side that faces us is experiencing solar "night" and is unlit (and virtually invisible).

The far side of the moon is far more heavily cratered than the near, and the predominant type of cratering is consistent with brecchia-forming meteor impact. This would suggest that the far side suffered its bombardment in the latter of the two catastrophes that Humphreys suggests that the Moon has suffered.

Due to a slight "wobble" in the lunar motion called ''libration,'' we actually see a little bit more than half of the Moon's surface; sometimes it is turned a bit one way and sometimes the other. However, nobody had any idea of what the far side of the Moon looked like until 1959, when a Soviet satellite photographed it and relayed pictures back.

[[image:oldmooninnew.jpg|200px|right|thumb|The "old Moon in the new Moon's arms"]]
In the old Scottish ballad ''Sir Patrick Spens''<ref>Child, Francis James (1860), ''The English and Scottish Popular Ballads,'' [http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/eng/child/ch058.htm No. 58]; the ballad is thought to refer to an actual event of the year A.D. 1290.</ref>, a sailor cautions:

:"I saw the new moon late yestreen
::With the old moon in her arm;
:And if we go to sea, master,
::I fear we'll come to harm."

==Earthshine==

The effect known as "the old Moon in the new Moon's arms" can often be seen when the Moon is a narrow [[crescent]]. Within the intensely bright crescent, a dim and mysterious view of the entire circular moon is seen. The effect is also known as ''earthshine'' because it is light from the Sun reflected off the Earth to the Moon and back that lights up the darker portion of the Moon. The bright crescent is lit by the Sun and is in full daylight. The rest of the Moon is not lit by the Sun; but an [[astronaut]] standing in this area would see a "full Earth" dominating the nighttime sky, lighting it up by its earthshine. The brightness of Earthshine, and hence the visibility of the old Moon in the new Moon's arms, varies. When the Earth is covered with clouds, or when there is a lot of snow-pack on the side of the Earth facing the Moon, the Earth is a white and bright and the Earthshine is intense. When the Earth looks like a "big, blue marble," it is less intense.

==Lunar calendars==

Throughout history, many calendar systems have been based on the phases of the moon.

The months of the [[Islam|Muslim]] [[calendar]] are determined by observations of the [[hilal]], the moment at which the thin crescent moon first becomes visible. This marks the start of a month. Traditionally, and today in [[Pakistan]] and [[Jordan]], hilal is determined by actual observation and can be affected by weather and other factors. When following the traditional method, it is not actually possible to be certain precisely when future months will begin. In most Muslim countries, actual observation has been replaced by [[astronomy|astronomical]] rules.

==The moon in culture==

"The Old Moon in the New Moon's Arms" is the title of a poem by [[Ella Wheeler Wilcox]], in which she interprets the effect as the New Moon wishing that her lost love, the Old Moon, be in her arms one last time; Venus grants the wish, and:

:Swift thro' the vapors and the golden mist— 
::The Full Moon's shadowy shape shone on the night, 
:The New Moon reached out clasping arms and kissed 
::Her phantom lover in the whole world's sight. 

== Trivia==
Although the Moon is often described as revolving around the Earth, this is slightly inaccurate: the Earth and the Moon ''both'' revolve around their ''barycenter'', their common [[centroid|center of mass]]. This point is 1,700 below the earth's surface, which is about 1/4 of the earth's [[radius]].<ref> The radius of the Earth is 6,378 kilometers, so that means that the barycenter is located INSIDE the Earth about 1707 kilometers below its surface. [http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q665.html] </ref>

The combined motion is like an athlete performing an [[Olympics| Olympic]] hammer throw: one object swings in a large circle, the other almost pivots around a fixed point but actually performs a small opposing circle of its own. <ref>The Earth and the Moon orbit each other around a gravitational midpoint called the ''barycenter.'' This point is, however, actually inside the Earth, about 3/4 of its radius from its center. It is not the Earth, but the barycenter of the Earth-Moon system, that orbits the [[Sun]] in a near-perfect ellipse. Relative to this ellipse, Earth is 3,000 miles closer to the Sun at full moon and 3,000 miles further from the Sun at new moon.</ref>

When speaking of things having to do with the moon, the adjective ''lunar'' is used. The Greek-derived prefixed root ''selen-'' followed by the morpheme ''-o-'' is used as well; for example, the [[science]] of mapping the moon is called ''[[selenography]]'' (morphemes: ''selen-o-graph-y''). (Note, however, that the apsides of the orbits of the [[Project Apollo]] spacecraft were always called ''pericynthion'' and ''apocynthion'', not "periselene" and "aposelene.")

== Other moons ==
[[Image:Many_Moons.jpg|250px|left]]
While the Moon of [[Earth]] is the best-known satellite of any [[planet]], other planets in our solar system also have moons. Earth has the least number of moons (one), while [[Jupiter]] has sixty-two. The first extraterrestrial moons to be discovered were the four Galilean moons ([[Io]], [[Europa (moon)|Europa]], [[Ganymede]], and [[Callisto]]. Next to these, Earth's Moon is one of the largest, but Jupiter and [[Saturn]] have moons in orbit about them that might qualify as planets if they orbited the [[Sun]] instead.

=== Sizes of moons ===
Most moons in the solar system are no larger than typical asteroids. They are of irregular shape, have light and variable surface gravities, and are often unstable in their orbits. [[Phobos]] and [[Deimos]], the moons of [[Mars]], fall into this category.

Earth's own moon is an example of a [[dwarf planet]]-sized moon. These moons are so large that their own self-gravity forces them to collapse into spheres or spheroids. Some of them, like [[Ganymede]] and [[Titan (moon)|Titan]], are larger even than the planet [[Mercury]]. Earth's moon was, of course, known to the ancients, but the remaining dwarf-planet-sized moons were generally the first to be discovered in orbit around any given primary. [[Galileo Galilei]] discovered the first four of these in orbit about [[Jupiter]] early in the seventeenth century; [[Christiaan Huygens]] then discovered Titan of [[Saturn]] later in that same century.

== Symbolic Importance in Islam ==
The crescent moon is an internationally recognized symbol of [[Islam]]. It appears on the flags of several Islamic nations. It also forms part of the official emblems of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. <ref>http://islam.about.com/od/history/a/crescent_moon.htm</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Origin of the Moon]]
== External links ==

*[http://www.solarviews.com/eng/terms.htm Glossary]
==Further reading==
* Donna Henes. ''The Moon Watcher's Companion: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About the Moon, and More'' (2004) [http://www.amazon.com/Moon-Watchers-Companion-Everything-Wanted/dp/1569244669/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241592218&sr=1-11 excerpt and text search]
* David Schrunk et al. ''The Moon: Resources, Future Development and Settlement'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Moon-Resources-Development-Settlement-Exploration/dp/0387360557/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241592379&sr=1-12 excerpt and text search]
* Seymour Simon, ''The Moon'' (2003) [http://www.amazon.com/Moon-Seymour-Simon/dp/0689835639/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241592218&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]

== Notes and References ==
{{reflist|2}}
{{Solarsystem}}
[[Category:Astronomy]]

Talk:Strike (baseball)

2010-05-31T16:43:11Z

Jinxmchue: Copied directly from PBS source

== Copied directly from PBS source ==

This article needs to be changed as to not be a copyright violation. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 12:43, 31 May 2010 (EDT)

Strike (baseball)

2010-05-31T16:41:45Z

Jinxmchue: move image

[[Image:Baseball Ball bw.jpg|right|120px]]
'''Strike''': A legal pitch when so called by the umpire, which:
*Is struck at by the batter and missed;
*Is not struck at, if the ball passes through the strike zone;
*Is fouled by the batter when he has less than two strikes;
*Is bunted foul;
*Touches the batter as he strikes at it;
*Touches the batter in flight in the strike zone; or
*After being batted, travels directly from the bat to the catcher's hands and is legally caught by the catcher (foul tip).
== References ==
*[http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/baseball/beginners/glossary.html Baseball Glossary] WETA.
*[http://www.nocryinginbaseball.com/glossary/glossary.html Baseball Glossary OF TERMS]
*[http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/pitch_glossary.shtml Pitching Glossary]
*[http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/bat_glossary.shtml Batting Glossary]
== See also ==
*[[Baseball]]
*[[Major League Baseball]]

== External links ==
*[http://mlb.mlb.com/index.jsp The Official Site of Major League Baseball]
*[http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/index.jsp Minor League Baseball]
*[http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/features/alumni/article.jsp?article=history BASEBALL HISTORY] Major League Baseball Players Alumni Association.
*[http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/features/alumni/stats.jsp Stats]
*[http://web.baseballhalloffame.org/index.jsp Hall of Fame] National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum, Inc.
{{baseball}}

Censorability

2010-05-30T03:48:54Z

Jinxmchue: /* Censor-Prone Environments */

The '''censorability''' of a concept, movement or ideology is its vulnerability of being censored by its opponents.

'''Censorability''' can be quantified on a scale from "0" to "1", where "0" reflects an ideology that can completely withstand efforts to censor it, while "1" indicates easy suppression through [[censorship]]. A perfect score for censorability is "0", reflecting maximum strength.

The score is dependent in part on how the ideology or movement is expressed. For example, if a unique statement or outward sign is required as an essential part of the ideology, then it will have higher censorability than if its articulation is varied.

Ideologies can be rated for relative censorability as an indication of long-term strength.

Over time, movements that are relatively difficult to censor -- i.e., have a low censorability -- can thrive. An example is the [[pro-life]] movement: it has virtually a perfect "0" degree of censorability.

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Concept or Ideology
!Censorability (Scale 0 to 1)
!Comments
|-
|[[Pro-Life]]
|0
|Virtually impossible to censor; it is manifested in many intrinsic ways. [[Pro-aborts]] have tried with every power imaginable to censor [[pro-lifers]] for 40 years, and even distorted translations of pro-life references in the [[Bible]], and yet pro-life sentiment grows stronger daily.
|-
|[[Freedom]]
|0.1
|The desire to be free is an innate characteristic of most people. History has shown that repressive regimes are eventually overthrown, no matter how much they try to indoctrinate their citizens.
|-
|[[Atheism]]
|0.2
|Many do not quickly recognize its forms.
|-
|[[Tea Party Movement]]
|0.3
|[[Liberals]] haven't been able to censor it yet, but are trying hard.
|-
|Military recruitment
|0.3
|[[Anti-war]] liberals often try to shut down recruitment centers with protests most notably on college campuses, with little success.
|-
|[[Homosexual agenda]]
|0.3
|By claiming that criticism of immoral and unhealthy lifestyles is "bigotry," pro-homosexual activists are able to censor critiques of their political agenda.
|-
|[[Chivalry]]
|0.4
|[[Feminists]] silence many expressions of chivalry, but human nature cannot be completely suppressed.
|-
|[[Christianity]]
|0.5
|Dimwitted censorship of Christian references often occurs.
|-
|[[Creationism]]
|0.9
|Absent from virtually every public school curriculum world-wide
|-
|[[Classroom prayer]]
|1
|Banned for over a hundred million by the actions of a handful
|-
|}

== Censor-Prone Environments ==

Different media, institutions and environments are more censor-prone than others. Colleges are extremely censor-prone environment, perhaps due to a small group of people acting with no accountability. The [[internet]] is at the opposite end of the spectrum, and is relatively immune to censorship.

Most censored speech includes:

*high school and college commencement addresses

(add to list)

== Equation for Censorability ==

Censorability expresses vulnerability to censorship. It is possible to determine the censorability of a concept, movement or ideology '''<math>x</math>''', in a given environment '''E''', over a particular period of time '''t''', using the following mathematical equation where '''c''' is the number of occurrences of censorship of '''<math>x</math>''' and '''o''' the number of uncensored occurrences of '''<math>x</math>'''.

::::<math>E_x(t)=\left ( \frac{c}{c+o} \right ) \!</math>100%

The higher the percentage the less resilient the concept, movement or ideology '''<math>x</math>''' is to censorship. So 0% means completely resilant to censorship and 100% means completely vulnerable to censorship.

== Factors influencing Censorability ==
Ideas and movements' censorability is affected by various factors, including:
* How easily the idea can be taken out of context
* How easily the idea can be distorted and connected with negative ideas (ie. falsely claiming opposition to affirmative action is racism)
* How complex the idea is, or how much background is required to understand it (complex ideas are easy to obfuscate, while simple ideas are hard to censor)

== Ways to Reduce Censorability ==

Quantification of censorability may facilitate reducing the censorability of a movement or good idea. Just as exercise improves physical conditioning, there maybe techniques for enhancing the resilient attributes of a message.
{{Conservapedia}}
[[category:Conservapedia]]

Talk:Militant gays

2010-05-29T02:46:28Z

Jinxmchue:

== Citations ==

We really need to find some citations for all of these examples, otherwise this isn't really that encyclopedic.[[User:RaymondP|RaymondP]] 21:29, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

:How many citations are needed? Try [[Prop 8]] vandalism at Google [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=prop+8+vandalism&aq=0&aqi=g1&aql=&oq=prop+8+vanda&gs_rfai=] --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:28, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

::I'll see what I can find, but each example needs to be cited. I just wanted to mention this here to give people time to cite them before I delete them, since they really are all great examples if they can be proven true. [[User:RaymondP|RaymondP]] 22:37, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

:::Well I crafted this article and the page has seven references, six unique. I didn't make anything up and those refs can be found. I disagree that they all need refs but be my guest. Make sure you discuss deletions here first. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:44, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

:If you're talking about the indented list, it is all cited with the massresistance.org link. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 22:46, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

Militant gays

2010-05-28T15:55:21Z

Jinxmchue: /* Examples of morally offensive, anti-American behavior */

'''Militant gays''' is a term to describe the intolerant behavior of [[homosexual activist]]s that seek to intimidate, suppress, vandalize, and assault anybody that opposes their [[homosexual]] movement. Militant gays seek civil rights, [[same-sex marriage|marriage for their same-sex partners]], adoption of children, and federal and state benefits. They try to indoctrinate younger generations, organize protests to further their agenda and oppose traditional family values. Harmless Christians are almost always their target. <ref>[http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/09b/ParkStreetChurch_0428/index2.html Gay activists terrorize Boston church] Mass Resistance, May 1, 2009</ref>

Militant gays have powerful allies including [[Democrats]], Hollywood, Big Media and last but not least lawyers. When they are denied their agenda by legal means or through the [[democratic]] process, the results are mob assaults, death threats <ref>[http://www.thevoicemagazine.com/society/607-gay-hate-crimes-against-churches.html Gay Hate Crimes against Churches?] The Voice Magazine</ref><ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=81310 Sparks fly as 'gay' activist mob swarms Christians] WND.com, November 17, 2008
</ref> and vandalism. <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=41858 San Francisco Catholic Church Attacked by Pro-Homosexual Marriage Vandals] CNSNews.com, January 13, 2009</ref>

==Examples of morally offensive, anti-American behavior==
The radical homosexual anarchist group known as "Bash Back! planned for over a month the assault on the Mt. Hope Church in Lansing, Michigan. November 9, 2008 a band of about 30 homosexuals stormed the church during services shouting “Jesus was a homo” on a megaphone and carrying an upside-down pink cross. They distributed fliers to passersby, threw condoms at parishioners and set off the fire alarms. <ref>[http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08111104.html Homosexualist Anarchists Storm Michigan Church During Sunday Service] Lifesitenews.com, November 11, 2008</ref> Catholic League president [[Bill Donohue]] responded, ''“This is urban [[fascism]] come to America’s heartland."''

Mass Resistance has compiled a list of militant gay actions in the wake of California's successful [[Proposition 8]] campaign. <ref>[http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/08c/Prop8/church_attacks.html Mormons singled out for special wrath] MassResistance.org, November 13, 2008</ref>

:More than 200 protesters screamed and chanted in front of the Catholic [[Cathedral]] of Our Lady of the Angels in [[Los Angele]]s during Sunday services, intimidating families.

:In Palm Springs, an enraged crowd of homosexual activists attacked an elderly woman carrying a cross.

:Pastor [[Rick Warren]]'s Saddleback Church was targeted, a [[swastika]] constructed. Same situation occurred targeting parishioners at a [[Catholic church]] in Riverside, Ca.

:A disgusting anti-[[Mormon]] TV ad was broadcast across California, portraying LDS missionaries invading a home of lesbians.

:Several thousand [[homosexual]] activists rioted at a Mormon temple in the Los Angeles

:Lesbians parked a van with a big sign "Bigots" in front of a Mormon family's house (parents and five kids) near [[San Francisco]].

:A Mormon church near [[Sacramento]] was spray-painted with "No on 8" .

:A Sacramento theater director was forced to resign from his job after it was revealed that he had given a $1000 donation to the Yes on Prop 8 committee.

:There were instances of cars vandalized with Hate 8 engraved with a knife.

Gay activists have disrupted and viciously vandalized churches nationwide for their stances against gay "marriage."<ref>[http://www.christianpost.com/blogs/liberty/2010/05/churches-vandalized-ransacked-and-threatened-with-disruption-27/ Churches Vandalized, Ransacked, and Threatened with Disruption]</ref>

==See Also==
[[Christian persecution]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category:Liberals]]

==External Links==
* [http://store.nicenecouncil.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=527 Shaky Town: Homosexuality & the City of San Francisco]

{{liberalism}}

PZ Myers

2010-05-27T15:00:02Z

Jinxmchue: /* Creation Museum buffoonery */ - d'oh!

'''Paul Zachary Myers''', better known as '''PZ Myers''', is a [[liberal]] [[evolutionist]] activist in the [[creation-evolution controversy]], contributing to [[The Panda's Thumb (blog)|The Panda's Thumb]] and [[Pharyngula (blog)|Pharyngula]] blogs. Myers is also an associate [[professor]] of [[biology]] at the [[University of Minnesota Morris]] (UMM)<ref name="citypages">[http://citypages.com/databank/26/1303/article13908.asp?page=1 ''The Mad Scientist''] City Pages, Volume 26 - Issue 1303, November 23, 2005 Cover story</ref>

PZ Myers commented, while listening to [[Michael Behe]] lecture on [[Intelligent design]], that "In science, we scream a lot."<ref name="citypages"/> According to ''Evolution News'', he opposes democratically-elected school boards deciding how evolution should be taught; feeling that it should instead be done by "Scientists with years of training in the subject, and qualified science teachers who understand the fundamentals of the theory." <ref>Egnor, Michael [http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/12/pz_myers_darwinists_know_whats.html ''P.Z. Myers: Darwinists Know What’s Best for Your Children''] Evolution News December 18, 2007</ref>

== PZ Myers and militant atheism ==

PZ Myers is an outspoken [[atheism|atheist]] who has openly advocated the elimination of religion, likening it to illiteracy.<ref>http://www.atheistrev.com/2008/03/pz-myers-on-eliminating-religion.html</ref>
His language is extremely militant at times, and laced with expletives. In a diatribe in which he described those who believe in the Bible as "lunatics" and "bigots," Myers said:

{{QuoteBox|I say, screw the polite words and careful rhetoric. It's time for scientists to break out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles, and get out there and hammer on the lunatics and idiots.<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20070420142719/http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/perspective/</ref>}}

PZ Myers frequently rants against religion, religious people, and religious institutions (e.g. churches) on his blog. Myers has called evangelical Christianity "a blight upon the earth,"<ref>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/03/left_or_right_religion_and_pol.php/</ref> religious people "ignorant, deluded, wicked, foolish, or oppressed victims of obsolete mythologies,"<ref>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/im_surrounded.php</ref> and considers every church to be a "parasitic institution that contributes nothing to the tax base and encourages further ignorance in the population."<ref>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/how_do_you_save_small_town_cha.php</ref>

Unsurprisingly, Myers' radical, hateful views on religion and religious people are [[Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia|whitewashed from the Wikipedia article about him]] by pro-evolution/anti-Creationism/anti-Intelligent Design editors who are his fans. The Wikipedia article on [[Conservapedia]] lists Myers as a critic of Conservapedia founder [[Andy Schlafly]]'s attempts to secure [[Richard Lenski]]'s raw data.

=== Debating ===

In January 2008, Myers participated in a debate with [[Discovery Institute]] fellow Geoffrey Simmons on [[Minneapolis]]/[[St. Paul]] radio station KKMS.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk5Y3VoBeVQ</ref>

=== ''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed'' ===

Myers appeared in the film ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]''. In the film, Myers compared religion to knitting and said it should be nothing more than "something fun that people get together and do on the weekend and really doesn't affect their life as much as it has been so far."<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHiZjOH1NmQ</ref> Up to and after the release of the film, PZ Myers viciously attacked the film and its makers many times and engaged in bizarre behavior. Two of the most notable incidents involved his failed attempt to gate-crash a showing of the film at the [[Mall of America]]<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/science/21expelledw.html</ref> and his crashing and disruption (including plugging himself) of a conference call held by ''Expelled'''s producers after calling in early (likely to eavesdrop) and overhearing and then dishonestly using the phone code that allowed two-way communication.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYAblaZmogA</ref><ref>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/i_always_aim_to_misbehave.php</ref> Most bizarrely, in the latter incident, Myers interruption of the producers' call began with his referring to himself in the third person, probably in an attempt to conceal both his identity and the fact that he used a phone code he was not authorized to use.
=== Communion host ===
On July 8, 2008, PZ Myers posted an entry attacking Roman Catholic beliefs regards Communion. He was reacting to a news story, in which a student at the University of Central Florida described a physical confrontation over his failure to consume a communion wafer.<ref>'Body Of Christ' Snatched From Church, Held Hostage By UCF Student, July 5, 2008[http://www.wftv.com/news/16798008/detail.html]</ref><ref>'Body Of Christ" Returned To Church After Student Receives Email Threats, July 7, 2008[http://www.wftv.com/news/16806050/detail.html]</ref> After ridiculing some people as "petty, hateful, and stupid," and asserting that "nothing makes them stupider than religion," Myers requested that his readers steal consecrated Communion wafers for him, so that he could desecrate them on camera. This rant predictably resulted in a strongly negative response from Catholics and those who support freedom of religious expression <ref>http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1459</ref>; Myers has since complained about the "hate mail" and "death threats" he has received, comparing the defense of Communion to a "witch hunt." To date, the University of Minnesota has not taken official action against Myers for his inflammatory remarks, other than to remove the link to his blog from his faculty page.<ref>http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1460</ref> PZ Myers followed through with his threat, desecrating a eucharist and tearing out pages of a copy of the [[Koran]] and a copy of [[Richard Dawkins]]' ''The God Delusion''.<ref>http://discoverthefaith.com/2008/07/26/update-on-professor-myers-desecration-of-eucharist/</ref>

Meanwhile, Myers posted two vitriolic emails he had received and included the email addresses where they supposedly had come from. Predictably, his readers responded with their own threatening and harassing emails even though at the time it was not clear whether or not the email addresses had been spoofed One was allegedly from someone at 1-800-Flowers, though the husband of the user of the address subsequently owned up to sending the e-mail.<ref>http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/071608-woman-fired-over-death-threat.html</ref> The account owner was fired by the company. Myers commented on the firing, saying, "She apparently did something stupid, which I don't have sympathy for. I would just rather not see people getting fired over an e-mail message."<ref>http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/071608-woman-fired-over-death-threat.html?page=2)</ref> Myers attempted to save face, claiming that the unsurprising behavior by his readers was not the intent behind his posting of the email addresses, and called for his readers to stop "dunning these people with email, threatening them back, signing them up for spam, or otherwise being a jerk." These pleas fell on deaf ears, while PZ Myers continued to avoid doing the obvious thing in simply removing the email addresses from his blog.<ref>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/stop_it_now_please.php</ref><ref>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/mail_dump.php</ref>

===Creation Museum buffoonery===
In August 2009, Myers led a group of over 300 atheist and agnostic students on a tour of the [[Creation Museum]].<ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=8280168 "Creation Museum: Is This How World Began?" (ABC News)]</ref> During the visit, the 52-year-old Myers eagerly climbed onto a dinosaur model which was clearly identified as being for children to sit on for photographs.<ref>http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/2009/08/16/children-and-the-creation-museum/</ref><ref>[http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/53237252.html "A firebrand visits Creation Museum" (Minneapolis Star-Tribune)]</ref> Myers donned a borrowed cowboy hat and was egged on by the cheers and laughter of the students.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQQl2TMrgbM</ref>

==Myers and Conservapedia==
True to liberal values, Myers has banned all direct references and links to Conservapedia on his blog due to what he claims was "serious problems with spamming" involving Conservapedia members.<ref>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/10/conservapdia_has_a_new_project.php</ref> Of course, no spamming (repeatedly posting the same message) actually occurred, making Myers' accusation a lie. Rather, his banning is an attempt to silence legitimate criticism which he is simply incapable of addressing.

==References ==
{{reflist}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.scienceblogs.com/pharyngula Pharyngula] '''Non-family-friendly content warning.'''

{{DEFAULTSORT:Myers, Paul Zachary}}

[[Category:Evolution]]
[[Category:Biologists]]
[[Category:Atheists]]
[[Category:Evolutionists]]

{{nb_Atheism}}

PZ Myers

2010-05-27T14:59:15Z

Jinxmchue: /* Creation Museum buffoonery */ - add a couple refs

'''Paul Zachary Myers''', better known as '''PZ Myers''', is a [[liberal]] [[evolutionist]] activist in the [[creation-evolution controversy]], contributing to [[The Panda's Thumb (blog)|The Panda's Thumb]] and [[Pharyngula (blog)|Pharyngula]] blogs. Myers is also an associate [[professor]] of [[biology]] at the [[University of Minnesota Morris]] (UMM)<ref name="citypages">[http://citypages.com/databank/26/1303/article13908.asp?page=1 ''The Mad Scientist''] City Pages, Volume 26 - Issue 1303, November 23, 2005 Cover story</ref>

PZ Myers commented, while listening to [[Michael Behe]] lecture on [[Intelligent design]], that "In science, we scream a lot."<ref name="citypages"/> According to ''Evolution News'', he opposes democratically-elected school boards deciding how evolution should be taught; feeling that it should instead be done by "Scientists with years of training in the subject, and qualified science teachers who understand the fundamentals of the theory." <ref>Egnor, Michael [http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/12/pz_myers_darwinists_know_whats.html ''P.Z. Myers: Darwinists Know What’s Best for Your Children''] Evolution News December 18, 2007</ref>

== PZ Myers and militant atheism ==

PZ Myers is an outspoken [[atheism|atheist]] who has openly advocated the elimination of religion, likening it to illiteracy.<ref>http://www.atheistrev.com/2008/03/pz-myers-on-eliminating-religion.html</ref>
His language is extremely militant at times, and laced with expletives. In a diatribe in which he described those who believe in the Bible as "lunatics" and "bigots," Myers said:

{{QuoteBox|I say, screw the polite words and careful rhetoric. It's time for scientists to break out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles, and get out there and hammer on the lunatics and idiots.<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20070420142719/http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/perspective/</ref>}}

PZ Myers frequently rants against religion, religious people, and religious institutions (e.g. churches) on his blog. Myers has called evangelical Christianity "a blight upon the earth,"<ref>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/03/left_or_right_religion_and_pol.php/</ref> religious people "ignorant, deluded, wicked, foolish, or oppressed victims of obsolete mythologies,"<ref>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/im_surrounded.php</ref> and considers every church to be a "parasitic institution that contributes nothing to the tax base and encourages further ignorance in the population."<ref>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/how_do_you_save_small_town_cha.php</ref>

Unsurprisingly, Myers' radical, hateful views on religion and religious people are [[Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia|whitewashed from the Wikipedia article about him]] by pro-evolution/anti-Creationism/anti-Intelligent Design editors who are his fans. The Wikipedia article on [[Conservapedia]] lists Myers as a critic of Conservapedia founder [[Andy Schlafly]]'s attempts to secure [[Richard Lenski]]'s raw data.

=== Debating ===

In January 2008, Myers participated in a debate with [[Discovery Institute]] fellow Geoffrey Simmons on [[Minneapolis]]/[[St. Paul]] radio station KKMS.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk5Y3VoBeVQ</ref>

=== ''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed'' ===

Myers appeared in the film ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]''. In the film, Myers compared religion to knitting and said it should be nothing more than "something fun that people get together and do on the weekend and really doesn't affect their life as much as it has been so far."<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHiZjOH1NmQ</ref> Up to and after the release of the film, PZ Myers viciously attacked the film and its makers many times and engaged in bizarre behavior. Two of the most notable incidents involved his failed attempt to gate-crash a showing of the film at the [[Mall of America]]<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/science/21expelledw.html</ref> and his crashing and disruption (including plugging himself) of a conference call held by ''Expelled'''s producers after calling in early (likely to eavesdrop) and overhearing and then dishonestly using the phone code that allowed two-way communication.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYAblaZmogA</ref><ref>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/i_always_aim_to_misbehave.php</ref> Most bizarrely, in the latter incident, Myers interruption of the producers' call began with his referring to himself in the third person, probably in an attempt to conceal both his identity and the fact that he used a phone code he was not authorized to use.
=== Communion host ===
On July 8, 2008, PZ Myers posted an entry attacking Roman Catholic beliefs regards Communion. He was reacting to a news story, in which a student at the University of Central Florida described a physical confrontation over his failure to consume a communion wafer.<ref>'Body Of Christ' Snatched From Church, Held Hostage By UCF Student, July 5, 2008[http://www.wftv.com/news/16798008/detail.html]</ref><ref>'Body Of Christ" Returned To Church After Student Receives Email Threats, July 7, 2008[http://www.wftv.com/news/16806050/detail.html]</ref> After ridiculing some people as "petty, hateful, and stupid," and asserting that "nothing makes them stupider than religion," Myers requested that his readers steal consecrated Communion wafers for him, so that he could desecrate them on camera. This rant predictably resulted in a strongly negative response from Catholics and those who support freedom of religious expression <ref>http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1459</ref>; Myers has since complained about the "hate mail" and "death threats" he has received, comparing the defense of Communion to a "witch hunt." To date, the University of Minnesota has not taken official action against Myers for his inflammatory remarks, other than to remove the link to his blog from his faculty page.<ref>http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1460</ref> PZ Myers followed through with his threat, desecrating a eucharist and tearing out pages of a copy of the [[Koran]] and a copy of [[Richard Dawkins]]' ''The God Delusion''.<ref>http://discoverthefaith.com/2008/07/26/update-on-professor-myers-desecration-of-eucharist/</ref>

Meanwhile, Myers posted two vitriolic emails he had received and included the email addresses where they supposedly had come from. Predictably, his readers responded with their own threatening and harassing emails even though at the time it was not clear whether or not the email addresses had been spoofed One was allegedly from someone at 1-800-Flowers, though the husband of the user of the address subsequently owned up to sending the e-mail.<ref>http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/071608-woman-fired-over-death-threat.html</ref> The account owner was fired by the company. Myers commented on the firing, saying, "She apparently did something stupid, which I don't have sympathy for. I would just rather not see people getting fired over an e-mail message."<ref>http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/071608-woman-fired-over-death-threat.html?page=2)</ref> Myers attempted to save face, claiming that the unsurprising behavior by his readers was not the intent behind his posting of the email addresses, and called for his readers to stop "dunning these people with email, threatening them back, signing them up for spam, or otherwise being a jerk." These pleas fell on deaf ears, while PZ Myers continued to avoid doing the obvious thing in simply removing the email addresses from his blog.<ref>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/stop_it_now_please.php</ref><ref>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/mail_dump.php</ref>

===Creation Museum buffoonery===
In August 2009, Myers led a group of over 300 atheist and agnostic students on a tour of the [[Creation Museum]].<ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=8280168 "Creation Museum: Is This How World Began?" (ABC News)] During the visit, the 52-year-old Myers eagerly climbed onto a dinosaur model which was clearly identified as being for children to sit on for photographs.<ref>http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/2009/08/16/children-and-the-creation-museum/</ref><ref>[http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/53237252.html "A firebrand visits Creation Museum" (Minneapolis Star-Tribune)]</ref> Myers donned a borrowed cowboy hat and was egged on by the cheers and laughter of the students.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQQl2TMrgbM</ref>

==Myers and Conservapedia==
True to liberal values, Myers has banned all direct references and links to Conservapedia on his blog due to what he claims was "serious problems with spamming" involving Conservapedia members.<ref>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/10/conservapdia_has_a_new_project.php</ref> Of course, no spamming (repeatedly posting the same message) actually occurred, making Myers' accusation a lie. Rather, his banning is an attempt to silence legitimate criticism which he is simply incapable of addressing.

==References ==
{{reflist}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.scienceblogs.com/pharyngula Pharyngula] '''Non-family-friendly content warning.'''

{{DEFAULTSORT:Myers, Paul Zachary}}

[[Category:Evolution]]
[[Category:Biologists]]
[[Category:Atheists]]
[[Category:Evolutionists]]

{{nb_Atheism}}

Conservative

2010-05-26T21:33:05Z

Jinxmchue: /* Conservatism and intelligence */

{|align=right border=3 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 5px; border-color: #c0c0c0; background: #e0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Previous_Breaking_News/Conservatives| Previous Breaking News: Conservatives]]
|}
A '''conservative''' adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral values, agreeing with [[George Washington]]'s [[Farewell Address]] that "religion and morality are indispensable supports" to political prosperity.<ref>[http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/49.htm United States Department of State] George Washington, farewell address, 1796</ref><ref>Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary has the following definition of conservative: "tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : TRADITIONAL"[http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conservative] Therefore, a conservative Christian would be one that tends to adhere to the morally sound doctrines of the early Christianity and [[Judeo-Christian]] values.</ref>

Former President [[Ronald Reagan]] said:
* The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom . . . [http://www.reason.com/news/show/29318.html]
[[Image:Aaag.jpg|thumb|Ronald Reagan, the 40th President of the United States, is the epitome of American conservatism.]]

The ''sine qua non'' of a conservative is someone who rises above his personal self-interest and promotes moral and economic values beneficial to all. Alternatively, a conservative is willing to learn and advocate the insights of economics and the morality of the [[Bible]] for the benefit of all, recognizing that the Bible is the most logical book ever written. Specifically, conservatives seek or support:

* [[Classroom prayer]]
* Prohibition of [[abortion]]
* [[Abstinence]] education
* Traditional marriage, not same-sex marriage
* Respect for differences between men and women, boys and girls
* Laws against pornography
* The [[Second Amendment]] right to keep and bear arms
* Economic allocative efficiency (as opposed to popular equity)
* The death penalty
* Parental control of education
* Private medical care and retirement plans
* Canceling failed social support programs
* No world government
* Enforcement of current laws regarding immigration
* Respect for our military ... past and present
* Rejection of [[junk science]] such as [[evolution]] and [[global warming]]
* Low taxes, especially for families
* Conferderationism (less power for the federal government and more for local and state governments)
* A strong national defense
__TOC__ 
==Hall of Fame==
Conservative scholar Clinton Rossiter<ref> Rossiter, "The Giants of American Conservatism," ''American Heritage'' 1955 6(6): 56-59, 94-96, online in [[EBSCO]]</ref> names [[Alexander Hamilton]], [[John Adams]], [[John Marshall]], [[Daniel Webster]], [[John C. Calhoun]], [[Elihu Root]], and [[Theodore Roosevelt]] to the "Conservative's Hall of Fame,"'' with John Adams as the greatest of American conservatives.

===Presidents===
Periodically a conservative has been elected president of the United States. The most prominent conservative presidents include:
*[[George Washington]] (1789-1797)
*[[James Monroe]] (1817-1825)
*[[Grover Cleveland]] (1885-1889, 1893-1897)
*[[Warren G. Harding]] (1921-1923)
*[[Calvin Coolidge]] (1923-1929)
*[[Ronald Reagan]] (1981-1989)
*[[George W. Bush]] (2001-2009) (with respect to taxes, Supreme Court nominations, and national security)

The most prominent conservative Congresses have been:

*The 80th Congress (elected in 1946)
*The 104th Congress (elected in 1994)

===Movement===
[[Movement conservatives]] are those who accept the logic of conservatism across-the-board, and stand up for its powerful principles despite liberal ridicule. Movement conservative activists include:
*[[Phyllis Schlafly]], opposed [[ERA]]
*[[Larry McDonald]], Congressman, on board [[KAL 007]] when shot down by the Soviets near [[Moneron Island]].
*[[Jesse Helms]], Senator, specialist in foreign policy
*[[Pat Buchanan]], TV commentator
*[[Jerry Falwell]], religion
*[[Michele Bachmann]], columnist
*[[Ann Coulter]], columnist
*[[Rush Limbaugh]], radio
*[[Michelle Malkin]], commentator
*[[Glenn Beck]], TV commentator

===Key leaders===
*[[Barry Goldwater]] - 1964 Republican candidate, lost to liberal Democrat [[Lyndon Johnson]] but revived the conservative movement inside the GOP
*[[Russell Kirk]] - Theorist & intellectual
*[[Irving Kristol|Irving]] and [[William Kristol]] - Notable [[neoconservatives]]
*[[Margaret Thatcher]] - British prime minister between 1979 and 1990, held similar views as Reagan
*[[Milton Friedman]] - Chicago-school [[libertarian]] economist, influential during Reagan administration; leader of the [[Chicago School of Economics]]

==US Voters==
In America, most conservatives support the [[Republican Party]], but not exclusively so. In the 2008 election, 35% of the voters identified themselves as conservatives. Of them, 78% voted for McCain and 20% for Obama, with the 20% accounting for Obama's margin of victory. Only 22% of the voters were liberal; they favored Obama 89%-10%. In the middle were 44% who called themselves moderates. They split for Obama by 60%-39%. (Minor candidates won 2% of the vote.)<ref> See [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1 Presidential 2008 Exit Poll]</ref>
[[File:Conservative-republican-brain.jpg|thumb|350px]]
===Religious differences between political conservatives and political liberals===
The Barna poll conducted in November 2008 shows significant differences between the 32% of Americans who called themselves as “mostly conservative” on social and political matters; and the 17% who called themselves “mostly liberal” on social and political matters. The others --50%--were moderates with positions somewhere in-between.<ref> See [http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/13-culture/258-survey-shows-how-liberals-and-conservatives-differ-on-matters-of-faith on line results] </ref>

Some findings:
Political liberals are less than half as likely as political conservatives to firmly believe that the Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches (27% versus 63%, respectively); to strongly believe that Satan is real (17% versus 36%); and to firmly contend that they have a personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs with others (23% versus 48%).

[Note: "Liberal" and "conservative" in this survey are based on politics]

Liberals are also far less likely than conservatives to strongly believe each of the following:
*their religious faith is very important in their life (54% of liberals vs. 82% of conservatives);
*a person cannot earn their way into Heaven by doing good deeds or being a good person (23% vs. 37%);
*their faith is becoming an increasingly important moral guide in their life (38% vs. 70%);
*the church they currently attend is very important in helping them find direction and fulfillment in life (37% vs. 62%);
*their primary purpose in life is to love God with all their heart, mind, strength and soul (43% vs. 76%);

political conservatives were more likely than liberals to:
*read the Bible, other than at church events, during the past week (57% vs. 33%, respectively)
*attend a religious service during the past week (62% vs. 35%)
*pray to God, other than at a religious service, during the past week (91% vs. 76%)
*share their religious beliefs with others, during the past year (56% vs. 39%, among the born again Christians interviewed from each segment)
*have ever participated in a short-term missions trip, either within the U.S. or in another country (12% vs. 6%)

*2% of conservatives and 11% of liberals were atheist or agnostic
*15% of conservatives and 2% of liberals were Christian evangelicals
*conservatives were twice as likely as liberals to be categorized as born again, based on their theological views about salvation (63% vs. 32%)
*21% of conservatives were associated with the Catholic church, compared to 30% among the liberals.

== Barack Obama and American Conservatism Backlash ==
In October of 2009, Niles Gardiner reported in the [[Britain|British]] newspaper ''The Daily Telegraph'':
{{cquote|This week’s striking [[Gallup]] poll on political ideology is further confirmation that the United States is in essence a conservative nation, which has ironically become even more conservative under [[Barack Obama]]. According to Gallup, 40 percent of Americans describe their political views as conservative, 36 percent as moderate and 20 percent as liberal. This is the first time conservatives have outnumbered moderates in America since 2004.<ref>http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100014891/barack-obama-has-failed-to-defeat-conservatism-in-america/</ref>}}

== Conservative news organizations ==
Some of the more notable news organizations which tend to be more conservative are [[WorldNetDaily]] and [[NewsMax]]. [[Fox News]], though often called conservative, tends to be more [[neoconservative]] than [[conservative]].

== Conservative magazines and blogs ==
Well known conservative magazines in the United States include ''[[National Review]]'', ''[[Policy Review]]'', ''[[The Weekly Standard]]'' and others.

Some notable [[Conservative blogs|conservative political blogs]] include the [[Heritage Foundation]]'s Policy Weblog, ''[[Human Events]]'', [[Michelle Malkin]], Newsbusters, Townhall.com and others.

== Neoconservatives ==

American commentators who ally themselves with the conservative movement but reject its religious or moral underpinnings are generally known as [[neoconservatives]].<ref>Jonah Goldberg, [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWMxNWNiNDJkY2JmNTExY2E1MzdkYWU3MWU1MTBiOGU= "What Is a 'Conservative'?"], [[National Review|National Review Online]], 11 May 2005</ref>

In the United States, conservatives are generally characterized by the following beliefs:

# Support of limited government.
# A preference for freedom of opportunity over equality of result.
# Patriotism, nationalism, and support of a strong defense.
# Support of the institution of marriage.
# Emphasis on social values, like prayer and pro-life principles.

In contrast, neoconservatives generally support bigger government and globalism, and tend to downplay the significance of social values.

== Paleoconservatives ==

[[Paleoconservatives]] are conservatives who are more focused on social issues and American sovereignty, and are suspicious of both big government and big business. They also lean against foreign interventionalism. Neoconservatives criticize this with the pejorative term of "isolationism," as they believe in promoting [[democracy]] worldwide, even where different religious or value systems are incompatible with democracy-induced changes in control.

Among paleoconservatives was Democratic Congressman from Georgia, [[Larry McDonald]]. He was also second Chairman of the [[John Birch Society]], and President of Western Goals. McDonald was aboard [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] when it was shot down by the Soviets near [[Moneron Island]] in 1983.

== Personal conservatism ==
Because Conservatives often have strong political views, there can be a tendency to see conservatism as a purely political ideology. However, there is also a strong personal side to conservatism - being a conservative is as much about applying conservative values to one's everyday life as it is about campaigning and voting for conservative candidates. In general, conservatives can be characterized by a strong sense of personal [[morality]], a willingness to observe their culture's traditions and customs, and a desire to be respectable and to show due respect to other members of the community.
==History of American conservatism==
===Textbook problems===
College-level teaching about conservatism has been distorted by a "liberal state paradigm"--that is, textbooks usually interpret recent American history in terms of the origins and successes of political liberalism--especially the New Deal, the welfare state, labor unions, and Civil Rights for blacks and equality for women. Conservative politics is usually defined as a reaction: as a free market reply to the growth of big government; as an expression of outrage against declining support for tradition and Christian morality. Where the violent Wobblies (IWW) and illegal sit down strikes of the 1930s are seen as heroic, exposing Communist subversion by [[Joe McCarthy]] is denounced as the nadir of political morality.<ref> See Leonard Moore, "Approaching Conservatism," ''OAH Magazine of History,'' 17 (January 2003) [http://www.oah.org/pubs/magazine/conservatism/moore.html online edition]</ref>
===Loyalists===
The [[Loyalists]] of the [[American Revolution]] were mostly political conservatives, some of whom produced political discourse of a high order, including lawyer [[Joseph Galloway]] and governor-historian [[Thomas Hutchinson]]. However when the crisis came, they stood with the Crown as it tried to destroy American political liberties. After the war, the great majority remained in the U.S. and became citizens, but some leaders emigrated to other places in the British Empire. [[Samuel Seabury]] was a Loyalist who stayed and as the first American bishop played a major role in shaping the Episcopal religion, a stronghold of conservative social values. While the Loyalist political tradition died out totally it the U.S., it survives in Canadian conservatism.

===Founding Fathers===
The Founding Fathers created the single most important set of political ideas in American history, known as [[Republicanism]], which all groups, liberal and conservative alike, have drawn from. Two parties were named "Republican"-- the one founded in 1794 by Jefferson and Madison (it disappeared in the 1820s), and the modern GOP founded in 1854.

During the [[First Party System]] (1790s-1820s) the [[Federalist Party]], led by [[Alexander Hamilton]], developed an important variation of republicanism that can be considered conservative. Rejecting monarchy and aristocracy, they emphasized civic virtue as the core American value. The Federalists spoke for the propertied interests and the upper classes of the cities. They envisioned a modernizing land of banks and factories, with a strong army and navy. [[George Washington]] was their great hero.

On many issues American conservatism also derives from the republicanism of [[Thomas Jefferson]] and his followers, especially [[John Randolph of Roanoke]] and his "Old Republicans" or "Quids." They idealized the yeoman farmer as the epitome of civic virtue, warned that banking and industry led to corruption, that is to the illegitimate use of government power for private ends. Jefferson himself was a vehement opponent of what today is called "judicial activism".
<ref>[http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1030.htm]</ref> The Jeffersonians stressed small government.

===Ante-Bellum: Calhoun and Webster===
During the [[Second Party System]] (1830-54) the [[Whig Party]] attracted most conservatives, such as [[Daniel Webster]] of New England. [[Daniel Webster]] and other leaders of the [[Whig Party]], called it the conservative party in the late 1830s.<ref>The word was originally used in the French Revolution. The British used it after 1839 to describe a major party. The first American usage is by Whigs who called themselves "Conservatives" in the late 1830s. Hans Sperber and Travis Trittschuh, ''American Political terms: An Historical Dictionary'' (1962) 94-97.</ref> [[John C. Calhoun]], a Democrat, articulated a sophisticated conservatism in his writings. Richard Hofstadter (1948) called him "The Marx of the Master Class." Calhoun argued that a conservative minority should be able to limit the power of a "majority dictatorship" because tradition represents the wisdom of past generations. (This argument echoes one made by [[Edmund Burke]], the founder of British conservatism, in ''Reflections on the Revolution in France'' (1790)). Calhoun is considered the father of the idea of minority rights, a position adopted by liberals in the 1960s in dealing with Civil Rights.

The conservatism of the antebellum period is contested territory; conservatives of the 21st century disagree over what comprises their heritage. Thus William J. Bennett (2006) a prominent conservative leader, warns conservatives to NOT honor Calhoun, [[Know-Nothings]], [[Copperheads (politics)|Copperheads]] and 20th century isolationists.

===Lincoln to Cleveland===
Since 1865 the [[History of the United States Republican Party|Republican party]] has identified itself with President [[Abraham Lincoln]], who was the ideological heir of the Whigs and of both Jefferson and Hamilton. As the [[Gettysburg Address]] shows, Lincoln cast himself as a second Jefferson bringing a second birth of freedom to the nation that had been born 86 years before in Jefferson's Declaration. The [[Copperheads (politics)|Copperheads]] of the Civil War reflected a reactionary opposition to modernity of the sort repudiated by modern conservatives. A few libertarians have adopted a neo-Copperhead position, arguing Lincoln was a dictator who created an all-powerful government.

In the late 19th century the [[Bourbon Democrat]]s, led by President [[Grover Cleveland]], preached against corruption, high taxes (protective tariffs), and imperialism, and supported the [[gold standard]] and business interests. They were overthrown by [[William Jennings Bryan]] in 1896, who moved the mainstream of the Democratic Party permanently to the left.

The 1896 presidential election was the first with a conservative versus liberal theme in the way in which these terms are now understood. Republican [[William McKinley]] won using the pro-business slogan "[[sound money]] and protection," while Bryan's anti-bank populism had a lasting effect on economic policies of the Democratic Party.

[[William Graham Sumner]], Yale professor (1872-1910) and polymath, vigorously promoted a libertarian conservative ethic. After dallying with [[Social Darwinism]] under the influence of [[Herbert Spencer]], he rejected evolution in his later works, and strongly opposed imperialism. He opposed monopoly and [[paternalism]] in theory as a threat to equality, democracy and middle class values, but was vague on what to do about it.<ref>Curtis, Bruce. "William Graham Sumner 'On the Concentration of Wealth.'" Journal of American History 1969 55(4): 823-832.</ref>

===Early 20th century===
In the [[Progressive Era]] (1890s-1932), regulation of industry expanded as conservatives led by Senator [[Nelson Aldrich]] of Rhode Island were put on the defensive. However, Aldrich's proposal for a strong national banking system was enacted as the [[Federal Reserve System]] in 1913. [[Theodore Roosevelt]], the dominant personality of the era, was both liberal and conservative by turns. As a conservative he led the fight to make the country a major naval power, and demanded entry into [[World War I]] to stop what he saw as the German attacks on civilization. [[William Howard Taft]] promoted a strong federal judiciary that would overrule excessive legislation. Taft defeated Roosevelt on that issue in 1912, forcing Roosevelt out of the GOP and turning it to the right for decades. As president, Taft remade the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] with five appointments; he himself presided as chief justice in 1921-30, the only former president ever to do so.

Pro-business Republicans returned to dominance in 1920 with the election of President [[Warren G. Harding]]. The presidency of [[Calvin Coolidge]] (1923-29) was a high water mark for conservatism, both politically and intellectually. Classic writing of the period includes ''Democracy and Leadership'' (1924) by Irving Babbitt and H.L. Mencken's magazine ''American Mercury'' (1924-33). The [[Efficiency Movement]] attracted many conservatives such as [[Herbert Hoover]] with its pro-business, pro-engineer approach to solving social and economic problems. In the 1920s many American conservatives generally maintained anti-foreign attitudes and, as usual, were disinclined toward changes to the healthy economic climate of the age.

During the [[Great Depression, U.S.|Great Depression]], other conservatives participated in the taxpayers' revolt at the local level. From 1930 to 1933, Americans formed as many as 3,000 taxpayers' leagues to protest high [[property tax]]es. These groups endorsed measures to limit and rollback taxes, lowered penalties on tax delinquents, and cuts in government spending. A few also called for illegal resistance (or tax strikes). The best known of these was led by the Association of Real Estate Taxpayers in Chicago which, at its height, had 30,000 dues-paying members.

An important intellectual movement, calling itself [[Southern Agrarians]] and based in Nashville, brought together like-minded novelists, poets and historians who argued that modern values undermined the traditions of American [[Republicanism]] and civic virtue.

The Depression brought liberals to power under President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] (1933). Indeed the term "liberal" now came to mean a supporter of the [[New Deal]] and Roosevelt's powerful [[New Deal Coalition]]. In 1934 [[Al Smith]] and pro-business Democrats formed the [[American Liberty League]] to fight the new liberalism, but failed to stop Roosevelt's shifting the Democratic party to the left. In 1936 the Republicans rejected Hoover and tried the more liberal [[Alf Landon]], who carried only Maine and Vermont. When Roosevelt tried to pack the Supreme Court in 1937 the conservatives finally cooperated across party lines and defeated it with help from Vice President [[John Nance Garner]]. Roosevelt unsuccessfully tried to purge the conservative Democrats in the 1938 election. The conservatives in Congress then formed a bipartisan informal [[Conservative Coalition]] of Republicans and southern Democrats. It largely controlled Congress from 1937 to 1964. Its most prominent leaders were Senator [[Robert Taft]], a Republican of Ohio, and Senator [[Richard Russell]], Democrat of Georgia.
[[Image:Gop-plank.JPG|thumb|275px|1936 cartoon shows GOP building its platform from the conservative planks abandoned by the Democrats]]

In the United States, the [[Old Right]], also called the Old Guard, was a group of [[libertarianism|libertarian]], free-market anti-interventionists, originally associated with Midwestern Republicans and Southern Democrats. The Republicans (but not the southern Democrats) were isolationists in 1939-41, (see [[America First]]), and later opposed [[NATO]] and U.S. military intervention in the Korean War.

===Later 20th century: Goldwater, Buckley, the Dixiecrats===
By 1950, American liberalism was so dominant intellectually that liberal critic [[Lionel Trilling]] could dismiss contemporary conservatism as "irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas." <ref>Lapham 2004</ref> But just as Trilling was writing a revival was underway. In the 1950s, principles for a conservative political movement were hashed out in books like Russell Kirk's ''The Conservative Mind'' (1953) and in the highly influential new magazine ''National Review'', founded by [[William F. Buckley Jr.]] in 1955.

Whereas Taft's [[Old Right]] had been isolationist the new conservatism favored American intervention overseas to oppose communism. It looked to the Founding Fathers for historical inspiration as opposed to Calhoun and the antebellum South.

The success of the Civil Rights movement came in the Civil Rights Act of 1864 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Most conservatives supported both, but [[Barry Goldwater]] opposed them. Until then southern whites (both liberal and conservative) had been locked into the Democratic party. That lock was now broken and southern conservatives started voting for Republican candidates for president in 1964-68, and by the 1990s they were also voting for GOP candidates for state and local office. The southern blacks now began to vote in large numbers, and they became Democrats, moving that party in the south to the left. By 2000, for the first time, all southern states had a conservative GOP and a liberal Democratic party. The region favored the GOP heavily in presidential elections, but split in state contests. In 2008, however, the Obama campaign broke into the solid Republican South, carrying Florida, Virginia and North Carolina.

Goldwater, a charismatic figure whose intense opposition to all New Deal programs angered liberals, was defeated in a landslide in 1964. Goldwater faded and his supporters regrouped under new leadership, especially that of [[Ronald Reagan]] in California, and regained strength nationally in the 1966 elections. Conservatives voted for [[Richard Nixon]] in 1968, who narrowly defeated the New Deal champion [[Hubert Humphrey]], and southern demagogue [[George Wallace]]. Nixon had come to terms with both the Goldwater wing of the party and the still-influential Rockefeller Republicans (Republicans from the Northeast who supported many New Deal programs).

===Nixon, Reagan, and Bush===

The Republican administrations of President [[Richard Nixon]] in the [[1970s]] were characterized more by their emphasis on ''[[realpolitik]]'', [[détente]], and economic policies such as wage and price controls, than by their adherence to conservative rhetoric and more liberal actions.

In the eight years of [[Ronald Reagan]]'s presidency 1981-89 the American conservative movement achieved ascendancy. In 1980 the GOP took control of the Senate for the first time since 1954, and conservative principles dominated Reagan's economic and foreign policies, with [[supply side economics]] as well as a strict opposition to Soviet Communism. Reagan promised to cut welfare spending but failed to do so. He did cut taxes, but raised military spending and created large federal deficits of the sort conservatives had complained about for decades. They stopped complaining, as the deficit issue switched to favor the Democrats (who did balance the budget in the late 1990s).

An icon of the American conservative movement, Reagan is credited by his supporters with transforming American politics, galvanizing the Republican Party, uniting a coalition of economic conservatives who supported his supply side economic policies, known as "[[Reaganomics]]," foreign policy conservatives who favored his success in stopping and rolling back Communism, and social conservatives who identified with Reagan's conservative religious and social ideals.

==Conservatives in Australia==

Australia was once more conservative than England but sweeping [[gun control]] laws pushed the nation leftward toward greater dependency on government in the last decade. In 2009, opposition to government control based on alleged [[global warming]] galvanized conservatives there and they led the [[Liberal Party of Australia]] to a repudiation of an emissions trading scheme.<ref>http://www.smh.com.au/national/shock-result-as-abbott-wins-liberal-leadership-by-one-vote--ets-dead-20091201-k1uz.html</ref> Conservatives also support smaller political parties such as the [[Family First Party]].

==Conservatives in Britain==

In the United Kingdom the present parliamentary opposition party since 1997 is the [[Conservative Party]]. Its current leader is [[David Cameron]].<ref>[http://www.conservatives.com Conservative party UK]</ref>

Up until the mid-19th century, the forerunners of the Conservatives were known as [[Tory|Tories]], and the name has persisted as a common nickname both for the political party and those believed to be in agreement with it. Since the mid-to-late 1970s, British conservatives have been defined by an advocacy of [[laissez-faire]] economics, privatization and lower taxation. In recent years the Conservative Party has moved away from the social conservatism which once characterized it, and the current party policy includes, for example, support for abortion on demand and gay civil partnership and the Kyoto Treaty and to oppose capital punishment (although it should be noted that such policies have little support among the party's grassroots membership) <ref>John Charmley, ''A History of Conservative Politics Since 1830'', (2nd ed. 2008) </ref>

Levels of prayer and worship are much lower in England and Wales than in the U.S., and religious issues thereby play less of a role in public discourse. However, religious issues remain a significant factor in [[Northern Ireland]] and in 2008 religious issues were significant during a special election in [[Scotland]].

In common with conservatives in many other countries, British Conservatives tend towards a patriotic rather than internationalist outlook, and are traditionally skeptical of the [[European Union]].

The broadcast media (dominated by the [[BBC]]) is almost exclusively liberal in tone. The print media is different with pro-Conservative newspapers like the ''Daily Mail'' , ''Daily Express'' and ''Daily Telegraph'' selling more copies than their rivals.<ref>[http://www.mediauk.com/the_knowledge/i.muk/An_introduction_to_newspapers_in_the_UK Media UK; Introduction to newspapers in the UK]</ref>

== Conservatism and the French Revolution ==

Conservatism in France and the continent generally arose in the after 1790 as a response to the radicalism of the [[French Revolution]].

== Benefits of Conservatism ==

Several facets of conservatism function in unison to make it an effective and powerful philosophy. Conservatism emphasizes personal freedom, independence, and initiative; this allows the [[best of the public]] to rise to their natural level of achievement. Conservatives recognize that [[big government]] fosters dependency and stifles individual achievement--and thus, weakens society as a whole.

At the same time, conservatives also recognize that with individual freedom comes individual responsibility. In the absence of a hand-holding [[nanny state]], it is imperative that each individual take responsibility for his own actions, and exercise his rights and freedoms wisely and with discretion. Thus, [[social conservatism]] is also critical to a successful society, as it emphasizes the importance of morality, duty, and responsibility to one's self and fellow men.

== Conservatism and intelligence ==
According to an unverified, controversial, heavily criticized study<ref>[http://health.msn.com/health-topics/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100255485 Do Liberals, Atheists Have Higher IQs?]</ref> by a liberal atheist,<ref>[http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_articles/atheists_and_liberals_more_intelligent_says_atheist_liberal_psychologist Atheists And Liberals More Intelligent, Says Atheist, Liberal Psychologist]</ref> people who identify themselves as "very conservative" score lower on IQ tests than liberals and atheists.<ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/26/liberals.atheists.sex.intelligence/index.html CNN.com - Liberalism, atheism, male sexual exclusivity linked to IQ]</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Conservatives|Articles about '''Conservatives''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[More News/Conservatives|Articles about '''Conservatives''' from "More News"]]
*[[Conservative Links]]
*[[Essay:Fair and balanced is not part of the Conservative platform]]
*[[Conservative politicians]]
*[[Liberal]]

==Further reading==
* Critchlow, Donald T. ''The Conservative Ascendancy: How the GOP Right Made Political History'' (2007)
* Filler, Louis. ''Dictionary of American Conservatism The First Complete Guide to Issues, People, Organizations and Events'' (1987), useful older encyclopedia
* Frank, Thomas. ''What's the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America'' (2005), a liberal perspective [http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Matter-Kansas-Conservatives-America/dp/080507774X/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193685789&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Frohnen, Bruce et al eds. ''American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia'' (2006), the most detailed reference
* Judis, John B. ''William F. Buckley, Jr.: Patron Saint of the Conservatives'' (1988) [http://www.amazon.com/William-F-Buckley-Jr-Conservatives/dp/0743217977/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207759425&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Kirk, Russell. ''The Conservative Mind''. (7th ed. 2001). highly influential conservative history of ideas [http://www.historyebook.org/ online at ACLS e-books]
* Link, William A. ''Righteous warrior: Jesse Helms and the rise of modern conservatism'' (2008) 643 pages
* Micklethwait, John, and Adrian Wooldridge. ''The Right Nation,'' (2004) influential survey [http://www.amazon.com/Right-Nation-Conservative-Power-America/dp/B000F71124/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205919226&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Micklethwait, John, and Adrian Wooldridge. ''God Is Back: How the Global Revival of Faith Is Changing the World'' (2009)
* Nash, George. ''The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945'' (2006), excellent scholarly history. [http://www.amazon.com/Conservative-Intellectual-Movement-America-Since/dp/1933859121/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241925238&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
*Pemberton, William E. ''Exit with Honor: The Life and Presidency of Ronald Reagan'' (1998) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/exit-with-honor-the-life-and-presidency-of-ronald-reagan-by-william-e-pemberton.jsp online edition]
*Perlstein, Rick. ''Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus'' (2004) on 1964 [http://www.amazon.com/Before-Storm-Goldwater-Unmaking-Consensus/dp/0809028581/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193684721&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
*Perlstein, Rick. ''Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America'' (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Nixonland-Rise-President-Fracturing-America/dp/074324303X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241924189&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Schneider, Gregory L. ed. ''Conservatism in America Since 1930: A Reader'' (2003)
*Schoenwald; Jonathan . ''A Time for Choosing: The Rise of Modern American Conservatism'' (2002) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=104931191 online edition] also [http://www.historyebook.org/ online at ACLS e-books]
* Schweizer, Peter, and Wynton C. Hall, eds. ''Landmark Speeches of the American Conservative Movement'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Landmark-Speeches-American-Conservative-Movement/dp/1585445983/ref=sr_1_4/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193685365&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search]

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

==External Links==
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/conservatives/ What Liberals Say - Category: Conservatives], [[Accuracy In Media]]
*[http://www.youtube.com/user/rescueKAL007#p/a/FD3DE4F0642C350C/0/1c8v-kgLvhM Pat Buchanan's "Crossfire" interview with [[Larry McDonald]] 3 months before downing of [[KAL 007]], Ron Paul intro]

[[Category:Conservative]]
[[Category:Taxation]]
[[Category:American History]]
[[Category:Reagan Era]]
[[Category:1960s]]
[[Category:New Deal]]

*[http://www.conservativedirectory.com Directory of Conservative Websites - Category: Conservatives], [[Politics]]

[[Category:Conservative]]
{{Conservatism}}

Conservative

2010-05-26T21:32:30Z

Jinxmchue: /* Conservatism and intelligence */

{|align=right border=3 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 5px; border-color: #c0c0c0; background: #e0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Previous_Breaking_News/Conservatives| Previous Breaking News: Conservatives]]
|}
A '''conservative''' adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral values, agreeing with [[George Washington]]'s [[Farewell Address]] that "religion and morality are indispensable supports" to political prosperity.<ref>[http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/49.htm United States Department of State] George Washington, farewell address, 1796</ref><ref>Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary has the following definition of conservative: "tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : TRADITIONAL"[http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conservative] Therefore, a conservative Christian would be one that tends to adhere to the morally sound doctrines of the early Christianity and [[Judeo-Christian]] values.</ref>

Former President [[Ronald Reagan]] said:
* The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom . . . [http://www.reason.com/news/show/29318.html]
[[Image:Aaag.jpg|thumb|Ronald Reagan, the 40th President of the United States, is the epitome of American conservatism.]]

The ''sine qua non'' of a conservative is someone who rises above his personal self-interest and promotes moral and economic values beneficial to all. Alternatively, a conservative is willing to learn and advocate the insights of economics and the morality of the [[Bible]] for the benefit of all, recognizing that the Bible is the most logical book ever written. Specifically, conservatives seek or support:

* [[Classroom prayer]]
* Prohibition of [[abortion]]
* [[Abstinence]] education
* Traditional marriage, not same-sex marriage
* Respect for differences between men and women, boys and girls
* Laws against pornography
* The [[Second Amendment]] right to keep and bear arms
* Economic allocative efficiency (as opposed to popular equity)
* The death penalty
* Parental control of education
* Private medical care and retirement plans
* Canceling failed social support programs
* No world government
* Enforcement of current laws regarding immigration
* Respect for our military ... past and present
* Rejection of [[junk science]] such as [[evolution]] and [[global warming]]
* Low taxes, especially for families
* Conferderationism (less power for the federal government and more for local and state governments)
* A strong national defense
__TOC__ 
==Hall of Fame==
Conservative scholar Clinton Rossiter<ref> Rossiter, "The Giants of American Conservatism," ''American Heritage'' 1955 6(6): 56-59, 94-96, online in [[EBSCO]]</ref> names [[Alexander Hamilton]], [[John Adams]], [[John Marshall]], [[Daniel Webster]], [[John C. Calhoun]], [[Elihu Root]], and [[Theodore Roosevelt]] to the "Conservative's Hall of Fame,"'' with John Adams as the greatest of American conservatives.

===Presidents===
Periodically a conservative has been elected president of the United States. The most prominent conservative presidents include:
*[[George Washington]] (1789-1797)
*[[James Monroe]] (1817-1825)
*[[Grover Cleveland]] (1885-1889, 1893-1897)
*[[Warren G. Harding]] (1921-1923)
*[[Calvin Coolidge]] (1923-1929)
*[[Ronald Reagan]] (1981-1989)
*[[George W. Bush]] (2001-2009) (with respect to taxes, Supreme Court nominations, and national security)

The most prominent conservative Congresses have been:

*The 80th Congress (elected in 1946)
*The 104th Congress (elected in 1994)

===Movement===
[[Movement conservatives]] are those who accept the logic of conservatism across-the-board, and stand up for its powerful principles despite liberal ridicule. Movement conservative activists include:
*[[Phyllis Schlafly]], opposed [[ERA]]
*[[Larry McDonald]], Congressman, on board [[KAL 007]] when shot down by the Soviets near [[Moneron Island]].
*[[Jesse Helms]], Senator, specialist in foreign policy
*[[Pat Buchanan]], TV commentator
*[[Jerry Falwell]], religion
*[[Michele Bachmann]], columnist
*[[Ann Coulter]], columnist
*[[Rush Limbaugh]], radio
*[[Michelle Malkin]], commentator
*[[Glenn Beck]], TV commentator

===Key leaders===
*[[Barry Goldwater]] - 1964 Republican candidate, lost to liberal Democrat [[Lyndon Johnson]] but revived the conservative movement inside the GOP
*[[Russell Kirk]] - Theorist & intellectual
*[[Irving Kristol|Irving]] and [[William Kristol]] - Notable [[neoconservatives]]
*[[Margaret Thatcher]] - British prime minister between 1979 and 1990, held similar views as Reagan
*[[Milton Friedman]] - Chicago-school [[libertarian]] economist, influential during Reagan administration; leader of the [[Chicago School of Economics]]

==US Voters==
In America, most conservatives support the [[Republican Party]], but not exclusively so. In the 2008 election, 35% of the voters identified themselves as conservatives. Of them, 78% voted for McCain and 20% for Obama, with the 20% accounting for Obama's margin of victory. Only 22% of the voters were liberal; they favored Obama 89%-10%. In the middle were 44% who called themselves moderates. They split for Obama by 60%-39%. (Minor candidates won 2% of the vote.)<ref> See [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1 Presidential 2008 Exit Poll]</ref>
[[File:Conservative-republican-brain.jpg|thumb|350px]]
===Religious differences between political conservatives and political liberals===
The Barna poll conducted in November 2008 shows significant differences between the 32% of Americans who called themselves as “mostly conservative” on social and political matters; and the 17% who called themselves “mostly liberal” on social and political matters. The others --50%--were moderates with positions somewhere in-between.<ref> See [http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/13-culture/258-survey-shows-how-liberals-and-conservatives-differ-on-matters-of-faith on line results] </ref>

Some findings:
Political liberals are less than half as likely as political conservatives to firmly believe that the Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches (27% versus 63%, respectively); to strongly believe that Satan is real (17% versus 36%); and to firmly contend that they have a personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs with others (23% versus 48%).

[Note: "Liberal" and "conservative" in this survey are based on politics]

Liberals are also far less likely than conservatives to strongly believe each of the following:
*their religious faith is very important in their life (54% of liberals vs. 82% of conservatives);
*a person cannot earn their way into Heaven by doing good deeds or being a good person (23% vs. 37%);
*their faith is becoming an increasingly important moral guide in their life (38% vs. 70%);
*the church they currently attend is very important in helping them find direction and fulfillment in life (37% vs. 62%);
*their primary purpose in life is to love God with all their heart, mind, strength and soul (43% vs. 76%);

political conservatives were more likely than liberals to:
*read the Bible, other than at church events, during the past week (57% vs. 33%, respectively)
*attend a religious service during the past week (62% vs. 35%)
*pray to God, other than at a religious service, during the past week (91% vs. 76%)
*share their religious beliefs with others, during the past year (56% vs. 39%, among the born again Christians interviewed from each segment)
*have ever participated in a short-term missions trip, either within the U.S. or in another country (12% vs. 6%)

*2% of conservatives and 11% of liberals were atheist or agnostic
*15% of conservatives and 2% of liberals were Christian evangelicals
*conservatives were twice as likely as liberals to be categorized as born again, based on their theological views about salvation (63% vs. 32%)
*21% of conservatives were associated with the Catholic church, compared to 30% among the liberals.

== Barack Obama and American Conservatism Backlash ==
In October of 2009, Niles Gardiner reported in the [[Britain|British]] newspaper ''The Daily Telegraph'':
{{cquote|This week’s striking [[Gallup]] poll on political ideology is further confirmation that the United States is in essence a conservative nation, which has ironically become even more conservative under [[Barack Obama]]. According to Gallup, 40 percent of Americans describe their political views as conservative, 36 percent as moderate and 20 percent as liberal. This is the first time conservatives have outnumbered moderates in America since 2004.<ref>http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100014891/barack-obama-has-failed-to-defeat-conservatism-in-america/</ref>}}

== Conservative news organizations ==
Some of the more notable news organizations which tend to be more conservative are [[WorldNetDaily]] and [[NewsMax]]. [[Fox News]], though often called conservative, tends to be more [[neoconservative]] than [[conservative]].

== Conservative magazines and blogs ==
Well known conservative magazines in the United States include ''[[National Review]]'', ''[[Policy Review]]'', ''[[The Weekly Standard]]'' and others.

Some notable [[Conservative blogs|conservative political blogs]] include the [[Heritage Foundation]]'s Policy Weblog, ''[[Human Events]]'', [[Michelle Malkin]], Newsbusters, Townhall.com and others.

== Neoconservatives ==

American commentators who ally themselves with the conservative movement but reject its religious or moral underpinnings are generally known as [[neoconservatives]].<ref>Jonah Goldberg, [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWMxNWNiNDJkY2JmNTExY2E1MzdkYWU3MWU1MTBiOGU= "What Is a 'Conservative'?"], [[National Review|National Review Online]], 11 May 2005</ref>

In the United States, conservatives are generally characterized by the following beliefs:

# Support of limited government.
# A preference for freedom of opportunity over equality of result.
# Patriotism, nationalism, and support of a strong defense.
# Support of the institution of marriage.
# Emphasis on social values, like prayer and pro-life principles.

In contrast, neoconservatives generally support bigger government and globalism, and tend to downplay the significance of social values.

== Paleoconservatives ==

[[Paleoconservatives]] are conservatives who are more focused on social issues and American sovereignty, and are suspicious of both big government and big business. They also lean against foreign interventionalism. Neoconservatives criticize this with the pejorative term of "isolationism," as they believe in promoting [[democracy]] worldwide, even where different religious or value systems are incompatible with democracy-induced changes in control.

Among paleoconservatives was Democratic Congressman from Georgia, [[Larry McDonald]]. He was also second Chairman of the [[John Birch Society]], and President of Western Goals. McDonald was aboard [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] when it was shot down by the Soviets near [[Moneron Island]] in 1983.

== Personal conservatism ==
Because Conservatives often have strong political views, there can be a tendency to see conservatism as a purely political ideology. However, there is also a strong personal side to conservatism - being a conservative is as much about applying conservative values to one's everyday life as it is about campaigning and voting for conservative candidates. In general, conservatives can be characterized by a strong sense of personal [[morality]], a willingness to observe their culture's traditions and customs, and a desire to be respectable and to show due respect to other members of the community.
==History of American conservatism==
===Textbook problems===
College-level teaching about conservatism has been distorted by a "liberal state paradigm"--that is, textbooks usually interpret recent American history in terms of the origins and successes of political liberalism--especially the New Deal, the welfare state, labor unions, and Civil Rights for blacks and equality for women. Conservative politics is usually defined as a reaction: as a free market reply to the growth of big government; as an expression of outrage against declining support for tradition and Christian morality. Where the violent Wobblies (IWW) and illegal sit down strikes of the 1930s are seen as heroic, exposing Communist subversion by [[Joe McCarthy]] is denounced as the nadir of political morality.<ref> See Leonard Moore, "Approaching Conservatism," ''OAH Magazine of History,'' 17 (January 2003) [http://www.oah.org/pubs/magazine/conservatism/moore.html online edition]</ref>
===Loyalists===
The [[Loyalists]] of the [[American Revolution]] were mostly political conservatives, some of whom produced political discourse of a high order, including lawyer [[Joseph Galloway]] and governor-historian [[Thomas Hutchinson]]. However when the crisis came, they stood with the Crown as it tried to destroy American political liberties. After the war, the great majority remained in the U.S. and became citizens, but some leaders emigrated to other places in the British Empire. [[Samuel Seabury]] was a Loyalist who stayed and as the first American bishop played a major role in shaping the Episcopal religion, a stronghold of conservative social values. While the Loyalist political tradition died out totally it the U.S., it survives in Canadian conservatism.

===Founding Fathers===
The Founding Fathers created the single most important set of political ideas in American history, known as [[Republicanism]], which all groups, liberal and conservative alike, have drawn from. Two parties were named "Republican"-- the one founded in 1794 by Jefferson and Madison (it disappeared in the 1820s), and the modern GOP founded in 1854.

During the [[First Party System]] (1790s-1820s) the [[Federalist Party]], led by [[Alexander Hamilton]], developed an important variation of republicanism that can be considered conservative. Rejecting monarchy and aristocracy, they emphasized civic virtue as the core American value. The Federalists spoke for the propertied interests and the upper classes of the cities. They envisioned a modernizing land of banks and factories, with a strong army and navy. [[George Washington]] was their great hero.

On many issues American conservatism also derives from the republicanism of [[Thomas Jefferson]] and his followers, especially [[John Randolph of Roanoke]] and his "Old Republicans" or "Quids." They idealized the yeoman farmer as the epitome of civic virtue, warned that banking and industry led to corruption, that is to the illegitimate use of government power for private ends. Jefferson himself was a vehement opponent of what today is called "judicial activism".
<ref>[http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1030.htm]</ref> The Jeffersonians stressed small government.

===Ante-Bellum: Calhoun and Webster===
During the [[Second Party System]] (1830-54) the [[Whig Party]] attracted most conservatives, such as [[Daniel Webster]] of New England. [[Daniel Webster]] and other leaders of the [[Whig Party]], called it the conservative party in the late 1830s.<ref>The word was originally used in the French Revolution. The British used it after 1839 to describe a major party. The first American usage is by Whigs who called themselves "Conservatives" in the late 1830s. Hans Sperber and Travis Trittschuh, ''American Political terms: An Historical Dictionary'' (1962) 94-97.</ref> [[John C. Calhoun]], a Democrat, articulated a sophisticated conservatism in his writings. Richard Hofstadter (1948) called him "The Marx of the Master Class." Calhoun argued that a conservative minority should be able to limit the power of a "majority dictatorship" because tradition represents the wisdom of past generations. (This argument echoes one made by [[Edmund Burke]], the founder of British conservatism, in ''Reflections on the Revolution in France'' (1790)). Calhoun is considered the father of the idea of minority rights, a position adopted by liberals in the 1960s in dealing with Civil Rights.

The conservatism of the antebellum period is contested territory; conservatives of the 21st century disagree over what comprises their heritage. Thus William J. Bennett (2006) a prominent conservative leader, warns conservatives to NOT honor Calhoun, [[Know-Nothings]], [[Copperheads (politics)|Copperheads]] and 20th century isolationists.

===Lincoln to Cleveland===
Since 1865 the [[History of the United States Republican Party|Republican party]] has identified itself with President [[Abraham Lincoln]], who was the ideological heir of the Whigs and of both Jefferson and Hamilton. As the [[Gettysburg Address]] shows, Lincoln cast himself as a second Jefferson bringing a second birth of freedom to the nation that had been born 86 years before in Jefferson's Declaration. The [[Copperheads (politics)|Copperheads]] of the Civil War reflected a reactionary opposition to modernity of the sort repudiated by modern conservatives. A few libertarians have adopted a neo-Copperhead position, arguing Lincoln was a dictator who created an all-powerful government.

In the late 19th century the [[Bourbon Democrat]]s, led by President [[Grover Cleveland]], preached against corruption, high taxes (protective tariffs), and imperialism, and supported the [[gold standard]] and business interests. They were overthrown by [[William Jennings Bryan]] in 1896, who moved the mainstream of the Democratic Party permanently to the left.

The 1896 presidential election was the first with a conservative versus liberal theme in the way in which these terms are now understood. Republican [[William McKinley]] won using the pro-business slogan "[[sound money]] and protection," while Bryan's anti-bank populism had a lasting effect on economic policies of the Democratic Party.

[[William Graham Sumner]], Yale professor (1872-1910) and polymath, vigorously promoted a libertarian conservative ethic. After dallying with [[Social Darwinism]] under the influence of [[Herbert Spencer]], he rejected evolution in his later works, and strongly opposed imperialism. He opposed monopoly and [[paternalism]] in theory as a threat to equality, democracy and middle class values, but was vague on what to do about it.<ref>Curtis, Bruce. "William Graham Sumner 'On the Concentration of Wealth.'" Journal of American History 1969 55(4): 823-832.</ref>

===Early 20th century===
In the [[Progressive Era]] (1890s-1932), regulation of industry expanded as conservatives led by Senator [[Nelson Aldrich]] of Rhode Island were put on the defensive. However, Aldrich's proposal for a strong national banking system was enacted as the [[Federal Reserve System]] in 1913. [[Theodore Roosevelt]], the dominant personality of the era, was both liberal and conservative by turns. As a conservative he led the fight to make the country a major naval power, and demanded entry into [[World War I]] to stop what he saw as the German attacks on civilization. [[William Howard Taft]] promoted a strong federal judiciary that would overrule excessive legislation. Taft defeated Roosevelt on that issue in 1912, forcing Roosevelt out of the GOP and turning it to the right for decades. As president, Taft remade the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] with five appointments; he himself presided as chief justice in 1921-30, the only former president ever to do so.

Pro-business Republicans returned to dominance in 1920 with the election of President [[Warren G. Harding]]. The presidency of [[Calvin Coolidge]] (1923-29) was a high water mark for conservatism, both politically and intellectually. Classic writing of the period includes ''Democracy and Leadership'' (1924) by Irving Babbitt and H.L. Mencken's magazine ''American Mercury'' (1924-33). The [[Efficiency Movement]] attracted many conservatives such as [[Herbert Hoover]] with its pro-business, pro-engineer approach to solving social and economic problems. In the 1920s many American conservatives generally maintained anti-foreign attitudes and, as usual, were disinclined toward changes to the healthy economic climate of the age.

During the [[Great Depression, U.S.|Great Depression]], other conservatives participated in the taxpayers' revolt at the local level. From 1930 to 1933, Americans formed as many as 3,000 taxpayers' leagues to protest high [[property tax]]es. These groups endorsed measures to limit and rollback taxes, lowered penalties on tax delinquents, and cuts in government spending. A few also called for illegal resistance (or tax strikes). The best known of these was led by the Association of Real Estate Taxpayers in Chicago which, at its height, had 30,000 dues-paying members.

An important intellectual movement, calling itself [[Southern Agrarians]] and based in Nashville, brought together like-minded novelists, poets and historians who argued that modern values undermined the traditions of American [[Republicanism]] and civic virtue.

The Depression brought liberals to power under President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] (1933). Indeed the term "liberal" now came to mean a supporter of the [[New Deal]] and Roosevelt's powerful [[New Deal Coalition]]. In 1934 [[Al Smith]] and pro-business Democrats formed the [[American Liberty League]] to fight the new liberalism, but failed to stop Roosevelt's shifting the Democratic party to the left. In 1936 the Republicans rejected Hoover and tried the more liberal [[Alf Landon]], who carried only Maine and Vermont. When Roosevelt tried to pack the Supreme Court in 1937 the conservatives finally cooperated across party lines and defeated it with help from Vice President [[John Nance Garner]]. Roosevelt unsuccessfully tried to purge the conservative Democrats in the 1938 election. The conservatives in Congress then formed a bipartisan informal [[Conservative Coalition]] of Republicans and southern Democrats. It largely controlled Congress from 1937 to 1964. Its most prominent leaders were Senator [[Robert Taft]], a Republican of Ohio, and Senator [[Richard Russell]], Democrat of Georgia.
[[Image:Gop-plank.JPG|thumb|275px|1936 cartoon shows GOP building its platform from the conservative planks abandoned by the Democrats]]

In the United States, the [[Old Right]], also called the Old Guard, was a group of [[libertarianism|libertarian]], free-market anti-interventionists, originally associated with Midwestern Republicans and Southern Democrats. The Republicans (but not the southern Democrats) were isolationists in 1939-41, (see [[America First]]), and later opposed [[NATO]] and U.S. military intervention in the Korean War.

===Later 20th century: Goldwater, Buckley, the Dixiecrats===
By 1950, American liberalism was so dominant intellectually that liberal critic [[Lionel Trilling]] could dismiss contemporary conservatism as "irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas." <ref>Lapham 2004</ref> But just as Trilling was writing a revival was underway. In the 1950s, principles for a conservative political movement were hashed out in books like Russell Kirk's ''The Conservative Mind'' (1953) and in the highly influential new magazine ''National Review'', founded by [[William F. Buckley Jr.]] in 1955.

Whereas Taft's [[Old Right]] had been isolationist the new conservatism favored American intervention overseas to oppose communism. It looked to the Founding Fathers for historical inspiration as opposed to Calhoun and the antebellum South.

The success of the Civil Rights movement came in the Civil Rights Act of 1864 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Most conservatives supported both, but [[Barry Goldwater]] opposed them. Until then southern whites (both liberal and conservative) had been locked into the Democratic party. That lock was now broken and southern conservatives started voting for Republican candidates for president in 1964-68, and by the 1990s they were also voting for GOP candidates for state and local office. The southern blacks now began to vote in large numbers, and they became Democrats, moving that party in the south to the left. By 2000, for the first time, all southern states had a conservative GOP and a liberal Democratic party. The region favored the GOP heavily in presidential elections, but split in state contests. In 2008, however, the Obama campaign broke into the solid Republican South, carrying Florida, Virginia and North Carolina.

Goldwater, a charismatic figure whose intense opposition to all New Deal programs angered liberals, was defeated in a landslide in 1964. Goldwater faded and his supporters regrouped under new leadership, especially that of [[Ronald Reagan]] in California, and regained strength nationally in the 1966 elections. Conservatives voted for [[Richard Nixon]] in 1968, who narrowly defeated the New Deal champion [[Hubert Humphrey]], and southern demagogue [[George Wallace]]. Nixon had come to terms with both the Goldwater wing of the party and the still-influential Rockefeller Republicans (Republicans from the Northeast who supported many New Deal programs).

===Nixon, Reagan, and Bush===

The Republican administrations of President [[Richard Nixon]] in the [[1970s]] were characterized more by their emphasis on ''[[realpolitik]]'', [[détente]], and economic policies such as wage and price controls, than by their adherence to conservative rhetoric and more liberal actions.

In the eight years of [[Ronald Reagan]]'s presidency 1981-89 the American conservative movement achieved ascendancy. In 1980 the GOP took control of the Senate for the first time since 1954, and conservative principles dominated Reagan's economic and foreign policies, with [[supply side economics]] as well as a strict opposition to Soviet Communism. Reagan promised to cut welfare spending but failed to do so. He did cut taxes, but raised military spending and created large federal deficits of the sort conservatives had complained about for decades. They stopped complaining, as the deficit issue switched to favor the Democrats (who did balance the budget in the late 1990s).

An icon of the American conservative movement, Reagan is credited by his supporters with transforming American politics, galvanizing the Republican Party, uniting a coalition of economic conservatives who supported his supply side economic policies, known as "[[Reaganomics]]," foreign policy conservatives who favored his success in stopping and rolling back Communism, and social conservatives who identified with Reagan's conservative religious and social ideals.

==Conservatives in Australia==

Australia was once more conservative than England but sweeping [[gun control]] laws pushed the nation leftward toward greater dependency on government in the last decade. In 2009, opposition to government control based on alleged [[global warming]] galvanized conservatives there and they led the [[Liberal Party of Australia]] to a repudiation of an emissions trading scheme.<ref>http://www.smh.com.au/national/shock-result-as-abbott-wins-liberal-leadership-by-one-vote--ets-dead-20091201-k1uz.html</ref> Conservatives also support smaller political parties such as the [[Family First Party]].

==Conservatives in Britain==

In the United Kingdom the present parliamentary opposition party since 1997 is the [[Conservative Party]]. Its current leader is [[David Cameron]].<ref>[http://www.conservatives.com Conservative party UK]</ref>

Up until the mid-19th century, the forerunners of the Conservatives were known as [[Tory|Tories]], and the name has persisted as a common nickname both for the political party and those believed to be in agreement with it. Since the mid-to-late 1970s, British conservatives have been defined by an advocacy of [[laissez-faire]] economics, privatization and lower taxation. In recent years the Conservative Party has moved away from the social conservatism which once characterized it, and the current party policy includes, for example, support for abortion on demand and gay civil partnership and the Kyoto Treaty and to oppose capital punishment (although it should be noted that such policies have little support among the party's grassroots membership) <ref>John Charmley, ''A History of Conservative Politics Since 1830'', (2nd ed. 2008) </ref>

Levels of prayer and worship are much lower in England and Wales than in the U.S., and religious issues thereby play less of a role in public discourse. However, religious issues remain a significant factor in [[Northern Ireland]] and in 2008 religious issues were significant during a special election in [[Scotland]].

In common with conservatives in many other countries, British Conservatives tend towards a patriotic rather than internationalist outlook, and are traditionally skeptical of the [[European Union]].

The broadcast media (dominated by the [[BBC]]) is almost exclusively liberal in tone. The print media is different with pro-Conservative newspapers like the ''Daily Mail'' , ''Daily Express'' and ''Daily Telegraph'' selling more copies than their rivals.<ref>[http://www.mediauk.com/the_knowledge/i.muk/An_introduction_to_newspapers_in_the_UK Media UK; Introduction to newspapers in the UK]</ref>

== Conservatism and the French Revolution ==

Conservatism in France and the continent generally arose in the after 1790 as a response to the radicalism of the [[French Revolution]].

== Benefits of Conservatism ==

Several facets of conservatism function in unison to make it an effective and powerful philosophy. Conservatism emphasizes personal freedom, independence, and initiative; this allows the [[best of the public]] to rise to their natural level of achievement. Conservatives recognize that [[big government]] fosters dependency and stifles individual achievement--and thus, weakens society as a whole.

At the same time, conservatives also recognize that with individual freedom comes individual responsibility. In the absence of a hand-holding [[nanny state]], it is imperative that each individual take responsibility for his own actions, and exercise his rights and freedoms wisely and with discretion. Thus, [[social conservatism]] is also critical to a successful society, as it emphasizes the importance of morality, duty, and responsibility to one's self and fellow men.

== Conservatism and intelligence ==
According to an unverified, controversial, heavily criticized study<ref>[http://health.msn.com/health-topics/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100255485 Do Liberals, Atheists Have Higher IQs?]</ref> by a liberal atheist,<ref>[http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_articles/atheists_and_liberals_more_intelligent_says_atheist_liberal_psychologist Atheists And Liberals More Intelligent, Says Atheist, Liberal Psychologist]</ref> people who identify themselves as "very conservative" score lower on IQ tests than liberals and atheists.<ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/26/liberals.atheists.sex.intelligence/index.html] CNN.com - Liberalism, atheism, male sexual exclusivity linked to IQ</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Conservatives|Articles about '''Conservatives''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[More News/Conservatives|Articles about '''Conservatives''' from "More News"]]
*[[Conservative Links]]
*[[Essay:Fair and balanced is not part of the Conservative platform]]
*[[Conservative politicians]]
*[[Liberal]]

==Further reading==
* Critchlow, Donald T. ''The Conservative Ascendancy: How the GOP Right Made Political History'' (2007)
* Filler, Louis. ''Dictionary of American Conservatism The First Complete Guide to Issues, People, Organizations and Events'' (1987), useful older encyclopedia
* Frank, Thomas. ''What's the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America'' (2005), a liberal perspective [http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Matter-Kansas-Conservatives-America/dp/080507774X/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193685789&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Frohnen, Bruce et al eds. ''American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia'' (2006), the most detailed reference
* Judis, John B. ''William F. Buckley, Jr.: Patron Saint of the Conservatives'' (1988) [http://www.amazon.com/William-F-Buckley-Jr-Conservatives/dp/0743217977/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207759425&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Kirk, Russell. ''The Conservative Mind''. (7th ed. 2001). highly influential conservative history of ideas [http://www.historyebook.org/ online at ACLS e-books]
* Link, William A. ''Righteous warrior: Jesse Helms and the rise of modern conservatism'' (2008) 643 pages
* Micklethwait, John, and Adrian Wooldridge. ''The Right Nation,'' (2004) influential survey [http://www.amazon.com/Right-Nation-Conservative-Power-America/dp/B000F71124/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205919226&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Micklethwait, John, and Adrian Wooldridge. ''God Is Back: How the Global Revival of Faith Is Changing the World'' (2009)
* Nash, George. ''The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945'' (2006), excellent scholarly history. [http://www.amazon.com/Conservative-Intellectual-Movement-America-Since/dp/1933859121/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241925238&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
*Pemberton, William E. ''Exit with Honor: The Life and Presidency of Ronald Reagan'' (1998) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/exit-with-honor-the-life-and-presidency-of-ronald-reagan-by-william-e-pemberton.jsp online edition]
*Perlstein, Rick. ''Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus'' (2004) on 1964 [http://www.amazon.com/Before-Storm-Goldwater-Unmaking-Consensus/dp/0809028581/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193684721&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
*Perlstein, Rick. ''Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America'' (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Nixonland-Rise-President-Fracturing-America/dp/074324303X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241924189&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Schneider, Gregory L. ed. ''Conservatism in America Since 1930: A Reader'' (2003)
*Schoenwald; Jonathan . ''A Time for Choosing: The Rise of Modern American Conservatism'' (2002) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=104931191 online edition] also [http://www.historyebook.org/ online at ACLS e-books]
* Schweizer, Peter, and Wynton C. Hall, eds. ''Landmark Speeches of the American Conservative Movement'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Landmark-Speeches-American-Conservative-Movement/dp/1585445983/ref=sr_1_4/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193685365&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search]

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

==External Links==
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/conservatives/ What Liberals Say - Category: Conservatives], [[Accuracy In Media]]
*[http://www.youtube.com/user/rescueKAL007#p/a/FD3DE4F0642C350C/0/1c8v-kgLvhM Pat Buchanan's "Crossfire" interview with [[Larry McDonald]] 3 months before downing of [[KAL 007]], Ron Paul intro]

[[Category:Conservative]]
[[Category:Taxation]]
[[Category:American History]]
[[Category:Reagan Era]]
[[Category:1960s]]
[[Category:New Deal]]

*[http://www.conservativedirectory.com Directory of Conservative Websites - Category: Conservatives], [[Politics]]

[[Category:Conservative]]
{{Conservatism}}

Conservative

2010-05-26T21:26:20Z

Jinxmchue: restore paragraph with more information and truthfulness; remove if you wish, but I just wanted the trolls and watchers to be exposed to the truth for once (not that it will do them any good)

{|align=right border=3 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 5px; border-color: #c0c0c0; background: #e0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Previous_Breaking_News/Conservatives| Previous Breaking News: Conservatives]]
|}
A '''conservative''' adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral values, agreeing with [[George Washington]]'s [[Farewell Address]] that "religion and morality are indispensable supports" to political prosperity.<ref>[http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/49.htm United States Department of State] George Washington, farewell address, 1796</ref><ref>Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary has the following definition of conservative: "tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : TRADITIONAL"[http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conservative] Therefore, a conservative Christian would be one that tends to adhere to the morally sound doctrines of the early Christianity and [[Judeo-Christian]] values.</ref>

Former President [[Ronald Reagan]] said:
* The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom . . . [http://www.reason.com/news/show/29318.html]
[[Image:Aaag.jpg|thumb|Ronald Reagan, the 40th President of the United States, is the epitome of American conservatism.]]

The ''sine qua non'' of a conservative is someone who rises above his personal self-interest and promotes moral and economic values beneficial to all. Alternatively, a conservative is willing to learn and advocate the insights of economics and the morality of the [[Bible]] for the benefit of all, recognizing that the Bible is the most logical book ever written. Specifically, conservatives seek or support:

* [[Classroom prayer]]
* Prohibition of [[abortion]]
* [[Abstinence]] education
* Traditional marriage, not same-sex marriage
* Respect for differences between men and women, boys and girls
* Laws against pornography
* The [[Second Amendment]] right to keep and bear arms
* Economic allocative efficiency (as opposed to popular equity)
* The death penalty
* Parental control of education
* Private medical care and retirement plans
* Canceling failed social support programs
* No world government
* Enforcement of current laws regarding immigration
* Respect for our military ... past and present
* Rejection of [[junk science]] such as [[evolution]] and [[global warming]]
* Low taxes, especially for families
* Conferderationism (less power for the federal government and more for local and state governments)
* A strong national defense
__TOC__ 
==Hall of Fame==
Conservative scholar Clinton Rossiter<ref> Rossiter, "The Giants of American Conservatism," ''American Heritage'' 1955 6(6): 56-59, 94-96, online in [[EBSCO]]</ref> names [[Alexander Hamilton]], [[John Adams]], [[John Marshall]], [[Daniel Webster]], [[John C. Calhoun]], [[Elihu Root]], and [[Theodore Roosevelt]] to the "Conservative's Hall of Fame,"'' with John Adams as the greatest of American conservatives.

===Presidents===
Periodically a conservative has been elected president of the United States. The most prominent conservative presidents include:
*[[George Washington]] (1789-1797)
*[[James Monroe]] (1817-1825)
*[[Grover Cleveland]] (1885-1889, 1893-1897)
*[[Warren G. Harding]] (1921-1923)
*[[Calvin Coolidge]] (1923-1929)
*[[Ronald Reagan]] (1981-1989)
*[[George W. Bush]] (2001-2009) (with respect to taxes, Supreme Court nominations, and national security)

The most prominent conservative Congresses have been:

*The 80th Congress (elected in 1946)
*The 104th Congress (elected in 1994)

===Movement===
[[Movement conservatives]] are those who accept the logic of conservatism across-the-board, and stand up for its powerful principles despite liberal ridicule. Movement conservative activists include:
*[[Phyllis Schlafly]], opposed [[ERA]]
*[[Larry McDonald]], Congressman, on board [[KAL 007]] when shot down by the Soviets near [[Moneron Island]].
*[[Jesse Helms]], Senator, specialist in foreign policy
*[[Pat Buchanan]], TV commentator
*[[Jerry Falwell]], religion
*[[Michele Bachmann]], columnist
*[[Ann Coulter]], columnist
*[[Rush Limbaugh]], radio
*[[Michelle Malkin]], commentator
*[[Glenn Beck]], TV commentator

===Key leaders===
*[[Barry Goldwater]] - 1964 Republican candidate, lost to liberal Democrat [[Lyndon Johnson]] but revived the conservative movement inside the GOP
*[[Russell Kirk]] - Theorist & intellectual
*[[Irving Kristol|Irving]] and [[William Kristol]] - Notable [[neoconservatives]]
*[[Margaret Thatcher]] - British prime minister between 1979 and 1990, held similar views as Reagan
*[[Milton Friedman]] - Chicago-school [[libertarian]] economist, influential during Reagan administration; leader of the [[Chicago School of Economics]]

==US Voters==
In America, most conservatives support the [[Republican Party]], but not exclusively so. In the 2008 election, 35% of the voters identified themselves as conservatives. Of them, 78% voted for McCain and 20% for Obama, with the 20% accounting for Obama's margin of victory. Only 22% of the voters were liberal; they favored Obama 89%-10%. In the middle were 44% who called themselves moderates. They split for Obama by 60%-39%. (Minor candidates won 2% of the vote.)<ref> See [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1 Presidential 2008 Exit Poll]</ref>
[[File:Conservative-republican-brain.jpg|thumb|350px]]
===Religious differences between political conservatives and political liberals===
The Barna poll conducted in November 2008 shows significant differences between the 32% of Americans who called themselves as “mostly conservative” on social and political matters; and the 17% who called themselves “mostly liberal” on social and political matters. The others --50%--were moderates with positions somewhere in-between.<ref> See [http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/13-culture/258-survey-shows-how-liberals-and-conservatives-differ-on-matters-of-faith on line results] </ref>

Some findings:
Political liberals are less than half as likely as political conservatives to firmly believe that the Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches (27% versus 63%, respectively); to strongly believe that Satan is real (17% versus 36%); and to firmly contend that they have a personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs with others (23% versus 48%).

[Note: "Liberal" and "conservative" in this survey are based on politics]

Liberals are also far less likely than conservatives to strongly believe each of the following:
*their religious faith is very important in their life (54% of liberals vs. 82% of conservatives);
*a person cannot earn their way into Heaven by doing good deeds or being a good person (23% vs. 37%);
*their faith is becoming an increasingly important moral guide in their life (38% vs. 70%);
*the church they currently attend is very important in helping them find direction and fulfillment in life (37% vs. 62%);
*their primary purpose in life is to love God with all their heart, mind, strength and soul (43% vs. 76%);

political conservatives were more likely than liberals to:
*read the Bible, other than at church events, during the past week (57% vs. 33%, respectively)
*attend a religious service during the past week (62% vs. 35%)
*pray to God, other than at a religious service, during the past week (91% vs. 76%)
*share their religious beliefs with others, during the past year (56% vs. 39%, among the born again Christians interviewed from each segment)
*have ever participated in a short-term missions trip, either within the U.S. or in another country (12% vs. 6%)

*2% of conservatives and 11% of liberals were atheist or agnostic
*15% of conservatives and 2% of liberals were Christian evangelicals
*conservatives were twice as likely as liberals to be categorized as born again, based on their theological views about salvation (63% vs. 32%)
*21% of conservatives were associated with the Catholic church, compared to 30% among the liberals.

== Barack Obama and American Conservatism Backlash ==
In October of 2009, Niles Gardiner reported in the [[Britain|British]] newspaper ''The Daily Telegraph'':
{{cquote|This week’s striking [[Gallup]] poll on political ideology is further confirmation that the United States is in essence a conservative nation, which has ironically become even more conservative under [[Barack Obama]]. According to Gallup, 40 percent of Americans describe their political views as conservative, 36 percent as moderate and 20 percent as liberal. This is the first time conservatives have outnumbered moderates in America since 2004.<ref>http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100014891/barack-obama-has-failed-to-defeat-conservatism-in-america/</ref>}}

== Conservative news organizations ==
Some of the more notable news organizations which tend to be more conservative are [[WorldNetDaily]] and [[NewsMax]]. [[Fox News]], though often called conservative, tends to be more [[neoconservative]] than [[conservative]].

== Conservative magazines and blogs ==
Well known conservative magazines in the United States include ''[[National Review]]'', ''[[Policy Review]]'', ''[[The Weekly Standard]]'' and others.

Some notable [[Conservative blogs|conservative political blogs]] include the [[Heritage Foundation]]'s Policy Weblog, ''[[Human Events]]'', [[Michelle Malkin]], Newsbusters, Townhall.com and others.

== Neoconservatives ==

American commentators who ally themselves with the conservative movement but reject its religious or moral underpinnings are generally known as [[neoconservatives]].<ref>Jonah Goldberg, [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWMxNWNiNDJkY2JmNTExY2E1MzdkYWU3MWU1MTBiOGU= "What Is a 'Conservative'?"], [[National Review|National Review Online]], 11 May 2005</ref>

In the United States, conservatives are generally characterized by the following beliefs:

# Support of limited government.
# A preference for freedom of opportunity over equality of result.
# Patriotism, nationalism, and support of a strong defense.
# Support of the institution of marriage.
# Emphasis on social values, like prayer and pro-life principles.

In contrast, neoconservatives generally support bigger government and globalism, and tend to downplay the significance of social values.

== Paleoconservatives ==

[[Paleoconservatives]] are conservatives who are more focused on social issues and American sovereignty, and are suspicious of both big government and big business. They also lean against foreign interventionalism. Neoconservatives criticize this with the pejorative term of "isolationism," as they believe in promoting [[democracy]] worldwide, even where different religious or value systems are incompatible with democracy-induced changes in control.

Among paleoconservatives was Democratic Congressman from Georgia, [[Larry McDonald]]. He was also second Chairman of the [[John Birch Society]], and President of Western Goals. McDonald was aboard [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] when it was shot down by the Soviets near [[Moneron Island]] in 1983.

== Personal conservatism ==
Because Conservatives often have strong political views, there can be a tendency to see conservatism as a purely political ideology. However, there is also a strong personal side to conservatism - being a conservative is as much about applying conservative values to one's everyday life as it is about campaigning and voting for conservative candidates. In general, conservatives can be characterized by a strong sense of personal [[morality]], a willingness to observe their culture's traditions and customs, and a desire to be respectable and to show due respect to other members of the community.
==History of American conservatism==
===Textbook problems===
College-level teaching about conservatism has been distorted by a "liberal state paradigm"--that is, textbooks usually interpret recent American history in terms of the origins and successes of political liberalism--especially the New Deal, the welfare state, labor unions, and Civil Rights for blacks and equality for women. Conservative politics is usually defined as a reaction: as a free market reply to the growth of big government; as an expression of outrage against declining support for tradition and Christian morality. Where the violent Wobblies (IWW) and illegal sit down strikes of the 1930s are seen as heroic, exposing Communist subversion by [[Joe McCarthy]] is denounced as the nadir of political morality.<ref> See Leonard Moore, "Approaching Conservatism," ''OAH Magazine of History,'' 17 (January 2003) [http://www.oah.org/pubs/magazine/conservatism/moore.html online edition]</ref>
===Loyalists===
The [[Loyalists]] of the [[American Revolution]] were mostly political conservatives, some of whom produced political discourse of a high order, including lawyer [[Joseph Galloway]] and governor-historian [[Thomas Hutchinson]]. However when the crisis came, they stood with the Crown as it tried to destroy American political liberties. After the war, the great majority remained in the U.S. and became citizens, but some leaders emigrated to other places in the British Empire. [[Samuel Seabury]] was a Loyalist who stayed and as the first American bishop played a major role in shaping the Episcopal religion, a stronghold of conservative social values. While the Loyalist political tradition died out totally it the U.S., it survives in Canadian conservatism.

===Founding Fathers===
The Founding Fathers created the single most important set of political ideas in American history, known as [[Republicanism]], which all groups, liberal and conservative alike, have drawn from. Two parties were named "Republican"-- the one founded in 1794 by Jefferson and Madison (it disappeared in the 1820s), and the modern GOP founded in 1854.

During the [[First Party System]] (1790s-1820s) the [[Federalist Party]], led by [[Alexander Hamilton]], developed an important variation of republicanism that can be considered conservative. Rejecting monarchy and aristocracy, they emphasized civic virtue as the core American value. The Federalists spoke for the propertied interests and the upper classes of the cities. They envisioned a modernizing land of banks and factories, with a strong army and navy. [[George Washington]] was their great hero.

On many issues American conservatism also derives from the republicanism of [[Thomas Jefferson]] and his followers, especially [[John Randolph of Roanoke]] and his "Old Republicans" or "Quids." They idealized the yeoman farmer as the epitome of civic virtue, warned that banking and industry led to corruption, that is to the illegitimate use of government power for private ends. Jefferson himself was a vehement opponent of what today is called "judicial activism".
<ref>[http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1030.htm]</ref> The Jeffersonians stressed small government.

===Ante-Bellum: Calhoun and Webster===
During the [[Second Party System]] (1830-54) the [[Whig Party]] attracted most conservatives, such as [[Daniel Webster]] of New England. [[Daniel Webster]] and other leaders of the [[Whig Party]], called it the conservative party in the late 1830s.<ref>The word was originally used in the French Revolution. The British used it after 1839 to describe a major party. The first American usage is by Whigs who called themselves "Conservatives" in the late 1830s. Hans Sperber and Travis Trittschuh, ''American Political terms: An Historical Dictionary'' (1962) 94-97.</ref> [[John C. Calhoun]], a Democrat, articulated a sophisticated conservatism in his writings. Richard Hofstadter (1948) called him "The Marx of the Master Class." Calhoun argued that a conservative minority should be able to limit the power of a "majority dictatorship" because tradition represents the wisdom of past generations. (This argument echoes one made by [[Edmund Burke]], the founder of British conservatism, in ''Reflections on the Revolution in France'' (1790)). Calhoun is considered the father of the idea of minority rights, a position adopted by liberals in the 1960s in dealing with Civil Rights.

The conservatism of the antebellum period is contested territory; conservatives of the 21st century disagree over what comprises their heritage. Thus William J. Bennett (2006) a prominent conservative leader, warns conservatives to NOT honor Calhoun, [[Know-Nothings]], [[Copperheads (politics)|Copperheads]] and 20th century isolationists.

===Lincoln to Cleveland===
Since 1865 the [[History of the United States Republican Party|Republican party]] has identified itself with President [[Abraham Lincoln]], who was the ideological heir of the Whigs and of both Jefferson and Hamilton. As the [[Gettysburg Address]] shows, Lincoln cast himself as a second Jefferson bringing a second birth of freedom to the nation that had been born 86 years before in Jefferson's Declaration. The [[Copperheads (politics)|Copperheads]] of the Civil War reflected a reactionary opposition to modernity of the sort repudiated by modern conservatives. A few libertarians have adopted a neo-Copperhead position, arguing Lincoln was a dictator who created an all-powerful government.

In the late 19th century the [[Bourbon Democrat]]s, led by President [[Grover Cleveland]], preached against corruption, high taxes (protective tariffs), and imperialism, and supported the [[gold standard]] and business interests. They were overthrown by [[William Jennings Bryan]] in 1896, who moved the mainstream of the Democratic Party permanently to the left.

The 1896 presidential election was the first with a conservative versus liberal theme in the way in which these terms are now understood. Republican [[William McKinley]] won using the pro-business slogan "[[sound money]] and protection," while Bryan's anti-bank populism had a lasting effect on economic policies of the Democratic Party.

[[William Graham Sumner]], Yale professor (1872-1910) and polymath, vigorously promoted a libertarian conservative ethic. After dallying with [[Social Darwinism]] under the influence of [[Herbert Spencer]], he rejected evolution in his later works, and strongly opposed imperialism. He opposed monopoly and [[paternalism]] in theory as a threat to equality, democracy and middle class values, but was vague on what to do about it.<ref>Curtis, Bruce. "William Graham Sumner 'On the Concentration of Wealth.'" Journal of American History 1969 55(4): 823-832.</ref>

===Early 20th century===
In the [[Progressive Era]] (1890s-1932), regulation of industry expanded as conservatives led by Senator [[Nelson Aldrich]] of Rhode Island were put on the defensive. However, Aldrich's proposal for a strong national banking system was enacted as the [[Federal Reserve System]] in 1913. [[Theodore Roosevelt]], the dominant personality of the era, was both liberal and conservative by turns. As a conservative he led the fight to make the country a major naval power, and demanded entry into [[World War I]] to stop what he saw as the German attacks on civilization. [[William Howard Taft]] promoted a strong federal judiciary that would overrule excessive legislation. Taft defeated Roosevelt on that issue in 1912, forcing Roosevelt out of the GOP and turning it to the right for decades. As president, Taft remade the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] with five appointments; he himself presided as chief justice in 1921-30, the only former president ever to do so.

Pro-business Republicans returned to dominance in 1920 with the election of President [[Warren G. Harding]]. The presidency of [[Calvin Coolidge]] (1923-29) was a high water mark for conservatism, both politically and intellectually. Classic writing of the period includes ''Democracy and Leadership'' (1924) by Irving Babbitt and H.L. Mencken's magazine ''American Mercury'' (1924-33). The [[Efficiency Movement]] attracted many conservatives such as [[Herbert Hoover]] with its pro-business, pro-engineer approach to solving social and economic problems. In the 1920s many American conservatives generally maintained anti-foreign attitudes and, as usual, were disinclined toward changes to the healthy economic climate of the age.

During the [[Great Depression, U.S.|Great Depression]], other conservatives participated in the taxpayers' revolt at the local level. From 1930 to 1933, Americans formed as many as 3,000 taxpayers' leagues to protest high [[property tax]]es. These groups endorsed measures to limit and rollback taxes, lowered penalties on tax delinquents, and cuts in government spending. A few also called for illegal resistance (or tax strikes). The best known of these was led by the Association of Real Estate Taxpayers in Chicago which, at its height, had 30,000 dues-paying members.

An important intellectual movement, calling itself [[Southern Agrarians]] and based in Nashville, brought together like-minded novelists, poets and historians who argued that modern values undermined the traditions of American [[Republicanism]] and civic virtue.

The Depression brought liberals to power under President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] (1933). Indeed the term "liberal" now came to mean a supporter of the [[New Deal]] and Roosevelt's powerful [[New Deal Coalition]]. In 1934 [[Al Smith]] and pro-business Democrats formed the [[American Liberty League]] to fight the new liberalism, but failed to stop Roosevelt's shifting the Democratic party to the left. In 1936 the Republicans rejected Hoover and tried the more liberal [[Alf Landon]], who carried only Maine and Vermont. When Roosevelt tried to pack the Supreme Court in 1937 the conservatives finally cooperated across party lines and defeated it with help from Vice President [[John Nance Garner]]. Roosevelt unsuccessfully tried to purge the conservative Democrats in the 1938 election. The conservatives in Congress then formed a bipartisan informal [[Conservative Coalition]] of Republicans and southern Democrats. It largely controlled Congress from 1937 to 1964. Its most prominent leaders were Senator [[Robert Taft]], a Republican of Ohio, and Senator [[Richard Russell]], Democrat of Georgia.
[[Image:Gop-plank.JPG|thumb|275px|1936 cartoon shows GOP building its platform from the conservative planks abandoned by the Democrats]]

In the United States, the [[Old Right]], also called the Old Guard, was a group of [[libertarianism|libertarian]], free-market anti-interventionists, originally associated with Midwestern Republicans and Southern Democrats. The Republicans (but not the southern Democrats) were isolationists in 1939-41, (see [[America First]]), and later opposed [[NATO]] and U.S. military intervention in the Korean War.

===Later 20th century: Goldwater, Buckley, the Dixiecrats===
By 1950, American liberalism was so dominant intellectually that liberal critic [[Lionel Trilling]] could dismiss contemporary conservatism as "irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas." <ref>Lapham 2004</ref> But just as Trilling was writing a revival was underway. In the 1950s, principles for a conservative political movement were hashed out in books like Russell Kirk's ''The Conservative Mind'' (1953) and in the highly influential new magazine ''National Review'', founded by [[William F. Buckley Jr.]] in 1955.

Whereas Taft's [[Old Right]] had been isolationist the new conservatism favored American intervention overseas to oppose communism. It looked to the Founding Fathers for historical inspiration as opposed to Calhoun and the antebellum South.

The success of the Civil Rights movement came in the Civil Rights Act of 1864 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Most conservatives supported both, but [[Barry Goldwater]] opposed them. Until then southern whites (both liberal and conservative) had been locked into the Democratic party. That lock was now broken and southern conservatives started voting for Republican candidates for president in 1964-68, and by the 1990s they were also voting for GOP candidates for state and local office. The southern blacks now began to vote in large numbers, and they became Democrats, moving that party in the south to the left. By 2000, for the first time, all southern states had a conservative GOP and a liberal Democratic party. The region favored the GOP heavily in presidential elections, but split in state contests. In 2008, however, the Obama campaign broke into the solid Republican South, carrying Florida, Virginia and North Carolina.

Goldwater, a charismatic figure whose intense opposition to all New Deal programs angered liberals, was defeated in a landslide in 1964. Goldwater faded and his supporters regrouped under new leadership, especially that of [[Ronald Reagan]] in California, and regained strength nationally in the 1966 elections. Conservatives voted for [[Richard Nixon]] in 1968, who narrowly defeated the New Deal champion [[Hubert Humphrey]], and southern demagogue [[George Wallace]]. Nixon had come to terms with both the Goldwater wing of the party and the still-influential Rockefeller Republicans (Republicans from the Northeast who supported many New Deal programs).

===Nixon, Reagan, and Bush===

The Republican administrations of President [[Richard Nixon]] in the [[1970s]] were characterized more by their emphasis on ''[[realpolitik]]'', [[détente]], and economic policies such as wage and price controls, than by their adherence to conservative rhetoric and more liberal actions.

In the eight years of [[Ronald Reagan]]'s presidency 1981-89 the American conservative movement achieved ascendancy. In 1980 the GOP took control of the Senate for the first time since 1954, and conservative principles dominated Reagan's economic and foreign policies, with [[supply side economics]] as well as a strict opposition to Soviet Communism. Reagan promised to cut welfare spending but failed to do so. He did cut taxes, but raised military spending and created large federal deficits of the sort conservatives had complained about for decades. They stopped complaining, as the deficit issue switched to favor the Democrats (who did balance the budget in the late 1990s).

An icon of the American conservative movement, Reagan is credited by his supporters with transforming American politics, galvanizing the Republican Party, uniting a coalition of economic conservatives who supported his supply side economic policies, known as "[[Reaganomics]]," foreign policy conservatives who favored his success in stopping and rolling back Communism, and social conservatives who identified with Reagan's conservative religious and social ideals.

==Conservatives in Australia==

Australia was once more conservative than England but sweeping [[gun control]] laws pushed the nation leftward toward greater dependency on government in the last decade. In 2009, opposition to government control based on alleged [[global warming]] galvanized conservatives there and they led the [[Liberal Party of Australia]] to a repudiation of an emissions trading scheme.<ref>http://www.smh.com.au/national/shock-result-as-abbott-wins-liberal-leadership-by-one-vote--ets-dead-20091201-k1uz.html</ref> Conservatives also support smaller political parties such as the [[Family First Party]].

==Conservatives in Britain==

In the United Kingdom the present parliamentary opposition party since 1997 is the [[Conservative Party]]. Its current leader is [[David Cameron]].<ref>[http://www.conservatives.com Conservative party UK]</ref>

Up until the mid-19th century, the forerunners of the Conservatives were known as [[Tory|Tories]], and the name has persisted as a common nickname both for the political party and those believed to be in agreement with it. Since the mid-to-late 1970s, British conservatives have been defined by an advocacy of [[laissez-faire]] economics, privatization and lower taxation. In recent years the Conservative Party has moved away from the social conservatism which once characterized it, and the current party policy includes, for example, support for abortion on demand and gay civil partnership and the Kyoto Treaty and to oppose capital punishment (although it should be noted that such policies have little support among the party's grassroots membership) <ref>John Charmley, ''A History of Conservative Politics Since 1830'', (2nd ed. 2008) </ref>

Levels of prayer and worship are much lower in England and Wales than in the U.S., and religious issues thereby play less of a role in public discourse. However, religious issues remain a significant factor in [[Northern Ireland]] and in 2008 religious issues were significant during a special election in [[Scotland]].

In common with conservatives in many other countries, British Conservatives tend towards a patriotic rather than internationalist outlook, and are traditionally skeptical of the [[European Union]].

The broadcast media (dominated by the [[BBC]]) is almost exclusively liberal in tone. The print media is different with pro-Conservative newspapers like the ''Daily Mail'' , ''Daily Express'' and ''Daily Telegraph'' selling more copies than their rivals.<ref>[http://www.mediauk.com/the_knowledge/i.muk/An_introduction_to_newspapers_in_the_UK Media UK; Introduction to newspapers in the UK]</ref>

== Conservatism and the French Revolution ==

Conservatism in France and the continent generally arose in the after 1790 as a response to the radicalism of the [[French Revolution]].

== Benefits of Conservatism ==

Several facets of conservatism function in unison to make it an effective and powerful philosophy. Conservatism emphasizes personal freedom, independence, and initiative; this allows the [[best of the public]] to rise to their natural level of achievement. Conservatives recognize that [[big government]] fosters dependency and stifles individual achievement--and thus, weakens society as a whole.

At the same time, conservatives also recognize that with individual freedom comes individual responsibility. In the absence of a hand-holding [[nanny state]], it is imperative that each individual take responsibility for his own actions, and exercise his rights and freedoms wisely and with discretion. Thus, [[social conservatism]] is also critical to a successful society, as it emphasizes the importance of morality, duty, and responsibility to one's self and fellow men.

== Conservatism and intelligence ==
According to an unverified, controversial, heavily criticized study<ref>[http://health.msn.com/health-topics/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100255485 Do Liberals, Atheists Have Higher IQs?]</ref> by a liberal atheist,<ref>[http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_articles/atheists_and_liberals_more_intelligent_says_atheist_liberal_psychologist Atheists And Liberals More Intelligent, Says Atheist, Liberal Psychologist]</ref> people who identify themselves as "very conservative" score lower on IQ tests than liberals and atheists.<ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/26/liberals.atheists.sex.intelligence/index.html CNN.com - Liberalism, atheism, male sexual exclusivity linked to IQ</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Conservatives|Articles about '''Conservatives''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[More News/Conservatives|Articles about '''Conservatives''' from "More News"]]
*[[Conservative Links]]
*[[Essay:Fair and balanced is not part of the Conservative platform]]
*[[Conservative politicians]]
*[[Liberal]]

==Further reading==
* Critchlow, Donald T. ''The Conservative Ascendancy: How the GOP Right Made Political History'' (2007)
* Filler, Louis. ''Dictionary of American Conservatism The First Complete Guide to Issues, People, Organizations and Events'' (1987), useful older encyclopedia
* Frank, Thomas. ''What's the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America'' (2005), a liberal perspective [http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Matter-Kansas-Conservatives-America/dp/080507774X/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193685789&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Frohnen, Bruce et al eds. ''American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia'' (2006), the most detailed reference
* Judis, John B. ''William F. Buckley, Jr.: Patron Saint of the Conservatives'' (1988) [http://www.amazon.com/William-F-Buckley-Jr-Conservatives/dp/0743217977/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207759425&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Kirk, Russell. ''The Conservative Mind''. (7th ed. 2001). highly influential conservative history of ideas [http://www.historyebook.org/ online at ACLS e-books]
* Link, William A. ''Righteous warrior: Jesse Helms and the rise of modern conservatism'' (2008) 643 pages
* Micklethwait, John, and Adrian Wooldridge. ''The Right Nation,'' (2004) influential survey [http://www.amazon.com/Right-Nation-Conservative-Power-America/dp/B000F71124/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205919226&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Micklethwait, John, and Adrian Wooldridge. ''God Is Back: How the Global Revival of Faith Is Changing the World'' (2009)
* Nash, George. ''The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945'' (2006), excellent scholarly history. [http://www.amazon.com/Conservative-Intellectual-Movement-America-Since/dp/1933859121/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241925238&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
*Pemberton, William E. ''Exit with Honor: The Life and Presidency of Ronald Reagan'' (1998) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/exit-with-honor-the-life-and-presidency-of-ronald-reagan-by-william-e-pemberton.jsp online edition]
*Perlstein, Rick. ''Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus'' (2004) on 1964 [http://www.amazon.com/Before-Storm-Goldwater-Unmaking-Consensus/dp/0809028581/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193684721&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
*Perlstein, Rick. ''Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America'' (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Nixonland-Rise-President-Fracturing-America/dp/074324303X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241924189&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Schneider, Gregory L. ed. ''Conservatism in America Since 1930: A Reader'' (2003)
*Schoenwald; Jonathan . ''A Time for Choosing: The Rise of Modern American Conservatism'' (2002) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=104931191 online edition] also [http://www.historyebook.org/ online at ACLS e-books]
* Schweizer, Peter, and Wynton C. Hall, eds. ''Landmark Speeches of the American Conservative Movement'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Landmark-Speeches-American-Conservative-Movement/dp/1585445983/ref=sr_1_4/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193685365&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search]

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

==External Links==
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/conservatives/ What Liberals Say - Category: Conservatives], [[Accuracy In Media]]
*[http://www.youtube.com/user/rescueKAL007#p/a/FD3DE4F0642C350C/0/1c8v-kgLvhM Pat Buchanan's "Crossfire" interview with [[Larry McDonald]] 3 months before downing of [[KAL 007]], Ron Paul intro]

[[Category:Conservative]]
[[Category:Taxation]]
[[Category:American History]]
[[Category:Reagan Era]]
[[Category:1960s]]
[[Category:New Deal]]

*[http://www.conservativedirectory.com Directory of Conservative Websites - Category: Conservatives], [[Politics]]

[[Category:Conservative]]
{{Conservatism}}

Chuck Norris

2010-05-25T16:27:31Z

Jinxmchue:

[[Image:chuck_norris.jpg|right|Chuck Norris publicity shot from official website.]]

'''Carlos Ray "Chuck" Norris''', born March 10, 1940 (age {{age|1940|3|10}}), is a popular martial artist, actor, humanitarian, book author, columnist at [[WorldNetDaily.com]], and world-record powerboat racer. He is perhaps best known as the star of the popular television series, ''[[Walker, Texas Ranger]]''.<ref name="bio">[http://www.chucknorris.com/html/biog.html Official Chuck Norris Biography]</ref>

Through his columns, Norris has been an outspoken critic of the [[theory of evolution]]<ref name="mania" />, the teaching of which he holds partially responsible for school shootings: "We teach our children they are nothing more than glorified apes, yet we don't expect them to act like monkeys."<ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55333 "The heroes of America's academic halls"], by Chuck Norris</ref>

He has also written about the vast [[atheist]] conspiracy to outlaw Christianity in the United States, <ref name="outlaw">[http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55668 "How to outlaw Christianity (Step 1)"], by Chuck Norris</ref><ref>[http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55789 "How to outlaw Christianity (Step 2 and 3)"], by Chuck Norris</ref> the first step of which is the acceptance of atheists in our government:

:"Though the majority of Americans continue to claim to be Christians, a Gallup poll discovered 45 percent of us would support an atheist for president. Such a survey is a clear indication that the secularization of society is alive and well."<ref name="outlaw" />

To thwart this menace of secularization, Norris has jokingly promised that if elected [[President of the United States of America | President]] he would "tattoo an American flag with the words, 'In God we trust.' on the forehead of every atheist" and "require every member of Congress work out on the Total Gym 15 minutes each day" and "deport all [[Liberals]]". <ref>[http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56107 "If I am elected president"], by Chuck Norris</ref>

Norris is active in many Christian causes, including the [[Billy Graham Evangelistic Association]] and [[Feed the Children]]<ref>[http://www.chucknorris.com/html/christian.aspx Chuck Norris Official Website: Christian]</ref>. He and his wife are the spokespersons for the [[National Council on Bible Curriculum]], which seeks to bring state certified [[Bible]] courses to public high schools nationwide<ref>[http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/21073870.html "Actor Chuck Norris and Wife Gena Join National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools Board of Directors"], ''Christian Newswire''</ref>.

Chuck Norris is also the subject of the popular internet phenomenon known as "Chuck Norris Facts." <ref name="mania">[http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52567 On Chuck Norris 'mania' sweeping the Net], ''WorldNetDaily'', October 23, 2006</ref>

Norris is a [[Republican Party|Republican]] and has donated more than $32,000 to Republican candidates and organizations since 1988. Norris once filled in for [[Sean Hannity]] on [[Hannity and Colmes]].
<ref>[http://wcbstv.com/slideshows/Conservative.Celebrities.20.824701.html Celebs Who Lean To The Right - Slide 5], ''wcbstv.com'', Accessed on April 5, 2009</ref> Norris supported [[Mike Huckabee]] for U.S. President in the 2008 Republican primary. <ref>[http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58255 My choice for president], ''WorldNetDaily'', October 21, 2007</ref> <ref>[http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58502 Huckabee, not duck-n-weave], ''WorldNetDaily'', November 5, 2007</ref> Norris was also featured in a television campaign ad with Huckabee. <ref>[http://youtube.com/watch?v=MDUQW8LUMs8 Huckchuckfacts Add on Youtube]</ref>

Chuck Norris is also famous for endorsing the "Total Gym" exercise machine.<ref>[http://www.totalgymdirect.com/ Total Gym Website]</ref>

==Links==
*[http://www.chucknorris.com/ Chuck Norris Official Website]

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

{{DEFAULTSORT: Norris, Chuck}}
[[Category:Actors]]
[[Category:Columnists]]
[[Category:Christians]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]

Hip hop

2010-05-25T16:24:42Z

Jinxmchue: Undo revision 781791 by DanC (Talk)

'''Hip-hop''', or '''rap''', is a music style that originated in the early to mid-1970s in the [[United States]], particularly in [[Bronx]], [[New York]]. Hip hop performances generally consist of two main roles, [[DJ]]ing (producing live beats and sounds, or more commonly, [[sample|sampling]] from existing records and breaks) and [[rap|MCing]] or rapping (vocals). Hip hop is one of two genres of music invented in the [[United States]] (the other being [[jazz]]).

More so than any other music genre, hip hop vocals are similar to regular speech, however it incorporates various vocal techniques and rhymes. Traditional singing is often only entailed during the chorus. Musically, hip-hop evolved from hard [[funk]] and [[soul]], electro and frequently [[sample|samples]] such records.

Successful hip-hop artists inculde [[DJ Shadow]], [[Eminem]], [[Dr. Dre]], [[The Sugarhill Gang]], [[NWA]], [[Kanye West]] and [[Notorious B.I.G]].

== The four elements ==
During the 1980s, the nascent culture of hip-hop was seen as encompassing more than just music. Originally, there were said to be four elements of hip-hop:
* rapping
* DJing, ie playing the records that provided the musical background for rapping
* breakdancing
* [[graffiti]], in the disctinctive style that has now spread all over the world.

However, hip-hop graffiti and dancing are now niche interests whose popularity is dwarfed by the global ubiquity of hip-hop music. Even DJing is now largely marginalised, as modern hip-hop music is mainly performed by solo rappers over pre-produced beats, rather than the crews of rappers and DJs who were popular in the early days of the genre.

==Themes==
Lyrical themes often vary to a large extent, covering socio-political issues as well as lighter topics.

==Criticism==
Some hip hop music have been criticized due to the explicit nature of the lyrical content. From a contextual analysis, these lyrics can be seen as an expression of the poor living conditions and the negative culture that rises from such conditions. These raps have Christian groups widely decry the sub-genre of [[gangsta rap]], because this emotional expression often demeans women and strongly promotes violence as well as an overly materialistic sense of life as a result. Songs such as "Big Pimpin'" by Jay-Z promote prostitution while songs like "**** Wit Dre Day" describe the performers Snoop Dogg and Dr. Dre performing sexual acts. Songs like "Where the Hood At?" have become anthems for young gangs and some conservatives believe the songs incite listeners into behaving violently.

==Genres==
*[[Gangsta Rap]]
*[[Crunk]]
*[[G-Funk]]
*Christian Rap - a genre of rap music with more positive lyrics than conventional rap[http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:213]

==See Also==
*[[Turntablism]]
*[[Sample|Sampling]]
*[[American Music]]

[[category:musical Genres]]

Abortion

2010-05-25T03:26:03Z

Jinxmchue: Undo revision 781680 by SeaDK (Talk) - Check the linked "Abortion in Poland" article

[[Image:Baby.jpg|right|thumb|250px|A human fetus in the womb]]
'''Abortion''' is the induced termination of a [[pregnancy]],<ref>American Heritage Dictionary definition, [http://www.bartleby.com/61/7/A0020700.html abortion]</ref> often causing [[fetal pain]]. Abortion is a billion-dollar industry<ref>http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/03/09/fetal.tissue/index.html</ref><ref>http://www.healthy.net/scr/news.asp?Id=8247</ref><ref>For example, Dr. George Tiller "estimated that he performed 250 to 300 late-term abortions in 2003, each costing an average of $6,000."[http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090327/D976JVSG4.html]</ref> in the [[United States]]<ref>Over 52,000,000 babies have been aborted in the United States since 1973.[http://www.christianliferesources.com/?/library/view.php&articleid=1042]</ref> and Western Europe except for [[Ireland]], [[Malta]] and [[Poland]], where it has been abolished.<ref>http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=50451</ref><ref>On April 10, 2007, Portugal legalized abortion up until the 10th week of pregnancy, with some conditions placed on the obtaining of consent for the abortion.</ref><ref>God warns in His word that a nation that sheds innocent blood will not prosper. (Deuteronomy 19:11-13)</ref> [[Abortion in Poland]] declined by 99% after [[communism]] was overthrown, and women's health has dramatically improved there due to fewer abortions.

'''About 80% of women who see an ultrasound of their fetus (unborn child) decide not to abort'''.<ref>http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/145703/abortion_foes_use_ultrasound__focus_on_the_family_budgets/</ref> Millions of women who had an abortion later suffer psychologically or physically from it, and support groups exist to help.<ref>http://www.post-gazette.com/regionstate/20020120abortion0120p3.asp</ref> Many victims of abortion find healing by speaking out against, and discouraging, similar harm to other mothers and their children. "I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born,"<ref>The quote is by [[Ronald Reagan]]</ref> highlights the [[deceit]] of abortion.

"Abortion doesn't solve your problems, it only creates different ones," warned a full-page ad by many women who had abortions.<ref>http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/signaturead/ad.pdf</ref> '''Many women begin regretting their abortion before they even leave the abortion clinic'''. In some cases, women begin regretting their abortion just before it is performed,<ref>In one case where a woman changed her mind from inside the abortion clinic, she "called her friend from inside the abortion clinic and arranged for her to come 'rescue' her." [http://www.40daysforlife.com/southfield/index.cfm?load=page&page=30]</ref> but are told by abortionists that it is too late to change their mind because they already signed a consent form (which is a lie - it is never too late to withdraw consent for an abortion).

==Health risks from abortion==

Abortion always ends the life of the unborn child, typically by stopping his or her beating heart. Abortion increases the risk of breast cancer, future premature birth, and other long-term health problems for the mother, as detailed below. Sometimes women die from abortion.<ref>See "Documented Incidents of 365 Women Who Have Been Killed by "Safe" and Legal Abortion." [http://abortionviolence.com/DEATHS.HTM 365 women who have been killed by 'Legal' abortion]</ref>

=== Abortion and Breast Cancer ===
The vast majority of scientific studies have shown that abortion causes an increase in breast cancer, including 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies.<ref>http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf</ref> Studies showing that abortion increases breast cancer predate the political controversy.<ref>http://www.bcpinstitute.org/brochure.htm</ref> A study at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center published in 2009 confirmed a 40% increase in risk in breast cancer from abortion.<ref>http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/dennis-byrne-barbershop/2010/01/breast-cancer-oral-contraceptives-abortion-and-lies.html</ref><ref>It is undisputed that childbirth protects against breast cancer, and thus early termination of pregnancy must increase the risk of cancer for the mother compared to carrying that same pregnancy to birth.</ref> Yet the abortion industry conceals this increased risk, just as the tobacco industry concealed its cancer risk for decades.<ref>http://www.mindfully.org/Industry/Tobacco-ChronologyJul98.htm</ref>
[[Image:Abortion Hurts Women.jpg|thumb|250px|right|Walk for Life rally]]
A new study on breast cancer in Turkey published in April 2009 in the peer-reviewed World Journal of Surgical Oncology found, through a surveying process, that induced abortion was a statistically significant cause of breast cancer risk. The study concludes, “Our findings suggest that age and induced abortion were found to be significantly associated with increased breast cancer risk….”<ref>http://wjso.com/content/7/1/37</ref>

Specifically, the study found that Turkish women who received one or more induced abortions had a 66% higher risk of breast cancer than women who never had an abortion.<ref>http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jul/09072903.html</ref> <ref>http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/press_releases/090728/index.htm</ref>

Dr. Janet Daling, who considers herself supportive of a right to perform abortions, brought the abortion-breast cancer link into the mainstream with her federally funded research on the topic. Her report, released in 1994, found a 50% increase in breast cancer risk due to induced abortion.<ref>Janet R. Daling et al., "Risk of Breast Cancer Among Young Women: Relationship to Induced Abortion," 86 Journal of the National Cancer Institute; (1994);1584</ref><ref>http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/032801.htm</ref> She said, "I have three sisters with breast cancer and I resent people messing with the scientific data to further their own agenda, be they pro-choice or pro-life. I would have loved to have found no association between breast cancer and abortion, but our research is rock solid and our data is accurate."<ref>L.A. Daily News, Sept. 1997.</ref> Similarly, an early study published in Japan in 1957 showed that women who have abortions have a much higher risk of breast cancer than those who decide to keep their baby.<ref>Segi M, et al. An epidemiological study on cancer in Japan. GANN. 1957; 48:1-63.</ref>

[[Image:Hitler.jpg‎|thumb|275px|right|In 1942, [[Adolf Hitler]] declared: "In view of the large families of the [[Slavic|Slav]] native population, it could only suit us if girls and women there had as many abortions as possible."<ref>http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/sep/07090708.html</ref> After [[World War II]], the War Crimes Tribunal indicted ten [[Nazi]] leaders for "encouraging and compelling abortion," which the tribunal considered a "crime against humanity."<ref>http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_25.asp#But%20didn%E2%80%99t%20Hitler%20oppose%20abortion?</ref> ]]

In a peer-reviewed medical journal, Karen Malec observed that:<ref>http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf</ref>

:Thirty-eight epidemiological studies exploring an independent link [between abortion and] breast cancer have been published. Twenty-nine report risk elevations. Thirteen out of 15 American studies found risk elevations. Seventeen studies are statistically significant, 16 of which report increased risk.

Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, M.D., F.A.C.S., a specialist in breast cancer an a clinical assistant professor of surgery at the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, has explained the physiology and epidemiology of the abortion-breast cancer link. She made the following observation:<ref>Angela Lanfranchi, M.D., F.A.C.S, "The breast physiology and the epidemiology of the abortion breast cancer link," 12 Imago Hominis, No. 3, 228 (2005) (emphasis added).</ref>

:This past August in Minneapolis, Patrick Carroll, director of the Pension and Population Research Institute of London, presented a paper to the largest gathering of statisticians in North America. '''He showed that abortion was the best predictor of breast cancer in Britain.''' Breast cancer is the only cancer in Britain which has its highest incidence and mortality rate among the upper rather than lower social classes. Abortion before a full term pregnancy and late pregnancy were the best explanations for this incidence. He also found that there had been a 70% increase risk of breast cancer between 1971 and 2002 and that for women between 50 and 54 years of age incidence was highly correlated with abortion.

Demographic evidence of abortion causing breast cancer includes the following. Breast cancer rates are far lower in Western countries that prohibited abortion than in those that promoted it. Ireland, which virtually bans abortion, reportedly has a lifetime rate of breast cancer of only 1 in 13, nearly half the rate of 1 in 7.5 in the United States.<ref>"Probability of breast cancer in American Women," National Cancer Institute (Apr. 15, 2005); K. O'Flaherty, R. Oakley, "Self-checks 'useless' in breast cancer fight," Sunday Tribune (Ireland), at 8 (Oct. 6, 2002).</ref> The rate of breast cancer increases steadily as one travels from Ireland, where abortion is illegal, to Northern Ireland, where abortion is legal but rare, to England, where abortion is common. <ref> R. O'Reilly, "New weapon in war against breast cancer," The Press Association Limited (Dec. 17, 1998); "Portugal-abortion referendum," Associated Press Worldstream (June 27, 1998).</ref>

In Romania, abortion was illegal under two decades of rule by the dictator Nicolae Ceausescu, and the country enjoyed one of the lowest breast cancer rates in the entire world during that time, far lower than comparable Western countries. Romania's breast cancer rate was an astounding one-sixth the rate of the United States.<ref>A. Khan, "The role of fat in breast cancer," The Independent (May 18, 1998).</ref> But after the execution of Ceausescu on Christmas Day, 1989, Romania has taken the opposite approach, embracing abortion to the point that Romania now has one of the highest abortion rates in the world.<ref>N. Abdullaev, "Russians are quickest to marry and divorce," Moscow Times (Dec 8, 2004).</ref> One Romanian observer decried, "The liberalization of abortions in Romania in 1990, the significant increase of the number of abortions at relatively short intervals, determined a rise in the incidence of breast and uterine cervix cancer in my country."<ref>Information packet, Women’s Environment and Development Organization (WEDO) World Conference on Breast Cancer (July 1997).</ref>

Studies on rats, which are an accepted method for identifying causes of cancer in humans, further confirm that abortion does indeed increase the risk of breast cancer. As Dr. [[Joel Brind]] observed, "Researchers also widely admit to the biological plausibility of abortion as an independent cause of breast cancer, through the estrogen-mediated stimulation of breast growth in the absence of differentiation. This was demonstrated experimentally in rats in the landmark experiments of Russo and Russo."<ref>[[Joel Brind]], "Induced Abortion as an Independent Risk Factor for Breast Cancer: A Critical Review of Recent Studies Based on Prospective Data," J. of Am. Physicians & Surgeons 105 (Winter 2005) [http://www.jpands.org/vol10no4/brind.pdf] (citing Russo J, Russo IH. Susceptibility of the mammary gland to
carcinogenesis. 1980;100:497-512).</ref> Additional scientific information on the abortion-breast cancer link is available [http://www.bcpinstitute.org here].

An expert (Dr. Lynn Rosenberg) hired to defend abortion felt compelled to admit, under cross-examination, that a woman increases her risk for breast cancer by having an abortion compared to carrying her pregnancy to childbirth:<ref>http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/rosenbergs_testimony.htm</ref>

:Question by the attorney: 'So in other words, a woman who finds herself pregnant at age 15 will have a higher breast cancer risk if she chooses to abort that pregnancy, than if she carries the pregnancy to term, [is that] correct?'

:Dr. Lynn Rosenberg: 'Probably, yes.'

:Question: 'Looking at that another way, let's compare two women. Let's say both got pregnant at age 15-- one terminates the pregnancy, but the other carries the pregnancy to term. And both women go on to get married and have two kids, say, at age 30 and age 35. Is the risk of breast cancer higher for the woman who had an abortion at age 15 or the woman who had a baby at age 15, all other things being equal?'

:Dr. Lynn Rosenberg: 'It's probably higher for the one who had an abortion at age 15.'

Despite the overwhelming evidence -- and inescapable logic -- for abortion increasing breast cancer, promoters of abortion cite flawed articles in an attempt to deny the link.<ref>The flaws in these articles are exposed in [[Harvard abortion study]] and [http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/aschlafly.pdf].</ref>

As Dr. Lanfranchi has explained:<ref>http://www.jpands.org/vol13no1/lanfranchi.pdf</ref>

:Well-documented breast physiology accounts for the fact that oral contraceptives and abortion are risk factors for breast cancer. There is an effort to suppress this information by federal agencies and those in academic medicine. Without this information, women cannot make a fully informed choice about their method of fertility control or about whether to maintain an unplanned pregnancy. Medical ethics demands that they be informed.

Pro-choice should include ''informed'' choice.<ref>The Archdiocese of St. Louis, for example, remarked about abortions and increased risk for breast cancer: "To dismiss that link is irresponsible." [http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/5620863.html]</ref> Yet efforts continue to suppress awareness that abortion increases breast cancer. Pro-life scientists were almost entirely barred from the National Cancer Institute's "study" of the link, and its resulting statements were fatally flawed as explained in [[National Cancer Institute on Abortion]].

[[File:Smelliesdoublecrochet.jpg|right|thumb|250px| The Smellie's double crochet abortion tool was used to grab and rip the baby out.]]

=== Abortion Causes Future Harm with Premature Births ===

"At least 49 studies have demonstrated a statistically significant increase in premature births (PB) or low birth weight (LBW) risk in women with prior induced abortions (IAs)."<ref>Brent Rooney and Byron C. Calhoun, "Induced Abortion and Risk of Later Premature Births," 8 J. Am. Physicians & Surgeons 46 (Summer 2003). [http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/rooney.pdf]</ref> Premature birth tragically causes brain damage, and an array of other severe, lifelong injuries ranging from Cerebral Palsy to blindness, or even death, and few mothers would knowingly increase the risk of that happening. "There are at least seventeen (17) studies that have found that previous induced abortions increase preterm birth risk” and thereby increase debilitating Cerebral Palsy in children."<ref>Brent Rooney, Letter, 96 European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 239 (2001) (citations omitted).</ref>

In 2008, the generally pro-abortion British medical journal, ''The Lancet'', admitted that a procedure often used in abortion increase the risk of premature birth:<ref>Dr, Jay D. Iams, Dr. Robert Romero, Jennifer F. Culhane (PhD), Dr. Robert L. Goldenberg. Primary, secondary, and tertiary interventions to reduce the morbidity and mortality of preterm birth. Lancet 2008;371:164-175. While the text of this article conceals the connection with abortion, it cites as support for its claims two studies showing how abortion increases risk of premature birth: the 2004 'Ancel' study of ten (10) European countries and the 2005 'Moreau' study that used French subjects. Ancel P-Y, Lelong N, Papiernik E, Saurel-Cubizoilles M-J, Kaminski M. History of induced abortion as a risk factor for preterm birth in European countries: results of the EUROPOP survey. Human Reproduction. 2004;112:734-740. Moreau C, Kaminski M, Ancel PY et al. Previous I induced abortions and the risk of very preterm delivery; Results of the EPIPAGE study. British J Obstetrics Gynaecology 2005; 112:430-437.</ref>

:"For example, greater public and professional awareness of evidence that repeated uterine instrumentation--eg, uterine curettage or endometrial biopsy--is associated with increased risk of subsequent preterm birth might over time influence decision-making about the procedure."

Researchers Rooney and Calhoun observed:<ref>''Id.''</ref>

:Large studies have reported a doubling of [early premature birth] EPB risk from two prior IAs. Women who had four or more IAs experienced, on average, nine times the risk of [extremely early premature births] XPB, an increase of 800 percent. These results suggest that women contemplating IA should be informed of this potential risk to subsequent pregnancies, and that physicians should be aware of the potential liability and possible need for intensified prenatal care.

Demographic evidence of how abortion increases premature birth includes the following:

:The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): "[T]he abortion rate for black women has been approximately '''three times''' as high as that for white women (range: 2.6--3.1) since 1991"<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5407a1.htm (emphasis added)</ref>

:''Science Daily'''s report on a study by the Washington University School of Medicine: "African-American women are '''three times''' more likely to deliver babies three to 17 weeks prematurely than Caucasian women"<ref>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070209074144.htm (emphasis added)</ref>

The rate of premature birth is elevated by the same amount as the abortion rate, as expected if abortion increases the risk of premature birth.

=== Other Health Risks from Abortion ===

The [[U.S. Supreme Court]] ruled in 2007 that:<ref>''Gonzales v. Carhart'', 127 S. Ct. 1610, 1634 (2007).</ref>

:While we find no reliable data to measure the phenomenon, it seems unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained. See Brief for Sandra Cano ''et al.'' as Amici Curiae in No. 05-380, pp 22-24. Severe depression and loss of esteem can follow. See ''ibid.''

A study published in the Southern Medical Journal observed that there are higher death rates association with women who have abortion, and that these higher death rates persist over time and across socioeconomic boundaries.<ref>D.C. Reardon, P.G. Ney, F.J. Scheuren, J.R. Cougle, P.K. Coleman, T. Strahan, "Deaths associated with pregnancy outcome: a record linkage study of low income women," 95 Southern Medical Journal 8, at 834-41 (August 2002).</ref>

In [[England]], the "Royal College of Psychiatrists says women should not be allowed to have an abortion until they are counselled on the possible risk to their mental health." The medical royal college warned that women who have abortions may be at risk of mental health problems.<ref>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article3559486.ece</ref> A New Zealand study found that abortion in young women may be associated with increased risks of mental health problems.<ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16405636</ref> The researcher in this study, who was not pro-life, was shaken by the study and had to go to four journals before he could find one who would publish it. <ref>http://www.thinkingchristian.net/C1148465919/E20060224082323/index.html</ref>

The study concludes with the following statement:
{{cquote|These findings are inconsistent with the current consensus on the psychological effects of abortion. In particular, in its 2005 statement on abortion, the [[American Psychological Association]] concluded that “well-designed studies of psychological responses following abortion have consistently shown that risk of psychological harm is low...the percentage of women who experience clinically relevant distress is small and appears to be no greater than in general samples of women of reproductive age” (American Psychological Association, 2005). This relatively strong conclusion about the absence of harm from abortion was based on a relatively small number of studies which had one or more of the following limitations: a) absence of comprehensive assessment of mental disorders; b) lack of comparison groups; and c) limited statistical controls. Furthermore, the statement appears to disregard the findings of a number of studies that had claimed to show negative effects for abortion (Cougle et al., 2003; Gissler et al., 1996; Reardon & Cougle, 2002). <ref>http://www.thinkingchristian.net/C1148465919/E20060224082323/index.html</ref>}}

Professor David Fergusson, lead author of the New Zealand study stated:
{{cquote|It borders on scandalous that one of the most common surgical procedures performed on young women is so poorly researched and evaluated. If this were Prozac or Vioxx, reports of associated harm would be taken much more seriously with more careful research and monitoring procedures." <ref>http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20060120-091648-6456r.htm</ref>}}

Another study published in the OB/GYN Survey detailed long-term physical and psychological health consequences of induced abortions.<ref>J.M. Thorp, Jr., K.E. Hartmann, and E.M. Shadigian, "Long-Term Physical & Psychological Health Consequences of Induced Abortion: Review of the Evidence," 58 OB/GYN Survey 1, at 67-79 (2003)</ref>

Suicide rates among women who had abortions are six times higher than women who gave birth in the prior year.<ref>http://www.abortionrecoverycounseling.com/Page8.html</ref> Overall, deaths from suicide, homicide and accidents were 248% higher after an abortion, as found by a 13-year study in Finland of its entire population.<ref>''Id.''</ref>

In the United States, only one state (Missouri) requires that the abortionist have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion.<ref>Mo. Rev. Stat. § 188.080 prohibits an abortion by a physician "who does not have clinical privileges at a hospital which offers obstetrical or gynecological care located within thirty miles of the location at which the abortion is performed or induced."</ref> In the other 49 states, an abortion patient can and often is left without prompt medical care by the treating physician.

One of the largest abortion providers in the United States, the Metropolitan Medical Associates of New Jersey, was shut down in 2007 by state health officials after one of its botched abortions left a 20-year-old woman in a coma for more than four weeks. She "became severely ill following the abortion and was transferred to Newark Beth Israel Medical Center where she needed blood transfusions and had her uterus removed. She also suffered a stroke due to the serious blood loss and had one of her lungs collapse."<ref>http://www.lifenews.com/state2137.html</ref> The State of New Jersey had shut down the same facility in 1993 also.<ref>''Id.''</ref>
__TOC__ 

==Abortion Alternatives==
[[Optionline]] provides consultants that connects individuals to nearby pregnancy centers that offer the following services: free pregnancy tests and pregnancy information; Information about the risks of abortion and the morning after pill; medical services, including [[STD]] tests; early ultrasounds and pregnancy confirmation. <ref>http://www.pregnancycenters.org/</ref> In addition, some of these centers provide information regarding free housing to women who are facing housing concerns.<ref>http://www.pregnancycenters.org/</ref>

The primary alternative to abortion is adoption. [[Liberty Godparent Foundation]] is a [[Christian]] organization focused on improving the lives of unwed pregnant teens, babies and adoptive families by providing two alternatives, The Liberty Godparent Maternity Home and Family Life Services Adoption Agency.<ref>http://www.godparent.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20&Itemid=59</ref>. [[Catholic Social Services]] provides adoption assistance to people of all beliefs in addition to supporting families in need.

== Abortion Industry and How It Targets Minority Communities ==
[[File:4287336112 d3f9126c99.jpg|right|thumb|325px|According to [[Cybercast News Service]]: "An analysis by the Cybercast News Service compared the location of [[Planned Parenthood]] abortion clinics with population data from the U.S. Census in 2000. The results appear to bolster the charge that the organization targets black communities."<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Carchive%5C200502%5CSPE20050207a.html</ref>(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/muriel215/4287336112/ Flickr, see Creative commons license agreement)] ]]
"Each day '''1,786''' African American children are aborted." According to the [[U.S.]] Census of 2006, African Americans are at 1.96 birth rate which is beneath the replacement level of 2.1. <ref>[http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/1685410938.html African American Pro-Life Group Holds Protest at NAACP] Christian News Network, July 13, 2009</ref> At the continued rate, [[racism]] by abortion will decimate the black population of the U.S.

According to writer George Grant, the author of ''Killing Angel'':

"During the 1980s when [[Planned Parenthood]] shifted its focus from community-based clinics to school-based clinics, it again targeted inner-city minority neighborhoods...Of the more than 100 school-based clinics that have opened nationwide in the last decade [1980s], none has been at substantially all-white schools....None has been at suburban middle-class schools. All have been at black, minority or ethnic schools.” <ref>http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/special_issues/population/the_negro_project.htm</ref>

Planned Parenthood itself reported that its abortions on minorities in 1991 was 42.7% of its total abortions. <ref>http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/PPRACISM.TXT</ref>. However, during that time period, minorities comprised only 19.7% of the U.S. population.<ref>http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/PPRACISM.TXT</ref>

According to [[Cybercast News Service]]: "An analysis by the Cybercast News Service compared the location of Planned Parenthood abortion clinics with population data from the U.S. Census in 2000. The results appear to bolster the charge that the organization targets black communities."<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Carchive%5C200502%5CSPE20050207a.html</ref>
== Political Support of Abortion ==
The most powerful political action committee (PAC) is EMILY’s List.<ref>http://www.emilyslist.org/newsroom/releases/20070201.html</ref>. EMILY's List contributes money to Democratic candidates who support abortion-on-demand, including forced taxpayer funding of abortion. EMILY's List candidates also oppose regulations such as:

:providing health information to abortion patients;

:requiring that the abortionist have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital in case there is a complication; and

:providing parental notification if the patient is a teenager.

Due to the influence of the abortion industry and EMILY's List, nearly every Democratic presidential candidate and senatorial candidate supports abortion-on-demand. "EMILY's List, the nation's largest political action committee, continues to be the dominant financial resource for Democratic candidates," its above-referenced website declares.

There is no comparably funded organization opposing abortion, because there are no monetary rewards to defending human life. Instead, candidates and supporters who oppose abortion are motivated by religious and ethical principles.

== History of Abortion ==

''Please also see:'' [[History of abortion]]

The father of [[medicine]], [[Hippocrates]], expressly prohibited abortion in his ethical [[Oath]] long before [[Christianity]].

Prior to 1973 abortion was illegal in most of the United States, though a few states (such as Hawaii and New York) allowed it with restrictions.<ref>''A Timeline of Reproductive Rights'' [http://ecampus.bentley.edu/org/wc/reproductiverights.html The Women's Center]</ref> The U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 [[Roe v. Wade]]<ref>Online text of [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=410&page=113 Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)]</ref> decision ruled that abortions are lawful under the [[U.S. Constitution]] up to the point at which the fetus becomes able to survive outside the womb, and an accompanying decision issued the same day captioned [[Doe v. Bolton]] essentially legalized abortion in the unlimited discretion of the abortionist at any time during pregnancy, up to and including birth. Conservatives immediately criticized these decisions as examples of [[Judicial Activism]].

In 2008, worldwide there were approximately 115,000 abortions done per day.<ref>http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html</ref> In 2008, approximately 83% of all abortions were performed in developing countries and 17% occurred in developed countries.<ref>http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html</ref>

States may regulate abortion, such as requiring a 24-hour waiting period and parental consent for minors. Abortion clinics often fail to comply with the health standards of surgical facilities, and States can require compliance (but often do not, resulting in discomfort and harm to the victims of abortion). Many abortionists lack hospital admitting privileges at nearby facilities, so women having complications must go on their own to emergency rooms to see physicians unfamiliar with what actually happened. For any other operation the cost of treating complications is included in the cost of the operation, but for abortions the abortion clinics take their money and typically do not pay for the care of complications.

The more pro-abortion the State regulations are, the larger the number of abortion clinics it will have. [[Arizona]], though a pro-life State, has a regulatory system that results in twelve abortion clinics operating within its borders. In contrast, [[Mississippi]] has only one abortion clinic, and [[Missouri]] has only two.

=== Adolf Hitler and Abortion ===
''For more information see:'' [[Abortion and Adolf Hitler]]
[[Image:Hitlerspeech.jpg|thumb|290px|right|[[Adolf Hitler]]]]‎In 1942 [[Adolf Hitler]] declared:
{{cquote|In view of the large families of the Slav native population, it could only suit us if girls and women there had as many abortions as possible. We are not interested in seeing the non-[[German]] population multiply…We must use every means to instill in the population the idea that it is harmful to have several children, the expenses that they cause and the dangerous effect on woman's health… It will be necessary to open special institutions for abortions and doctors must be able to help out there in case there is any question of this being a breach of their professional ethics. <ref>http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/sep/07090708.html</ref>}}

After [[World War II]], the War Crimes Tribunal indicted ten [[Nazi]] leaders for "encouraging and compelling abortion," which the tribunal considered a "crime against humanity."<ref>http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_25.asp#But%20didn%E2%80%99t%20Hitler%20oppose%20abortion?</ref>

==American Liberals and Abortion==
According to the Pew Research Center, American [[liberal]]s are more likely to support pro-abortion views. <ref>http://people-press.org/report/283/pragmatic-americans-liberal-and-conservative-on-social-issues</ref>

==Evolutionary Thought and Abortion==
[[Theory of evolution and liberalism|Liberals are more likely to advocate the evolutionary paradigm than conservatives]]. [[Creation Ministries International]] has written that [[evolution|evolutionary]] thinking has contributed to the [[eugenics|eugenic]] idea of aborting babies with defects and has also contributed to erroneous and immoral justifications for abortion.<ref>http://creation.com/abortion-an-indispensable-right-or-violence-against-women-sex-selection-aborting-girls</ref><ref>http://creation.com/human-life-questions-and-answers-abortion-and-euthanasia</ref>

==Ultrasound images==

*http://www.ob-ultrasound.net/frames.htm
*http://www.flickr.com/photos/drakelelane/388759116/
*http://www.parentingweekly.com/pregnancy/pregnancy_information/ultrasound/13_weeks.htm
*http://www.parentingweekly.com/pregnancy/pregnancy_information/ultrasound/ultrasound_3d.htm
*http://www.parentingweekly.com/pregnancy/pregnancy_information/ultrasound/triple_jump.htm

[[File:2 61 ultrasound.jpg|right|thumb|350px| When an Ohio woman looked at an ultrasound she expected to see a developing baby.

Instead, she saw what she believes to be an image of Jesus Christ]]

== See Also ==
*[[Conservapedia:Anti-abortion Project|Conservapedia Anti-abortion Project]]
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Abortion Directory of abortion related articles]
*[http://www.investigatemagazine.com/mar3abrt.htm Abortion and breast cancer in New Zealand]
*[[Abortion and the Bible]]
*[[Abortion and eugenics]]
*[[Abortion Facts]]
*[[Abortion funding]]
*[[Abortion genocide]]
*[[Abortion procedures]]
*[[Abortion rates by US state]]
*[[Abortionist]]
*[[Anti Abortion activism: a personal essay]]
*[[More News/Abortion|Articles about '''Abortion''' from "More News"]]
*[[Culture of life]]
*[[Separate Life|Essay on abortion]]
*[[Eugenics]]
*[[Fetus]]
*[[Harvard abortion study]]
*[[Abortion breast cancer studies]]
*[[Homosexual activists and abortion]]
*[[Margaret Sanger]]
*[http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/chs/abrpt/2006abrpt.pdf Minnesota official abortion statistics]
*[[National Right to Life Committee]]
*[[Partial birth abortion]]
*[[Planned Parenthood]]
*[[Right to life]]
*[[Right to life movement]]
*[[Sanctity of life]]
*[[Silent scream]]
*[[Taxpayer-funded abortion]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.abortionfacts.com/ Abortion Facts]
*[http://www.carm.org/abortion.htm Abortion] by [[Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry]]
*[http://www.lifesitenews.com/ LifeSiteNews.com]
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/abortion/ What Liberals Say - Category: Abortion], [[Accuracy In Media]]
{{Abortion}}
{{Liberalism}}

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

[[Category:Abortion]]
[[Category:Sexuality]]
[[Category:Religion and Politics]]
[[Category:Liberals]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]

User talk:Daniel1983

2010-05-24T19:58:56Z

Jinxmchue: Undo revision 781406 by Daniel1983 (Talk)

You want to place a "citation needed" tag with this edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Acquired_Immunodeficiency_Syndrome&diff=prev&oldid=781382], but don't bother to cite anything for your other edits? Kind of strange, don't you think? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:50, 24 May 2010 (EDT)

Lag

2010-05-24T14:19:59Z

Jinxmchue:

'''Lag''' is a slang term for the slowdown that happens when the requirements of a program are greater than the physical capabilities of the computer running it. Lag can be confined to a program running on a single user's computer or, in the case of a program accessed ''en masse'' from a host server, can be experienced by several users at the same time.

Lag

2010-05-24T14:19:12Z

Jinxmchue: good addition, but needed clean-up

'''Lag''' is a slang term for the slowdown that happens when the requirements of a program is greater than the physical capabilities of the computer running it. Lag can be confined to a program running on a single user's computer or, in the case of a program accessed ''en masse'' from a host server, can be experienced by several users at the same time.

Internet slang

2010-05-24T14:12:43Z

Jinxmchue: /* List of Abbreviations */ - L not C

'''Internet slang''' is slang that Internet users have created and used, often in instant messaging and forum discussions. They are frequently acronyms (often contain three letters), designed to save keystrokes in an attempt to speed up communication.

According to [[Harvard]] professor and conservative sociologist Steven Shapin, Internet Slang is an interpretation of language that people have found neccesary to create to confuse the "older" generation. [http://www.internetisseriousbusiness.com]

== List of Abbreviations==

*'''2:''' Substitution for to, too, and two.
*'''4:''' Substitution for for and four.
*'''AFAICT:''' As far as I can tell.
*'''AFAIK:''' As far as I know.
*'''AFAIR:''' As far as I recall/remember.
*'''AFAIAW:''' As far as I am aware.
*'''AFK:''' Away from keyboard.
*'''ASL:''' A request for Age, Sex, and Location.
*'''ATM:''' At The Moment.
*'''BBL:''' be back later.
*'''BBIAB:''' be back in a bit.
*'''bewbs:''' breasts.
*'''BRB:''' Be Right Back.
*'''btw:''' By the way.
*'''ch00b:''' Person who acts like a n00b, but has skill levels or a kill/death ratio of someone who is considered 1337. Typically spends time bragging, flaming, and asking question he or she should know.
*'''D00d:''' [[L33tsp43k]] spelling of "dude".
*'''ftw:''' For the win.
*'''GDR:''' Grinning, Ducking and Running. Usually typed right after making a groan-inducing joke.
*'''g2g:''' got to go, gotta go.
*'''gg:''' Good game. Somtimes an 'a' is added to make gga: good game all.
*'''gl:''' Good luck.
*'''IANAL:''' Sometimes IANALB, "I am not a lawyer (but)" said right before (usually) poor legal advice.
*'''IIRC:''' If I remember correctly.
*'''IRL:''' In Real Life.
*'''IM:''' Abbreviation for Instant Messaging.
*'''IMHO''' In My Humble Opinion, or just "IMO" - In my opinion
*'''l8r:''' later.
*'''1337''' Leet. Usually means good, but some say it stands for Elite. Also the name for turning letters into numbers and symbols.
*'''LMAO''' Laughing My A** Off
*'''LOL:''' Laugh Out Loud.
*'''lvl:''' Level.
*'''Newb''' Person is unskilled at whatever task they are trying to perform due to lack of experience.
*'''Noob''' Person is unskilled at whatever task they are trying to perform due to lack of experience and refuse to acknowledge their difficulty with the task.
*'''Omgwtfbbq''' is an internet slang term used in many MMORPG games like World of Warcraft. It is used as an expression of confusion and when someone asks an absurd newbie question. It is usually meant to be taken sarcastically. Although it can occasionally be used when someone is utterly confused by something that was said. Its various parts stand for, respectively, "Oh My G_d," "what the f___," and "barbecue," each of which can also appear individually, although "bbq," alone, is not actually considered internet slang.
*'''POS:''' Parent Over Shoulder. Usually used in IM conversations to alert the other participant of the presence of an adult/parent, and thus to avoid saying something inappropriate.
*'''Pwn:''' Defeat someone, misspelling of "own".
*'''Pwnt:''' If someone "pwns" you, you have been pwnt. Usually spelled with an 'ed' rather than a 't'.
*'''ROFL:''' Rolling On The Floor Laughing.
*'''Roflcopter:''' An extreme version of "rofl," or, "rolling on the floor laughing." Origionated on World of Warcraft forums.
*'''ty:''' Thank You
*'''TMI:''' Too much information.
*'''U:''' Substitution for you.
*'''Ur:''' Substitution for your, you're, you are.
*'''WYSIWYG:''' What you see is what you get, also a word processing editor type.
*'''ZOMG:''' An extreme version of "Oh my God!"

==List of Terms==
*Troll

==Symbols==

These are viewed by turning one's head sideways to the left.

* :-) is a smile - eventually known as a "smiley" and first posted 27 years ago by Scott E. Fahlman
* ;-) is a wink
* :-( is a frown

There are many variations on the above symbols (which are also known as 'emoticons'). Some symbols are called emoticons but are really examples of sideways ASCII art.

[[category:internet culture]]

Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart

2010-05-24T14:10:16Z

Jinxmchue: Undo revision 781351 by Abe1234 (Talk)

In '''''Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart''''', 467 U.S. 20 (1984), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] unanimously held that there is no [[First Amendment]] right to disseminate, in advance of trial, information gained through the pretrial discovery process.

Justice [[Lewis Powell]] wrote the decision for the Court. Justice [[William Brennan]] concurred, and was joined by Justice [[Thurgood Marshall]].

This decision has been frequently criticized or distinguished. Note also the limited scope of this decision. Information that one "lawfully obtains truthful information about a matter of public significance" is protected by the [[First Amendment]], and "state officials may not constitutionally punish publication of the information, absent a need to further a state interest of the highest order." ''Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co.'', 443 U.S. 97, 103 (1979); ''Florida Star v. B. J. F.'', 491 U.S. 524, 533 (1989).

[[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]
[[category:First Amendment]]

Strathclyde

2010-05-24T14:09:40Z

Jinxmchue: Undo revision 781356 by Abe1234 (Talk)

The area of '''Strathclyde''' (''valley of the [[River Clyde]]'') was a pre-[[Roman]] kingdom of the Britons ruled from [[Dumbarton]]. It was converted to [[Christianity]] in the 6th century by which time it had expanded to include most of modern [[Ayrshire]]. The name Strathclyde was first used in the 9th or 10th centuries. In 1034 it became one with the [[Scottish]] crown and disappeared as a separate entity.

The word reappeared in the context of the '''Strathclyde Regional Park''' after [[World War II]], followed by the '''Strathclyde University''', finally taking all before it in the government reorganisation of 1975 - the '''Strathclyde region''' incorporated most of south-west Scotland. It was replaced by various unitary authorities in 1996.

[[Category: Scottish History]]
[[Category: Scottish Counties and Regions]]

The God Delusion

2010-05-24T14:09:28Z

Jinxmchue:

'''''The God Delusion''''' is a book by the [[atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]], in which he attempts to show that belief in [[God]] is irrational.

Dawkins' main objectives are to convince his readers that the existence of [[God]] or any other [[deity]] is highly unlikely, that the Bible is incoherent, that [[morality]] does not come from [[religion]], and that if religion does effect morality, it only does so negatively.

Critics have called the book "surprisingly intolerant".<ref>{{cite book | quote=For a scientist who criticizes religion for its intolerance, Dawkins has written a surprisingly intolerant book, full of scorn for religion and those who believe. | publisher=Publishers Weekly | title=The God Delusion | year=2006 | month=August | url=http://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618680004 | }}</ref>

Dawkins also intends to teach that atheists can live happy, intelligent, lives—perhaps even happier lives than religious people. He asserts that atheists do not do evil things in the name of [[atheism]], while [[religion|religious]] people have been known to commit atrocities in the name of their religion.

==Chapters==

=== Deeply Religious Non-Believer===
Dawkins attempts to establish [[Albert Einstein]] as an avowed atheist, and to prove that religion is unworthy of any respect.

===The God Hypothesis===
Dawkins explains the different kinds of religion, including the divide between [[Monotheism]] and [[Polytheism]]. He also asserts viciously that the founding fathers of the [[United States of America]] were nonreligious. He continues to explain [[Secularism]], [[Agnosticism]], and some basic assertions of the religious.

===Arguments for God's Existence===
Dawkins summarizes some common [[proof]]s for God and attempts to debunk them.

===Why There Almost Certainly is No God===
Dawkins gives his reasons for believing that God is about as likely as "[[fairy|fairies]] living under his garden", and asks the fallacious question of where God came from.

===The Roots of Religion===
Dawkins gives and explains some thoughts about the origins of religion that have been proposed by atheists, trying to undermine the [[Christianity|church]].

===The Roots of Morality: Why are We Good?===
Dawkins explains why he believes that morality "evolved" from [[animal]]s.

===The 'Good' Book and the Changing [[Moral Zeitgeist]]===
Dawkins suggests that morality does not come from religion, but rather a changing moral ''Zeitgeist''.

===What's Wrong With Religion? Why Be So Hostile?===
Dawkins shows why he believes that religion is [[evil]] and repressive, and must be stopped.

===Childhood, Abuse and the Escape from Religion===
Dawkins explains why he believes that religion is a form of "[[child abuse]]", and that the scars from the "indoctrination" last into [[adult]]hood and even the child's entire life.

===A Much Needed Gap?===
Dawkins concludes his book on a more positive level, giving inspiration to those whom he may have convinced to "de-convert" from their religion.

==Criticism==
''The God Delusion'' has been subject to a great deal of criticisms from the religious and the non-religious alike.

===Andrew Brown: Prospect Magazine===
{{Cquote|
"It has been obvious for years that Richard Dawkins had a fat book on religion in him, but who would have thought him capable of writing one this bad? Incurious, dogmatic, rambling and self-contradictory, it has none of the style or verve of his earlier works."<ref>http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7803</ref>
}}
Andrew Brown of Prospect Magazine was unimpressed by Dawkins' book. Brown calls atheism "unnatural" and points out that many atheists were violent in their belief (or lack thereof), citing Stalin killing members of the clergy.

Brown also attacks Dawkins' argument that suicide bombers are caused by religious schools. While Dawkins states that if these children were not taught what he calls "faith without question", suicide bombings would not be an issue. Brown, however, says that religion is not a necessity in suicide bombings. He points out that it is a tactic used by Marxists in Sri Lanka.

===Marilynne Robinson: Harper's Magazine===
<blockquote>
"There is a pervasive exclusion of historical memory in Dawkins's view of science. Consider this sentence from his preface, which occurs in the context of his vision of a religion-free world: 'Imagine . . . no persecution of Jews as 'Christ-killers.'"<ref>http://solutions.synearth.net/2006/10/20</ref>
</blockquote>

Robinson's major complaints about ''The God Delusion'' lie in how sheerly false the book is in many aspects. Although Dawkins claims that "the majority of us believe in free speech", she points out that most countries do not, pointing out that [[China]] (population 1.3 billion<ref>http://geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/a/chinapopulation.htm</ref>) does not. In her review, Robinson basically says that Dawkins purposefully ignored important parts of history in his attempt to convince his readers. "It's a shame," she says, "to see him reduced to one long argument from professorial incredulity."

===Terry Eagleton: London Review of Books===
<blockquote>
"Card-carrying rationalists like Dawkins [...] are in one sense the least well-equipped to understand what they castigate, since they don’t believe there is anything there to be understood, or at least anything worth understanding."
</blockquote>

===Alister McGrath: The Dawkins Delusion?===
''The Dawkins Delusion?'' is a response to Dawkins' ''The God Delusion'' by [[Alister McGrath]].

== Quotes from ''The God Delusion'' ==
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
::-Chapter 2

"I am one of an increasing number of biologists who see religion as a ''by-product'' of something else."
::-Chapter 5

"By contrast, what I, as a scientist, believe (for example, [[evolution]]) I believe not because of reading a holy book but because I have studied the evidence... Books about evolution are believed because they present overwhelming quantities of mutually buttressed evidence."
::-Chapter 8

"... [Moral absolutism] rules the minds of a great number of people in the world today, most dangerously so in the Muslim world and in the incipient American theocracy... Such absolutism nearly always results from strong religious faith, and it constitutes a major reason for suggesting that religion can be a force for evil in the world."
::-Chapter 8
==See also==
*[[Atheism]]
{{Nb Atheism}}

==References==
<references/>

== External Links ==
*[http://www.richarddawkins.net RichardDawkins.net]

[[Category:Richard Dawkins|Books|God Delusion, The]]

Casting Crowns

2010-05-24T14:08:25Z

Jinxmchue: Undo revision 781348 by Abe1234 (Talk)

'''Casting Crowns''' is a contemporary Christian/Christian rock band from Tennesee. The band consists of the following: Mark Hall as the lead vocalist, Melodee Devevo on the violin and vocals, Juan Devevo on the guitar, Andy Williams on the drums, Chris Huffman on the bass, Hector Cervantes on the guitar, and Megan Garrett on the keyboard, accordion, and vocals.

== '''Discography''' ==
# ''[[Castings Crowns(album)|Casting Crowns]]''(2003)
# ''[[Lifesong]]''(2005)
# ''[[The Altar And The Door]]''(2007)
# ''[[Peace On Earth]]''(2008)
# ''[[Until The Whole World Hears]]'' (2009)

== '''External Links''' ==
#http://www.castingcrowns.com/
[[Category:Christian Bands]]

Batman

2010-05-24T14:08:22Z

Jinxmchue: Undo revision 781349 by Abe1234 (Talk)

[[Image:ARoss Batman.png|right|300px|thumb|''Batman'', by Alex Ross]]
'''Batman''' is a fictional [[superhero]] first appearing in ''Detective Comics'' in May, 1939. The creation of artist Bob Kane and writer Bill Finger, Batman remains one of the most famous and recognizable of the superhero genre, resulting in the creation of several television series, motion pictures, and graphic novels. The original comics are highly-prized by collectors and routinely fetch hundreds of thousands of dollars on the auction block.

==Comics lore==
The man who was to become Batman is Bruce Wayne, a Gotham City socialite who inherited his wealth from his father, a prominent doctor and philanthropist named Thomas Wayne. A trip to the movies with the family ended in tragedy: Thomas and his wife Martha are murdered by a common thug in front of Bruce, whose childhood effectively ends at the age of eight.
Wayne's anger at his parent's murder causes him to vow revenge against the criminal element in all of its forms.

Growing up in the care of his father's butler, Alfred Pennyworth, he inherits a vast fortune, his father's business and philanthropic empire.
Wayne uses his wealth to travel the world during his teenage years, seeking out instruction from experts in various fields including martial arts, chemistry, psychology, forensics, meditation and engineering among other things. He returns to his home of Gotham city and is nearly killed as he attempts to stop a robbery.

While recovering in his study at Wayne Manor, Bruce Wayne's brooding is disturbed by a bat as it crashes through the window of his room. He reflects, "Criminals are a cowardly and superstitious lot."
The bat inspires Wayne to create an alter ego for himself, one that will create fear and panic in those he targets, he decides to become the Batman. Wayne fashions himself a costume and arms himself with a small arsenal of bat related weapons and gear, specifically shunning guns. The refusal of Wayne to use guns stems not only from his professed belief that they are tools of the weak and cowardly, but also from a psychological block against them due to the one used in his parents' murder. In the last issue of the DC series Final Crises, Batman overcomes his disdain of guns and uses a special bullet to mortally wound the villain Darkseid. Batman is seemingly killed by Darkseid in the process and as of yet his fate is unknown.

Batman is unusual for superheroes in that he has no superhuman powers, though he is certainly an unusually gifted human being: an athlete who would "win or place" in any Olympic event, master of a dizzying array of martial arts forms, genius detective and capable scientist, and a billionaire to top it off. Despite this, he uses his brains, training, and resources to not only keep up but excel in comparison with many heroes with great superpowers, a testament to man's will in the face of adversity.

==Publication history==
[[File:87 4 000027.jpg|right|200px|thumb|''Detective Comics'' number 27, the first appearance of Batman]]
Vin Sullivan was the publisher of National Periodical (the forerunner of DC Comics), and during the end of the 1930's was basking in the success of [[Superman]], the first true comic book superhero; Sullivan was looking for another such character to publish. The ''Detective Comics'' series would soon provide him with one, a costumed hero no less, having great intellect but without Superman's strength. Bob Kane, influenced by [[Sherlock Holmes]], [[Zorro]], a recent comic character called "The Shadow", the sketches of Leonardo Da Vinci, and a film titled ''The Bat'', came up with a character in a gray suit, black boots, and a black cape and cowl; the creation was called ''the Bat-Man''. The drawings were taken to artist/writer Bill Finger, and by May 1939 an excited Sullivan published the character in a story called "The Case of the Chemical Syndicate," part of several stories in ''Detective Comics'' issue number 27, which became an immediate and successful hit.

By November of that year, Batman's origin story - the murder of his parents - was set; this storyline of a boy growing up to avenge his parents struck a chord with readers, and sales of the comics grew. The following year he appeared in his own series under the "Batman" name - published alongside ''Detective Comics'' - which also introduced "Robin, the Boy Wonder", a successful attempt to gain younger readers as well as creating the popularity of the "sidekick" in the comics industry; Green Arrow and Speedy, the Human Torch and Toro, and [[Captain America]] and Bucky would be prime examples of this trend.

The combination of Bob Kane and Bill Finger (Finger was largely uncredited after Batman's creation) in the early 1940's also introduced to the comics world several of the most recognizable villains in fiction. Created were "Two-Face", a scarred villain reportedly based upon [[Robert Louis Stevenson]]'s ''[[Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde]]''; the "Cat", a sensuous woman who became better known as "Catwoman"; and the "[[Joker (comics)|Joker]]" - which Kane based upon the image he saw of actor Conrad Veidt in the silent film ''The Man Who Laughs'' - a nightmarish version of a clown who is the antithesis of everything Batman is, and who became one of the best known villians in fiction.

==Film and television==
The first dramatic appearance of Batman appeared as a reoccurring guest star on the "Superman" radio series. Interestingly, during the initial story line, Batman and Robin didn't interact with Superman, but Clark Kent. Batman's young side-kick, "Robin", was created specifically as an exposition device, desperately needed in radio. Although a pilot episode was recorded, Batman never received his own radio series.

====Film serials====
[[File:Batman 1943.jpg|right|200px|thumb|Lewis Wilson as Batman and Douglas Croft as Robin from the 1943 12-chapter serial ''Batman'' (copyright 1943 Columbia Pictures)]]
[[File:Batman-west-ward.jpg|right|200px|thumb|Adam West and Burt Ward as Batman and Robin, from the 1966 television series ''Batman'' (copyright 1966 William Dozier/20th Century Fox)]]
[[File:Quiz1053outcome1.jpg|right|200px|thumb|Michael Keaton in the 1992 film ''Batman Returns'' (copyright 1992 Warner Brothers)]]
[[File:Dead end batman.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Clark Bartram in the 2003 Collora fan-film ''Batman: Dead End'']]
[[File:Batman-begins01.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Batman (Christian Bale) interrogating in his own way a corrupt police detective in the film ''Batman Begins'' (copyright 2005 Legendary Films/Warner Brothers)]]
The first film dealing with the Caped Crusader was a 1943 12-chapter serial from Columbia Pictures starring Lewis Wilson and Douglas Croft as Batman and Robin. The plot of the film centered on a nefarious, stereotypical Asian scientist, Dr. Daka (J. Carrol Naish), who has a plan to steal valuable resources from the United States in order to support the Axis during the World War II. Although low-budget, ''Batman'' introduced the concept of the Batcave (called the "Bat's Cave" in the film) and the hidden entry to it, as well as altering the appearance of Alfred from a portly servant to a leaner, robust individual. ''Batman and Robin'' would follow it in 1949, also as a serial, starring Robert Lowery and Johnny Duncan (Muir, 9; 72)

====''Batman'' television series====
In January 1966, ABC released a "Batman" television series starring Adam West and Burt Ward. During the series pre-production, there was a heated debate over which direction the Caped Crusader should be taken. Eventually, Producer William Dozier's vision won out - "Batman" would be a high budgeted, camp series which often made the character more droll than stern. This portrayal of the character, while it was in line with the comics of the time, came in later years to be reviled by fans, particularly during the '80s and '90s. During the summer of 1966, Dozier released a "Batman" feature film, also starring Adam West.

Although the series caught on quickly, its ratings fell just as suddenly. During the series' third season, Yvonne Craig was hired to portray "Batgirl", but this did nothing to slow the ratings plunge. The last few episode of "Batman" were among the lowest rated television series of the 60s.

For decades after, the "Batman" television series defined the filmed comic book template, which can be seen feature films such as "[[Doc Savage]]" and the television productions of "The Justice League" and "The Spirit". In 1978 Adam West and Burt Ward would both be reunited in the two-part television special "The Legend of the Superheroes", in which Batman and Robin were part of a group of DC superheroes thwarting the attempts of a rival collection of villains to take over the world in a combination of camp and comedy; the second part of the special has both groups in a celebratory roast by Ed McMahon. The camp-template was broken with the success of 1978's "[[The Incredible Hulk]]" starring [[Bill Bixby]], and based on the character owned by rival publisher [[Marvel Comics]]. Meanwhile, the course of the character in the comics since 1973 had returned him to his darker roots as writers and artists placed him in more compelling storylines and situations, culminating in 1986's four-part ''The Dark Knight Returns'' by Frank Miller, a work which helped influence director Tim Burton prior to putting Batman on the big screen once more.

====Early animation====
Batman also found a new home on Saturday mornings, courtesy of the Filmation and Hanna-Barbera studios. In 1968, Batman appeared with Superman in Filmation's "Batman/Superman Hour", a program divided into individual shorts featuring "Dragnet" character-actor Olan Soule as the voice of Batman, and radio disk jockey Casey Kasem as Robin. The following year the show would be cut to thirty minutes, with just the Batman shorts in Filmation's newly-titled "Batman with Robin the Boy Wonder", also lasting a year.

Hanna-Barbera created the "Superfriends" in 1973, again using Soule and Kasem for voice work, and placed Batman and Robin alongside Superman, Wonder Woman, and Aquaman in a "hall of justice" as the team fought minor villains around the world with a built-in moral message for children watching it. The "Superfriends" proved a success, ultimately spinning off several creations through the early-1980s.

====Tim Burton films====
''Batman'' film took a darker turn in 1989, when the [[Tim Burton]]-directed [[Batman (film, 1989)|film]], starring [[Michael Keaton]], portrayed Bruce Wayne as a reclusive, quirky billionaire who probably was not entirely sane. While at first wary of an actor known primarily for comedies playing Batman, some fans ended up going to other movies before its release just to see the trailer for the Batman film, and then walked out, not even watching the movie they paid for. The film was a success, and was widely-lauded for [[Jack Nicholson]]'s portrayal of Batman's nemesis, the Joker. It was followed up with 1992's ''Batman Returns'', which, while not as well-reviewed or successful, was still accepted by the fans, and brought the iconic figures of Catwoman and the Penguin into the movie universe.

Tim Burton was replaced with Joel Schumacher for the third Batman movie in the new movie canon, ''Batman Forever'' (1995), which introduced Robin (Batman's iconic sidekick), and the villains the Riddler and Two-Face. Whereas Burton had tried for a more dark and Gothic look, Schumacher went with bright neon colors and brought back some of the camp of the '60s TV series. The movie did well at the box office, but received mixed reviews. The fourth and final film of this "universe" was ''Batman and Robin'', released in 1997. Widely regarded as the worst of the series by fan and critic alike, ''Batman and Robin'' returned fully to the campy tone of the TV series, featuring "candy-coated" sets, poor special effects, weirder science than normal from Bat-Media, character derailment, and Arnold Schwarzenegger, as the lead villain Mr. Freeze, with barely 100 lines of dialogue, over half of which centered around cold-themed puns. This film was reviled for years as having "killed" the franchise, and performed relatively poorly in ticket sales.

The tone of the new movies influenced the 1991 critically-acclaimed ''Batman: The Animated Series'', a cartoon shown at first in prime time. Some of its takes on certain villains - such as Mr. Freeze - became iconic, and it introduced several characters that eventually "immigrated" to the comics, such as Detective Renee Montoya, and the Joker's hench-girlfriend, Harley Quinn.

====Sandy Collora short====
Attempting to get attention for his directing skills, Sandy Collora spent $30,000 dollars to create a demonstration reel strictly for the fans. The result was the 2003 short ''Batman: Dead End'', a film which drew on the imagery of comic artist Alex Ross, in addition to previously-published work by Dark Horse Comics, which pitted Batman against the Alien and Predator from the Hollywood films of the same names. Starring Clark Bartram as Batman and Andrew Koenig as an escaped Joker, the film earned critical praise from comic veterans and fans alike.[http://www.usnews.com/usnews/tech/nextnews/archive/next030807.htm][http://www.collorastudios.com/projects/bde/bdemain.htm]

====Christopher Nolan films====
The film series was rebooted again in 2005, with ''[[Batman Begins]]'', a grittier, more "realistic" take on Batman. In this film, director [[Christopher Nolan]] took Bruce Wayne, played by Christian Bale, halfway around the world in search of the answer to the riddle of criminality. He learns to fight multiple opponents, conceal himself, and gains the will to act in defense of others. Returning to Gotham after being declared legally dead, he deftly maneuvers himself back into the control of his murdered father's company and resolves to terrify the criminal element by making himself seem inhuman...and chooses the mantle of a bat, because bats scare ''him''.

Several critically-acclaimed comic book stories - among them ''The Long Halloween'' and ''The Killing Joke'' - were used as in the most recent entry in Nolan's series, ''[[The Dark Knight]]'', which has thus far exceeded all expectations. Almost universally lauded by critics and shattering numerous box-office records, ''The Dark Knight'' featured the final performance of [[Heath Ledger]], who died from a drug overdose after filming, as a monstrous version of the Joker, a psychotic who thinks the only sane way to live is without rules and wants to prove it to the world - and at the same time gave artists and writers who penned the Batman stories the version of the Joker they thought was closest to their own. Though the tone at the start of the film is hopeful - Batman has inspired citizens to stand up for themselves again and has organized crime in the city reeling - it quickly spirals downward, embodying the theme that Nolan chose for the movie: things have to get worse before they get better.

==References==
*Kane, Bob (with Tom Andrae). ''Batman & Me'', Eclipse Books, Forestville, California (1989).
*Goulart, Ron. ''Comic Book Encyclopedia'', Harper Entertainment, New York (2004).
*Muir, John Kenneth. ''The Encyclopedia of Superheroes on Film and Television'', McFarland & Company, Jefferson, North Carolina (2004)
*[http://www.collorastudios.com/projects/bde/bdemain.htm Collora Studios: ''Batman: Dead End'']
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsLQcOV2YeU ''The Man Who Laughs'', uploaded to YouTube]

[[Category:Entertainment]]
[[Category: DC Comics Superheroes]]
[[Category:Comic Characters]]

Debate:Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?

2010-05-23T02:40:58Z

Jinxmchue:

I can't figure out this one, and I hope someone here can. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 14:24, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

The problem is one of poverty, when people are poor -as most people in the world are- and they see wealth around them it is tempting to try to take it, look at what happened in Texas in the early oil boom, people had their land stolen from them with no idea of what was going on. If you struggle to feed your children and you cannot get work even though you try every day and you get offered a job working for a big man who can pay you and make sure your children get an education, all you need to do is hold a gun and be able to use it, would you not take the job?

Anyway I don't know quite what you mean, Saudi Arabia is very safe, they get billions and trillions for their oil and employ huge numbers of people in the police and army.

Indeed. Since the regions of the world where oil is available have historically been unstable long before the discovery or usefulness of petroleum was discovered, one can only conclude that God likes to see people kill each other. [[User:Stile4aly|Stile4aly]] 14:27, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Why can't people, who happen to live in oil rich places, just get along?

Why would God want us to use a limited and polluting substance as fuel?

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Maybe God's chosen people are the Arabs living in the oil rich places.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 22:14, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Why did God create stars that we can only see and not reach? The authors question should be moved to Funny, maybe? on the debate forum.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:34, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

The middle east was not particularly unstable during its long years of Ottoman dominance (positively tranquil compared to Europe in the same period), or even in the interwar period - it's current reputation as a problematic area postdates the discovery of oil in Saudi Arabia in 1938. Texas and Alaska are obviously stable, and the North Sea area is not noted as a hotbed of agitation. [[User:MississippiMud|MisMud]] 23:49, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps the oil causes the political instability.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 23:19, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Nah, that's just crazy, it's much more likely it's all part of the Homosexual Agenda!

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

:The question should be, [[Why are places with immense natural resources politically unstable?]] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:02, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Greed? (Duh!)

[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

I think this question is based on an assumption that shouldn't be being made in a christian worldview: That God creates natural resources when they are discovered, rather than having created them in the beginning along with everything else.
As such, a sensible explanation within the christian worldview would be the fact that the middle eastern nations with oil are in many cases in the area that the Garden of Eden is speculated to have been and in which the Jews (god's chosen people) existed. A concentration of oil in such a place would fit well with this theory, especially if you accept Flood Geology.
Of course, as an atheist, I think the most sensible explanation is simply that the majority of the Earth's landmass has been through political instability in the past 100 years, and in places with large natural resources the instability is likely to be maintained by competing claimants because any given stable situation would favour one of them, and thus the others will fight it.
--[[User:Kingreaper|Kingreaper]] 13:20, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Another easy debate question. Its to make the richer, Christianer, and therefore better countries (i.e., The USA), are motivated to straighten up the blaspheming Arab countries. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 14:44, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

YOU FOOLS THIS IS CLEARLY A COMMUNIST PLOT!! {{Unsigned|Interested}}
:We've considered that; we just need more evidence before we go public with any accusations. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:48, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

*Perhaps to create the illusion of scarcity. What if oil was not really a [[fossil fuel]] made eons before Adam and Eve? What if there is no Santa Claus? Tooth Ferry? Easter Bunny? Then the myth of [[Peak oil]] would not be possible either. The only real question is did G_D make a fixed amount of oil or is there a process that creates oil? Either way ... we are probably supposed to find ways of doing without it or to find out how to make oil.[[User:KirjathSepher|KirjathSepher]] 14:22, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

He didn't. It formed from decaying plant and animal matter over millions of years.

Gulf of Mexico oil spill

2010-05-23T02:27:28Z

Jinxmchue: Fix sentence.

[[File:DeepWateroilrigfire.JPG|right|300px|thumb|Fire boat response crews battle the blazing remnants of the off shore oil rig Deepwater Horizon, April 21, 2010 (U.S. Coast Guard)]]
[[File:043010ap oil slick 800.JPG|right|300px|thumb|Oil slick near the Mississippi River delta on 29 April 2010 (NASA)]]

The Deepwater Horizon was an oil platform that exploded on April 22, 2010, killing eleven crew members and resulting in a massive oil spill. A month later, the crisis has not been resolved with oil reaching the Louisiana coastline and threatens the Florida Keys. President Obama has been widely criticized for a weak and late response on the issue.
On March 31, 2010, [[President Barack Obama]] announced the resumption of domestic offshore oil drilling during a speech at Andrews Air Force Base outside [[Washington, D.C.]]<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/user/AssociatedPress#p/u/6/mA7RAfHN-wo Obama Lifts Ban on Offshore Drilling,] ''[[Associated Press]],'' 31 March 2010. Retrieved from [[Youtube]] 9 May 2010.</ref> The President's actions have been labeled, "a decision to endanger our coastal [[ecosystem]]s with the risk of catastrophic oil spills."<ref>[http://members.greenpeace.org/blog/greenpeaceusa_blog/2010/04/30/president_obama_committed_to_endangering President Obama must reinstate moratorium on offshore drilling,] [[Greenpeace]] USA blogs, 30 Apr 2010.</ref> Defending the decision, the President remarked "oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills. They are technologically very advanced."<ref>White House Press Release, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-a-discussion-jobs-and-economy-charlotte-north-carolina Remarks by the President in a Discussion on Jobs and the Economy in Charlotte, North Carolina,] Office of the Press Secretary, April 02, 2010. Retrieved from whitehouse.gov 3 May 2010.</ref><ref>Video: [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/04/29/flashback_obama_says_oil_rigs_today_dont_generally_cause_spills.html Obama Says "Oil Rigs Today Don't Generally Cause Spills"], 2 April 2010. Retrieved from RealClearPolitics.com 12 May 2010.</ref>

According to the ''New York Times'' Obama "said several times during his [[Barack Hussein Obama 2008 Presidential campaign|presidential campaign]] that he supported expanded offshore drilling. He noted in his [[State of the Union]] address<ref>[http://www.c-span.org/Executive/State-of-the-Union.aspx Barack Obama State of the Union Address 2010]. Retrieved from [[C-SPAN]].org 15 May 2010.</ref> in January [2010] that weaning the country from imported oil would require “tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development.”<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/science/earth/31energy.html Obama to Open Offshore Areas to Oil Drilling for First Time,] John M. Broder, ''[[New York Times]]'', March 30, 2010.</ref><ref>[http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/03/obama_clears_way_for_oil_drill.html Obama clears way for oil drilling off U.S. coasts], Associated Press, March 31, 2010, Retrieved from nola.com 8 May 2010.</ref>

==The Obama plan ==
[[File:OCS Eastern Gulf of Mexico Strategy.jpg|right|300px|thumb|Map of expanded areas of offshore oil drilling authorized by President Obama on 31 March 2010.<ref>[http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/2010/04/01/obama-offshore-oil-drilling-details.htm Obama Offshore Oil Drilling Details,] 1 April 2010. Retreived from About.com Guide to US Government Info 16 May 2010.</ref> ''Source: United States Department of Interior.'']]
Obama called for expanded development and production throughout the [[Gulf of Mexico]]. The [[Department of Interior]]'s Minerals Management Service (MMS) estimates that the Gulf of Mexico contains 36-41.5 billion barrels of oil and 161-207 trillion cubic feet of natural gas resources. According a DOI press release, Obama's plan would "expand oil and gas development and exploration" while "protecting fisheries, [[tourism]], and places off U.S. coasts that are not appropriate for development."<ref>[http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/2010_03_31_release.cfm Department of Interior Press Release,] 31 March 2010.</ref>

Nobel Laureate in Economics, Dr. [[Paul Krugman]],<ref>[http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2008/ Economics 2008.] Retrieved from Nobel.org 10 May 2010.</ref> who has been highly critical of Obama [[Obama administration corporate bailouts|economic policy]]<ref>[http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20090331151429.aspx Krugman Garners Newsweek Cover for Left-Wing Criticism of [[Obamunism|Obamanomics,]] ] Julia A. Seymour, ''Business & Media Institute'', 3/31/09.</ref> wrote a column entitled "The oil spill is Obama's fault" in his regular ''New York Times'' opinion column, ''Conscience of a Liberal,'' although this is not what he believes.<ref>[http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/the-oil-spill-is-obamas-fault/?src=twt&twt=NytimesKrugman The Oil Spill Is Obama’s Fault,] Paul Krugman, ''New York Times '' Op-Ed, April 30, 2010,</ref>

==Federal Inaction==
The [[White House]] lacks any type of plan to combat the oil spill disaster. [[U.S. House of Representatives|House]] Democratic Majority Leader [[Steny Hoyer]] publicly admitted that the [[Obama Administration]] was ill-prepared to deal with the situation. <ref>[http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2010/04/mms-thought-deepwater-horizon-was-awardwinningly-safe.html MMS Thought Deepwater Horizon was Award-Winningly SAFE,] The Project on Government Oversight, Exposing Government Corruption, 29 April 2010.</ref> While the disaster steadily grew, it took eight days for Obama to discuss the crisis at length. He would order a moratorium on all future deep sea oil platforms until they determine the problems associated with the current situation. As to be expected, Obama tries to remove himself from blame saying "the system failed", this despite the fact the he heads the system. Then he pointed fingers of blame at oil companies while taking an indirect jab at the Bush administration. <ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20005039-503544.html Angry Obama Seeks to Deflect Blame for Gulf Oil Spill Crisis, CBS, May 14, 2010]</ref>

{{cquote| "For too long, for a decade or more, there has been a cozy relationship between the oil companies and the federal agency that permits them to drill. It seems as if permits were too often issued based on little more than assurances of safety from the oil companies. That cannot and will not happen anymore."}}

White House spokesman [[Robert Gibbs]] did his best to put a good spin on the disaster saying the response was "comprehensive and fast" and the Coast Guard and Interior Department were on the scene almost immediately. Meanwhile, the [[Democrat]]-led Congress ordered public hearings from oil executives. Again, Obama would blame others saying the answers from oil executives were a "ridiculous spectacle", "You had executives of BP and Transocean and Halliburton falling over each other to point the finger of blame at somebody else." <ref>[http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/burning_rig_of_fire_VkeuMCffwTUd9IBS7gUV7K?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME=#ixzz0oWm4u9zQ New look at Gulf oil spill as cleanup continues, NYPost, May 15, 2010]</ref>

[[New Jersey]] Democrat Senator [[Robert Menendez]] wants a ban on new offshore drilling permits. In addition, he submitted a bill that would retroactively raise the financial liability of BP from $75 million to $10 billion. <ref>[http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2010/05/senator-menendez-on-oil-spill-no-new-drilling-permits.html Senator Menendez on Oil Spill: No New Drilling Permits, ABCNews, May 12, 2010]</ref> Oklahoma [[Republican]] Senator [[James Inhofe]] successfully killed the bill saying it would reduce competition and shut down smaller independent oil companies in favor of larger companies.

== Deepwater Horizons ==
On [[Earth Day]] 2010, a British Petroleum-leased oil drilling rig sank to the bottom of the [[Gulf of Mexico]] two days after it exploded, creating what has been described as the "worst environmental disaster in [[American History Lectures|US history]]."<ref>[http://www.examiner.com/x-33986-Political-Spin-Examiner~y2010m4d29-Worst-environmental-disaster-in-US-history-Oil-slick-in-Gulf-of-Mexico-is-set-on-fire Worst environmental disaster in US history,] Maryann Tobin, ''Examiner'', April 29, 2010.</ref> [[Secretary of the Interior]] [[Ken Salazar]] told [[CNN]] "It potentially is catastrophic," and "I think we have to prepare for the worst."<ref>[http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/gulf-oil-spill:-impossible-to-measure-impact-of-%22unprecedented-environmental-disaster%22-477603.html?tickers=BP,HAL,CAM,RIG,XLE,OIL,USO Gulf Oil Spill: Impossible to Measure Impact of "Unprecedented Environmental Disaster",] Aaron Task, May 03, 2010. Retrieved from Yahoo Finance 12 May 2010.</ref><ref>[http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/05/02/salazar-oil-spill-massive-and-a-potential-catastrophe/ Salazar: Oil spill 'massive' and a potential catastrophe,] [[CNN]], 3 May 2010.</ref>

Congressional investigators think they have identified the rigs blowout preventer as the cause of the explosion. <ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703339304575240323493707434.html Congress Homes In on Rig's Blowout Preventer,] Ben Casselman and Jennifer Levitz, ''Wall Street Journal Online,'' 13 May 2010.</ref> The blowout preventer was leaking hydraulic fluid, had a dead battery,<ref>Ibid.</ref> and was inspected by the Obama Minerals Management Service (MMS) only two weeks before to the explosion<ref>White House Press Office, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/press-briefing-bp-oil-spill-gulf-coast Press Briefing on the BP Oil Spill in the Gulf Coast,] 29 April 2010. Retrieved from whitehouse.gov 12 May 2010.</ref> which killed 11 people. Blowout preventers are meant to shut off the well, and the last line of defense is a set of shear rams which cut the pipe and seal off the well.<ref>Congress Homes In on Rig's Blowout Preventer, Ben Casselman and Jennifer Levitz, ''WSJ Online,'' 13 May 2010.</ref> The MMS, the [[Obama administration]] agency that regulates offshore drilling along with the Coast Guard, is supposed to require proof that shear rams are powerful enough to shut the well. Michael Saucier, MMS's regional supervisor testified before Congress that the MMS did not require BP to file a "scenario for potential blowout."<ref>Ibid.</ref> The MMS certified that BP "has the capacity to respond, to the maximum extent practicable, to a worst-case discharge, or a substantial threat of such a discharge."<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/29/gulf-oil-spill-exceeds-bp_n_556798.html</ref>

===Slow response ===
[[File:Finalisttransoce.jpeg|left|300px|thumb|Chris Oynes (left) of the Mineral Management Service presents Keelan Adamson (right) of Transocean the MMS's, ''Safety Award for Excellence'' (SAFE),<ref>http://www.mms.gov/awards/SAFEcriteria.htm</ref> at the at the MMS National Award luncheon 7 May 2009 in Washington.<ref>http://www.beaconmag.com/gomrigteamswinmm.html</ref> ''Source: Beacon magazine'']]
On 23 April 2010 [[Department of Homeland Security]] officials with the [[U.S. Coast Guard]] reported the was no leak from the sunken oil rig.<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-04-23-deepwater-horizon_N.htm Coast Guard: No oil leaking from sunken rig,] Rick Jervis, ''[[USA TODAY]]'', 23 April 2010.</ref> Administration officially estimated leakage from the sunken well at 1000 barrels per day after studying information from remotely operated vehicles.<ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/24/oil-rig-deepwater-horizon_0_n_550849.html Oil Rig, Deepwater Horizon, Leaking Into Gulf Of Mexico,] Cain Burdeau, 4 April 2010. Retrieved from the ''[[Huffington Post]],'' 15 May 2010.</ref> Later administration estimates were raised to 5000 barrels per day,<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/29/us/29spill.html Size of Spill in Gulf of Mexico Is Larger Than Thought,] Campbell Robertson and Leslie Kaufman, ''New York Times,'' 28 April 2010. Retrieved 15 May 2010.</ref> while [[National Public Radio]] has reported the [[Obama administration]]'s estimates may be understated by a factor of ten.<ref>[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126809525 Gulf Spill May Far Exceed Official Estimates,] Richard Harris, ''National Public Radio,'' 14 May 2010.</ref>

Federal officials did not begin burning the leaking oil off the surface of the water until one full week after the rig collapsed.<ref>http://blog.al.com/live/2010/04/burning_should_have_started_a.html</ref> Louisiana Governor [[Bobby Jindal]] criticized [[President Obama]] for his slow response<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzEntQPr9OA</ref> ''The New York Times'' castigated the [[White House]] for delays and not moving quick enough, calling the evidence "damning" and declaring the Gulf oil spill a "huge disaster whose consequences might have been minimized with swifter action" from the [[Obama administration]].<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/01/opinion/01sat1.html Unanswered Questions on the Spill,] ''New York Times'' Editorial, 30 April 2010.</ref>

== Transocean ==

Transocean, owner of the Deepwater Horizons drilling rig leased to BP, was the recipient of the Obama Mineral Management Service's, ''Safety Award for Excellence''.<ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=66303 Democratic Leader Hoyer Doesn’t Know Whether Obama Administration was Prepared for Oil Spill,] Matt Cover, CNSNews.com, May 20, 2010.</ref><ref>MMS Thought Deepwater Horizon was Award-Winningly SAFE, The Project on Government Oversight, Exposing Government Corruption, 29 April 2010.</ref>

== British Petroleum ==
[[File:Bp-obama-logo.jpg|right|200px|thumb| A symbol that the president is responsible, Obama takes ownership of this crisis. His actions alone will be judged and cannot easily pass blame onto others as he has previously.]]
During the first 100 days of the [[Obama administration]], the Minerals Management Service (MMS) of the [[Department of the Interior]] granted a “categorical exclusion” from a detailed environmental impact statement required under [[law]]<ref>[http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/nepa/nepaeqia.htm The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended.]</ref> to British Petroleum's Deepwater Horizon drilling operation, according to the ''[[Washington Post]].''<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/04/AR2010050404118.html U.S. exempted BP's Gulf of Mexico drilling from environmental impact study,] Juliet Eilperin, ''Washington Post,'' 5 May 2010.</ref> BP's exploration plan received in the Administration's MMS field office on 23 March 2009 states "no mitigation measures other than those required by regulation and BP policy will be employed to avoid, diminish or eliminate potential impacts on environmental resources." It declared any spill would have only "sub-lethal" effects on fish and marine [[mammal]]s but it was "unlikely that an accidental oil spill would occur from the proposed activities."<ref>http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/initial_exploration_plan050410.pdf</ref>

As Senator, and while running for president, [[Barack Obama]] received a total of $77,051 from British Petroleum<ref>http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/BP?view=detail&siteid=nwhwk</ref> and has taken more money from BP's [[Political Action Committee]] and individuals connected with BP over the past 20 years than any other candidate, according to [[FEC]] disclosure records.<ref>[http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0505/obama-biggest-recipient-bp-political-action-money-20-years Obama is biggest recipient of BP’s political action cash in the last 20 years,] John Byrne, 5 May 2010. Retrieved from rawstory.com 9 May 2010.</ref> Likewise, the independent watchdog Center for Responsive Politics noted, "the “top recipient of BP-related donations during the 2008 cycle was President Barack Obama himself.”<ref>Jake Tapper, Political Punch, [[ABC News]], 5 May 2010. [http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/05/white-house-idea-that-bp-given-special-exemption-because-of-campaign-cash-to-obama-silly-and-ridiculous.html?cid=6a00d8341c4df253ef0134807669a3970c]</ref><ref>http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/04/on-thursday-oil-giant-bp.html</ref>

==Environmental disaster ==

=== Attempted cleanup ===
''Wired Science'' reports the [[Obama administration]] disaster-relief agencies and BP are using a toxic chemical to disperse oil in the Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster. Use of dispersants are said to be a public relations strategy.<ref>[http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/05/gulf-dispersants/ Toxic Oil Dispersant Used in Gulf Despite Better Alternative,] Brandon Keim, 5 May 2010. Retrieved from ''Wired Science'' 15 May 2010.</ref> U.S.[[Department of Homeland Security]] Secretary [[Janet Napolitano]] reported the dispersants were dropped form [[C-130]] cargo aircraft.<ref>[http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010-05-02/news/os-oil-disaster-chemical-cleanup-20100502_1_dispersant-spill-crude Oil-spill disaster: Chemicals used in cleanup add to toxic mix,] Kevin Spear, ''Orlando Sentinel,'' 2 May 2010.</ref> Jackie Savitz of the ocean-conservation group Oceana stated the use of dispersants is only slightly less horrendous than the Gulf oil spill itself. "You're basically pouring chemicals into the ocean, which is never a good thing."<ref>Ibid.</ref> According to a 2009 [[Environmental Protection Agency]] report dispersants have not been used in the United State "because of possible long-term environmental effects, difficulties with timely and effective application, disagreement among [[scientist]]s and research data about their environmental effects, effectiveness, and [[toxic]]ity concerns" and the effects "are still unknown."<ref>Ibid.</ref> Dennis Takahashi-Kelso, executive vice president of the [[environmental]] group Ocean Conservancy, said dispersants risk damaging [[ecosystem]]s and hurting wildlife.<ref>Ibid.</ref>

The dispersant 2-BE is known to cause heath dangers to clean up workers and wildlife alike.<ref>[http://www.bellona.org/articles/articles_2010/chem_dispersants_work_at_cost Chemical dispersants seem to be keeping oil from Gulf shore, but results may range from simply cosmetic to very toxic.] Retrieved from Belona.org 15 May 2010.</ref> 2-BE has been documented to cause the breakdown of [[red blood cell]]s, leading to blood in urine and feces, and can damage the kidneys, liver, spleen and [[bone marrow]] of humans – effects not included on the information sheet for workers.<ref>Ibid.</ref> The dispersant Corexit 9500 is associated with headaches, vomiting and reproductive problems as sides effects to clean-up workers.<ref>Ibid.</ref> Lawrence Duffy of the University of Alaska claims dispersants "are more a public relations measure than a preventive one. It has an effect on our psychology because we don't see the oil slick,"<ref>Ibid.</ref> though oil particles continue to do damage.<ref>Oil-spill disaster: Chemicals used in cleanup add to toxic mix, Kevin Spear, ''Orlando Sentinel,'' 2 May 2010.</ref>

Most scientists agree that Corexit 9500 will have a much larger biological effect when it reaches coastal areas teeming with wildlife.<ref>Toxic Oil Dispersant Used in Gulf Despite Better Alternative, Brandon Keim, ''Wired Science,'' 5 May 2010.</ref> Many species are being threatened at a crucial time in their life cycle.<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2818588720100428 FACTBOX-Possible environmental impact of Gulf oil spill,] ''[[Reuters]]'', 28 April 2010.</ref>

=== Silverfish ===

In testing done by the U.S. [[Environmental Protection Agency]] the dispersant Corexit 9500 was found to be extremely lethal to silverfish, a benchmark [[organism]] in [[toxic]]ity testing.<ref>Toxic Oil Dispersant Used in Gulf Despite Better Alternative, Brandon Keim, ''Wired Science,'' 5 May 2010.</ref>

=== Gulf menhaden ===

Gulf menhaden are a [[specie]]s harvested mostly for fish meal and fish oil. Menhaden could be badly affected
by the spill.

=== Coral, oyster and shrimp ===

Corals, oyster and shrimp likewise are critically affected. Richard Charter, a foremost expert on marine biology and oil spills who is a senior policy advisor for Marine Programmes for Defenders of Wildlife and is chairman of the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council has said, “There is a [[chemical]] [[toxic]]ity to the dispersant compound that in many ways is worse than oil,” which "in so doing you may be more seriously damaging the ecosystem offshore.”<ref>Chemical dispersants seem to be keeping oil from Gulf shore, but results may range from simply cosmetic to very toxic. Retreived from Belona.org 15 May 2010.</ref> Shrimp were found to be extremely vulnerable to the lethal effects of the chemical dispersant Corexit 9500 used by [[Obama administration]] disaster relief agencies and BP in testing done by the [[Environmental Protection Agency]] (EPA).<ref>Toxic Oil Dispersant Used in Gulf Despite Better Alternative, Brandon Keim, ''Wired Science,'' 5 May 2010.</ref>
[[File:Slide 6569 89213 small.jpg|right|300px|thumb|Oil-covered bird struggling to stay alive]]
=== Brown pelican ===

The [[Louisiana]] state bird, the brown pelican, was removed from the U.S. Endangered Species Act in 2009 and breeding season has just commenced.

=== Other bird species ===

Other species endangered by the oil spill are American oystercatcher and Wilson's plover.

=== Sea turtles ===

As several species of sea turtles move through the Gulf during their spring nesting season, they need to surface to breathe.

==Economic impacts==

The economic impact of the [[Gulf of Mexico]] oil drilling disaster could be large and devastating to several key industries, including fishing, tourism, and transportation.<ref>[http://www.ihsglobalinsight.com/Perspective/PerspectiveDetail18638.htm Preliminary Economic Assessment of the Gulf Coast Oil Spill,] Nariman Behravesh, 4 May 2010. Retrieved from ihsglobalinsights.com 8 May 2020.</ref>

===Employment in fishing===

Fishing<ref>http://www.marketwatch.com/video/asset/fishing-industry-hammered-by-gulf-oil-spill/41612D0E-B338-464D-A15E-5885B1D227D6</ref> in the Gulf of Mexico employed about 27,000 workers in [[Louisiana]] alone and second to [[Alaska]]'s fishing industry. Dockside sales are approximately $660 million. Loses to the Louisiana fishing industry could be as high as $2.5 billion.<ref>http://www.marketwatch.com/story/insurers-brace-for-liability-hit-from-oil-spill-2010-05-05</ref>

===Tourism===

Tourism along the Gulf coast likewise could be devastated as the spill comes ashore. [[Florida]] tourism industry could lose $3 billion according to analysts at Bernstein Research.<ref>http://www.royalgazette.com/rg/Article/article.jsp?articleId=7da532730030019&sectionId=65</ref>

===Transportation===

The disruption of shipping traffic in and out of the Port of [[New Orleans]] will impact barge, container, and tanker traffic in the Mississippi Delta and along the [[Mississippi River]]. Prices of all types of commodities would affected,

=== Insurance industry ===

British Petroleum (BP), the operator on the oil drilling lease with a 65% stake, insured itself, rather than buying coverage from insurance companies. Industry analysts estimate total costs related to the oil spill clleanup and damages could exceed $14 billion. <ref>[http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKLDE6410IJ20100502 U.S. oil spill could bill could exceed $14 billion,] Tom Bergin, ''Reuters,'' 2 May 2010.</ref>

==Other Liberal Reaction==
Forthcoming

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Obama Administration]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:Disasters]]

Talk:Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?

2010-05-23T02:23:41Z

Jinxmchue: rm trolling

Talk:Worst College Majors

2010-05-23T02:17:49Z

Jinxmchue: /* Proposal: move to "Essay: Worst College Majors" */ new section

In deference to JDWPianist, I'll defer to his change of "Music" to "Music Therapy," but "Music" as a college major is pretty useless. Maybe it's OK as a hobby, but not something that someone would profitably pay $100,000 for in terms of a degree except in the most unusual situations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:11, 16 May 2010 (EDT)

Just like to note that Women Studies is not on any of the lists in the sources given for this page. --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 13:28, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

:You're right, and it's not hard to understand why. The [[liberal denial]] is too obvious for words.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:38, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

:Information in our articles should match up with sources used and not have information inserted with no backing. If there is a source that states Women Studies to be the worst college degree then it should of course be outlined in this article. Cause right now it seems to be more of opinion that it is number 1 because the lack of a source. --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 13:47, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::Well perhaps you should start your own project, Irene. However the pendulum for tolerating liberal clap-trap is rapidly swinging against them, and it might not be worth your investment. My suggestion is that you open your mind; the truth will indeed set you free! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:34, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

:::I am unsure as to where you are going with this TK. I am merely pointing out a fault with the article and getting fed back alot of liberal nonsense and wordism. Am i wrong to say the article is not backing up what the sources say? --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 17:18, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

: Hmmm, I would have to agree that Women's Studies didn't seem to have any practical applications in the workforce. So looked at the UC Davis college catalog to see what it had to say ([http://registrar.ucdavis.edu/UCDWebCatalog/PDF/14GenCatProg.pdf pg 385] - Warning, its a huge file!). I guess there are some realistic applications like counseling, medicine, or law. While there are obviously far better majors to prepare a student for these fields, I suppose that its not completely useless (like Star Trek or Surfing Studies!). Anyway, I hope this helps! [[User:JimFullerton|JimFullerton]] 17:23, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

Irene certainly has a point, the material is not sourced. Pointing that out is certainly not liberalism in and of itself. Are we intending to argue that the uselessness of that particular major is self-evident? (I certainly know of no use for it, but then again I really have no idea what they teach you)

Personally I'm not sure how credible a source on the usefulness of any particular college degree could possibly be. Have they actually backed up their analysis with solid research? I doubt it. I'm not sure this entire page is exactly encyclopedic. Perhaps it would be better to move it to the Essay namespace where it may prove a useful resource for students but won't be making the value-judgment (i.e. subjective, un-encyclopedic) about what is or isn't useful. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 17:45, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

: It only took me a minute or two to find many websites describing how bad a major "women's studies" is. I added one. More generally, what's wrong with a little "[[caveat emptor]]" for college majors? People are paying a ton of money plus [[opportunity cost]] on college, and it seems worth spending at least a little effort separating the wheat from the chaff.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:34, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::Well you can say that is a source, but Insider? is just a gossip site on celebrities primarily. How are we determining credibility of sources here on CP? --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 22:48, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

:::Irene, there are dozens of sites stating the obvious. [[Liberal denial]] of obvious truths has no place here. Look in earnest yourself if you sincerely doubt the point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:11, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::::I do not doubt Women Studies being useless. But i thought i raised a valid question, on determining credibility. For even when Conservapedia is right, which it often is, it should still need backing of credible sources to persuade doubters. Gives a much better foundation on Conservapedia's part; rather then excepting any yahoos opinion that is swayed by liberal bias. --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 23:22, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

:::::Putting aside the question of whether or not women's studies should be on the list of worst college majors, I agree with [[User:IreneK|IreneK]] that the source cited is not a credible source. Not only is ''The Insider'' hardly a reliable source, (it appears to be a liberal celebrity gossip site - I hope CP isn't going to start relying on that sort of thing!), the article is not even written by someone on ''The Insider'''s editorial staff. The article would be stronger and more persuasive if a more reliable source was cited. 
:::::For what it's worth, my impression has been that women's studies is often a minor, rather than a major, course of study, as a complement to another field. (In the same way that many people take philosophy courses in college, because they can be quite interesting, but few people major in philosophy, as there is not much of a market for it.) I don't know how accurate this impression is.
:::::Whether a particular course of study is worthwhile or not is somewhat in the eye of the beholder (or rather the person willing to pay for such classes), so any list such as this one is to some extent opinion rather than fact. Nonetheless, the article should at least have a source for whether the number of students pursuing such a major is increasing or decreasing (as mentioned in the current source), or what the job prospects really are, or what a typical starting salary for graduates might be. A quick Google search produced [http://www-afa.adm.ohio-state.edu/u-majors/pdf/womst.pdf this interesting document] from Ohio State, which might be worth looking at with an eye towards putting some of the info in the CP article. ''"After graduation, about half of women’s studies majors attend graduate or professional school, while others find employment in government and nonprofit agencies and organizations, as well as private businesses."'' Alas, it it quite late, so I don't have time to look for additional sources. 
:::::[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:16, 19 May 2010 (EDT)

Dare I say there's a worse major than Women's Studies? "Queer Studies," which grows ever more common, is an entire degree in justifying the homosexual agenda. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 23:45, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
::::Does any American college offer a Men's Studies program or a White Anglo Saxon Protestant Program? :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 02:09, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

:::::A quick Google says [http://www.akamaiuniversity.us/MensStudies.html#2 yes]. I believe many more offer Gender Studies courses, which presumably include both mens' and women's perspectives. Protestant universities would be a good place to look for courses on the experiences of Protestants in the US; similarly Catholic universities offer various courses from a Catholic perspective, and so on. [[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:28, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

I tried to edit this article but they got reverted almost right away. I am new here but have been looking at many articles in the past and editing this article based on the talk page and also the provided sources. In the provided links they do not make mention of atheism and only mention religion. Most people I know that went into religious studies went into it because they had a passion for it and were not looking for money. Should this be changed or even removed? Also the sourced articles read more like opinion pieces including the insider one and the learnfinancialplanning.com article that actually got its information from holytaco.com (which looks to be comedy site). Anyone disagree or should I go ahead and make these changes? [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 15:15, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

: I do disagree. If students are enrolling in religion with good intentions, then all the more reason to alert them to what that field of study has really become.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:58, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

::I agree with john here. And students could just as easily find other ''opinionated'' articles in support for all of these majors.

::I agree with the idea that this isn't an encylopedic entry and should be moved to a debate page. --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 19:38, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

::: But the article is about how much the major makes monetarily which would include religion and many other studies , but to many people they enjoy what they do and wouldn't trade it in. Teaching for example does not pay the best of wages , but that does not stop people for pursuing a degree and having a passion for it and there are many good teachers out there. The same goes for writing, Dance, Philosophy, and even music. There are a lot of different majors in the world and going into someone just to earn money is more of a [[Social Darwinism]] type belief and not a good one at that. [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 21:31, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

:::: The criticisms of these majors goes far beyond their lack of economic value. You protest too much, rather than adding information.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:07, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

:::::

I am more than happy to add or change information to this article but last time I did this I was banned (I did however move star trek to courses since Georgetown does not offer a degree for star trek) and I do agree that some of the degrees and courses have little value in today's world (I do disagree with some of them as well) but the articles sourced and the link for women studies are all based on how much a degree earns and opinionated which is very un-encyclopedic. Now I did find another article related to courses that I think we can add based on the non usefulness of courses like star trek, harry potter, soap opera. Any thought of if the following link should be used?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/07/AR2007100701401_2.html?sid=ST2007100701675

How about also a rewrite of the first part and state the following and remove the information about debt since as you stated this is not about economic value.

The worst college majors are fields of study that leave the student with relatively few job opportunities in the field of study and often a distorted and liberal view of the world.

Then source each field of study and why it gives the person a distorted view of the world and leave them few job opportunities.

For example for Parapsychology link to the either of the following articles.

http://atheism.about.com/od/parapsychology/a/repeatable.htm

http://www.rsd.edu/schools/rhs/mst/reading/005_Why_Parapsychology_is_a_Pseudoscience.pdf

[[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 11:34, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

any reason why the change to star trek was reverted. This is not a degree but instead a course offered by Georgetown. Should this be changed back to put it under courses? [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 12:05, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

:If Star Trek is merely a course, please do move it back to the course section. But you continue to protest too much about the inclusion of women's studies. If you think that major has significant value worth the $200,000 that many spend on college, then please simply say what you think that value is. Would you pay $200,000 for the courses taught in women's studies? If so, why?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:12, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

:: I moved it back to sourced and sourced the link to Georgetown. I actually am not protesting inclusion of woman's studies as you might believe and actually fixed the sourcing of it to two articles that I hope you find as useful. What I am protesting is sourcing. The links provided are opinionated and in some of them un-sourced. For example how is Golf Management not useful? This degree is not based on playing golf but managing a golf course, working at a country club, etc. [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 22:17, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

== Proposal: move to "Essay: Worst College Majors" ==

I think it would be more appropriate as it really fits in with [[Essay|this list]]. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 22:17, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

Imprecatory prayer

2010-05-21T22:16:16Z

Jinxmchue: Undo revision 780032 by Rajivgandhi (Talk)

'''Imprecatory prayer''' is asking God for relief from hostile treatment at the hands of enemies.

==Controversy==

Some people feel that imprecatory prayer isn't always Christian:
*A blogger writes, "some of them seem to go against Christian teaching (e.g. the psalmist asking God to smite his enemies in Psalm 69" [http://www.conversiondiary.com/2009/06/talk-to-me-about-psalms.html]

Others say:
*"[[David]] prayed for deliverance because he was surrounded by implacable enemies." [http://www.bible.ca/ef/expository-psalm-35.htm]

==External links==
*[http://www.bible.ca/ef/expository-psalm-35.htm Expository Files] - Jay Horsley

Dungeons and Dragons

2010-05-21T17:27:56Z

Jinxmchue: /* History and Development */

'''Dungeons & Dragons''' (D&D or DnD) is a [[role-playing]] game with a medieval theme featuring [[myth]]ical creatures such as [[elf|elves]], [[dwarf (mythology)|dwarves]], [[orc]]s, and [[dragon]]s, but also semi-fictionalized [[demons]]. Players take the role of characters who solve a series of heroic adventures or quests. Though argued to be a harmless game, it has attracted a variety of criticism.

Players typically do not compete against one another; rather, the players cooperate to achieve goals and objectives while a referee, in this case called the ''dungeon master'' (DM) or ''game master'' (GM), interprets rules and adjudicates the success or failure of the players' efforts.

The game was first published in 1974 by Tactical Studies Rules (TSR). Most of those rules and many of the subsequent rules were authored by [[Gary Gygax]]. There are some who claim that [[Dave Arneson]] was the actual "inventor" of D&D, but this claim is disputed, not least by the fact that many references were authored by Gygax. After its original publisher TSR, Inc., went bankrupt, the game was sold to [[Wizards of the Coast]], a division of Hasbro.<ref>Wizards of the Coast's [http://www.wizards.com/dnd D&D site]</ref>

In the late 1970s, the game's popularity exploded, particularly on college campuses. ''Dungeons & Dragons'' spawned countless variations and permutations, but during the earliest days of the game's growth, there were accusations that the game contributed to Satanic worship, teen suicide and general moral depravity. These criticisms have been repeatedly addressed by the game's creators and defenders.

The 4th Edition of the game is the most recent, released in 2008.

==Game play==
''Dungeons & Dragons'' is a free-form game in which a referee (the Dungeon Master) describes a situational problem to the players and then the players reply with any imaginable response. The exploits of players can occur in any fantasy setting but at some point the adventure often occurs in a ''dungeon'' or subterranean locale not unlike ''[[Khazad-dûm|Moria]]'' in [[Tolkien]]'s ''[[The Lord of the Rings]]''.

Players' characters can gain more powers and abilities from earning ''experience points'' for completing various tasks (e.g. solving puzzles, killing enemies) during adventures.

===Alignment System===
Because D&D players can basically "do" anything there are moral implications to the choices players make. To provide a frame of reference and to help the game make sense, Gygax devised an alignment system. All characters (and monsters) are required to have an ''alignment'' and they must adhere to the beliefs of that alignment.

Morality is divided into "Good," "Neutral" and "Evil" while ethics are divided into "Lawful," "Neutral" and "Chaotic." By combining these two frameworks, we arrive at the nine alignments: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, true neutral ("neutral neutral"), chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil.

These alignments help players and referees roleplay characters and monsters.

In the original versions of the game, only the "ethical" (Law/Chaos) axis of morality was present. The "moral" (good/evil) axis was added in later editions. 4th Edition removes the axis concept, resulting in the alignments lawful good, good, unaligned, evil, and chaotic evil.

The ability of players to play evil characters has been among the criticisms against the game.

===Components of a Character===
A character is described in detail on a "character sheet" where the player records important facts about the character. This includes the character's "race", vocation, unique skills, and numerical ratings of the character's attributes.

In this case, "race" refers to a race from fantasy such as an elf, dwarf, gnome or halfling--effectively used as an archaic term for "species". The races which are allowed in the game vary from DM to DM according to the tastes of players and the setting that the DM has devised. The vocation or "class" of the character refers to the fantasy archetype the player wishes to play, e.g. wizard, barbarian, rogue, cleric, etc. The selection of race and class will impact skills and attributes which are available to the character as well as the strengths and weaknesses the character.

===The Magic System ===
The magic system used in Dungeons & Dragons is based very loosely on the writing of fantasy and science fiction author [[Jack Vance]]. Magic using characters must memorize their spells and a spell leaves the wizard's memory upon being cast. Novices and those who have never played the game should note that in this case, the player doesn't actually memorize anything. The "memorization" is really just a mechanic to help limit the number of spells a player can use per gaming episode. The 4th Edition makes significant changes to the system, basing most abilities on "per encounter" uses (as in, how many times per battle or event an ability can be used).

The depiction of the use of magic is another point of contention among those who criticize the game.

===The Combat System ===
To determine the outcome of man-to-man combat, players roll dice to determine if an attack "hits" and then if the attack hits how much damage the attack does. Damage reduces the defender's "hit points." When a combatant's hit points are depleted, that combatant is "dead" or incapacitated. This combat system was developed from a ship-to-ship naval combat game that Gygax adapted to describe medieval man-to-man combat.

==History and Development==
The origins of D&D are found in a prior generation of [[miniatures games]] such as [[H.G. Wells]]' [[Little Wars]]. ''Little Wars'' is a set of rules which describe how to play a game with toy soldiers.

Wells' rules were themselves were based upon a earlier games which were primarily played by nobility and royals to teach warfare strategy. <ref>http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=6040&pageno=2 Foreword to Little Wars by ''H.G. Wells''</ref>. With the publication of ''Little Wars'', H.G. Wells hoped to bring a game previously known only to kings to the common man. Because tin soldiers do not bleed and do not leave widows, it was Wells hope that men could settle differences by little wars rather than real wars.

Miniature gaming such as ''Little Wars'' was nearly unknown in America, although there were pockets of hobbyists such as "International Federation of Gamers", a tiny group near Milwaukee Wisconsin.<ref>http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnDArchives_History.asp</ref> [[Gary Gygax]] and [[Dave Arneson]] were members of that gaming group. It can rightly be said that Gygax and Arneson are the fathers of modern role-playing games, but the contributions of other local gamers are muddied into this mix as well.

===Gygax & Arneson===
In 1969, Gary Gygax adapted rules meant to govern wooden ship combat into a medieval combat game which was published by Guidon Games under the name ''Chainmail''. The game was very popular locally and grew organically over the next few years. At the same time, ''[[The Lord of the Rings]]'' was gaining mass appeal in the United States. This inspired players to incorporate elements of fantasy into their wargames.

By 1970, Dave Arneson adapted these and other club rules into something generally referred to as ''the fantasy game'' <ref>http://jovianclouds.com/blackmoor/</ref>. ''The fantasy game'' had several key innovations --- many of which were of Arneson's devising. In previous wargames, players generally led an army of toy soldiers. But in ''the fantasy game'', each player had only one soldier, described as a ''character'' or ''player character''.

Further the game evolved to include the concept that at the next game session would pick up where the last game session ended. Another evolutionary concept was the idea of a referee or game master. The referee, often played by Arneson or Gygax, had the job of making final judgments and augmenting the rules as necessary to keep the game going. <ref>http://jovianclouds.com/blackmoor/rpg2.html</ref>

As few records were kept at the time, there is some question as to who exactly designed what in ''the fantasy game'' with Gygax and Arneson at times jointly and separately claiming to have "invented the game". Arneson's chief claims rest on his evolution of certain key concepts that would constitute all role-playing games to follow. Gygax's claim rests upon the fact that most of the early reference works were authored by Gygax.

===OD&D===
In 1972, Gary Gygax and others formed a partnership called Tactical Studies Rules and in 1974 Tactical Studies Rules published Gary Gygax' version of "the Fantasy Game", later named ''Dungeons & Dragons''. <ref>http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnDArchives_History.asp#</ref> This version of the game --- often called ''Original Dungeons & Dragons'', ''Old Dungeons & Dragons'' or ''OD&D'' --- was printed in staple-bound paperback form from folded sheets of 8.5 x 11 paper and sold as a boxed set.

By many accounts, ''OD&D'' was a clunky game, sparse on rules, but in this game one would find all the elements of a modern role-playing game: player characters, a game master, serial adventures, and the opportunity for character growth. Several print runs of this version sold out quickly and went on to exceed the expectations of everyone involved.

After the tremendous success of the D&D paperbacks, Tactical Studies Rules reorganized with partners Gary Gygax, Don Kaye and Brian Blume under the name TSR Hobbies Inc. In 1975, TSR Hobbies published OD&D supplements, Gygax's ''[[Greyhawk]]'' and Arneson's ''[[Blackmoor]]''. <ref>http://www.dadsdnd.com/greyhawk.html</ref> <ref>http://www.dadsdnd.com/blackmoor.html</ref>

''Dungeons & Dragons'' began to be noticed by American culture at about the same time the company released ''Eldritch Wizardry'' and ''God, Demigods & Heroes''. The cover of ''Eldritch Wizardry'' featured an nude dress female strewn over an altar. <ref>http://www.deigames.com/eldwiz2.JPG</ref> ''Gods, Demigods & Heroes'' was a mythological reference with gods and heroes from the legends and lore of Greeks, Egyptians, Indians, Norse and more. Many of these mythological gods are considered creatures of human invention, but some are now considered demons by the Christian Church.

Although the game was gaining popularity, the works served as a lightning rod for criticism. Although some of the art in these and later editions would violate the [[Comics Code]], the publishers at TSR failed to appreciate the danger of ignoring these rules. Some of TSR's management believed that D&D was marketed toward adult males, not teens and preteens, and thus the Comics Code did not apply. It soon became evident that D&D's popularity reached beyond college-age males.

===First Edition===
In 1977, TSR Hobbies published the Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set, a boxed set containing revised and abbreviated rules for easier introduction to the game. This was followed in 1978 by the publication of the "core rule books" of D&D: the ''Players Handbook'', the ''Dungeon Masters Guide'' and the ''Monster Manual''. (Later editions of this game would follow this pattern.) Taken as a whole with several other reference books this version of the game is alternatively referred to as Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, AD&D, 1E, 1ED&D. This version of the game revised and organized the notes from OD&D into a single playable whole in hardback books.

Although the art found in the books is hardly obscene and does not approach what is found regularly in American culture today, there were a handful of depictions that did not meet the Comics Code. For example, a harpy, a creature from Greek mythology, that is half-woman half-vulture was depicted with nipples revealed. <ref>''Monster Manual'' by Gary Gygax published by TSR Hobbies 1978</ref> And a mermaid was depicted topless with her hair covering parts of the chest. <ref>''Dungeon Masters Guide'' by Gary Gygax published by TSR Hobbies 1979</ref>

Additionally the game had references to many demons and devils (intended as adversaries). Also the game had a polytheist mythos with some players playing the part of clerics, or priests, of these imaginary or mythical gods. (See backlash below.)

===Second Edition===
In 1983, TSR Hobbies changed its name to TSR, Inc. For the next several years, TSR, Inc. released supplements and adventures for AD&D, along with reprints of the AD&D core books. Typical adventure supplements sold 10,000 to 100,000 units, while each print run of the AD&D core rules sold 40,000 copies. <ref>http://www.acaeum.com/library/printrun.html</ref> While the company continue to sell respectable amounts of product, internal disorganization, in-fighting and corporate inefficiencies limited profitability. After a bitter fight with partners, Gygax was forced from the board of directors and eventually left the company. With Arneson gone since First Edition, the game was now in the hands of a second generation.

In 1989, TSR Inc. released Second Edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. This version of the game was largely a rewrite of the previous edition that was nearly fully compatible with First Edition AD&D. The game was largely sanitized and edited, but not so much reborne. For example, the art of Second Edition achieved a more professional standard. The art did not violate the Comics Code. Second Edition removed all references to "real" gods, devils and demons and inserted divas and angelic creatures.

Under the umbrella of Second Edition D&D, TSR, Inc. released some of its most enduring and popular titles. Ravenloft, Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance were all second edition products.

===Third Edition===
In 1997, TSR, Inc. was purchased by [[Wizards of the Coast]]. (Wizards is often called WotC, and this acronym is pronounced ''what-see''.) Wizards (eventually acquired by Hasbro) continued to improve the art and graphics of D&D and in 2000 released ''Third Edition Dungeons & Dragons'' to supplant second edition. While preserving the concepts of RPGing and many of the archetypes of AD&D, Third Edition (3E) would do what Second Edition had not.

Third Edition rewrote many of the basic constructs of the game in an effort to "modernize" the game and streamline some of D&D's clumsiest and clunkiest mechanics. Third Edition rules and supplements broke from the tradition of improving an existing system. Rather third edition replaced the previous system with "new and better" mechanics.

By the time of the release of Third Edition, most of the controversy associated with D&D had dissipated as secular culture had digressed far beyond anything found in previous D&D. With little controversy or fanfare, D&D reintroduced demons and many of the darker concepts of ''Dungeons & Dragons''.

Now based in Seattle Washington, rather than Lake Geneva Wisconsin, the editors at WotC seem to exhibit the cultural norms found in Seattle rather than the heartlands. For example, rather than using the pronoun ''he'' in non-gender specific rules, Third Edition D&D bypasses the clumsy but [[political_correctness | politically correct]] construct ''he/she'', and describes rules based on hypothetical characters. For example, the 3rd Edition "iconic" paladin was a woman named Alhandra, so the rules text describing the paladin's abilities used "she"; 3rd Edition's "iconic" cleric was a man named Jozan, so the rules text describing the cleric's abilities used "he".

The D&D ethos traditionally favored ''good'' characters, but Third Edition seems to subscribe to a "balanced" view as the idea. For example, many of the more evil creatures in Dungeons and Dragons prey on each other as much as on good people (the iconic example being lawful evil devils and chaotic evil demons); some of the text in the game indicates that they should be left to do this, rather than someone trying to destroy one or the other and uniting them, however briefly, in a struggle against the interloper. This is a troubling symptom of our cultural drift from conservative values but not the cause of that drift.

===Fourth Edition===
With much fanfare, the Fourth Edition of the game was recently announced. Coveting the tremendous revenue of miniatures games like [[Games Workshop]]'s ''[[Warhammer]]'', Fourth Edition is compatible with the new D&D Miniatures game. Fourth Edition also uses many of the conventions wildly accepted in online computer games following widely successful games like Blizzard's [[World_of_Warcraft | World of Warcraft]] and [[Diablo]]. The game makes several other adjustments; see above for some such changes.

====D&D Online====
There is now a Dungeons & Dragons Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game (MMORPG) known as ''Dungeons & Dragons Online: Stormreach'' which takes place in the ''Eberron'' campaign setting. Online and computer games are similar to D&D in many respects, but the play of these games is entirely different. D&D is characterized by a human referee and complete freedom of action. Without these key components, the game is a mere shadow of D&D.

===Summary===

''Dungeons & Dragons'' is nothing more or less than a formalized game of pretend, similar to imaginary adventures that children everywhere play. But, the simplicity of this concept was not immediately evident to players of ''Dungeons & Dragons'' or the public at large. Although D&D has a fantasy theme and many rules for resolving actions, ''Dungeons & Dragons'' is at its core a game of pretend like "cops and robbers" or "cowboys and Indians".

==Concerns and Criticisms==
In the late seventies and early eighties, the sudden popularity of ''Dungeons & Dragons'' resulted in a cultural and religious backlash against perceived dangers from the game. ''Dungeons & Dragons'' was linked to the occult, witchcraft & demonology. Additionally there was some criticism about the art depicted in the earliest versions of the game. Much of this criticism came from the natural tendency of people to fear the unknown and to fear new ideas, but some of this criticism was valid and affected later versions of what was published under the name ''Dungeons & Dragons''.

===Demons and Devils===
In D&D, player characters (the player's in game persona) are constantly gaining strength and power. Therefore, they are forever seeking more powerful adversaries and more difficult challenges. For example, at the start of a campaign player characters may be doing battle with creatures short of stature with few may limitations (low intelligence, fear of sunlight) such as [[goblin]]s or [[kobold]]s. But as the player character's power increases, so to increases the deadliness of their opponents. In the search for ever more powerful opponents game designers eventually developed attributes for demons and devils.

The publishers of the game had imagined that they would sell a few hundred copies to college-aged males and never imagined that the game would experience explosive popularity, especially among teens as young as thirteen. Therefore, no thought or planning was invested into the potential impact of defining the powers and abilities of demons and devils. To the game's designers and players, killing a demon (in game) was no more controversial than killing a bishop in a game of chess.

But to bystanders the very inclusion of demons and devils was enough to cast suspicion upon the entire game--particularly since the game's much-touted freedom might allow a character to side with them. Additionally, the inclusions of demons and devils in the game raised other questions, such as why there are no angels in the game. There were no angels in the earliest editions of the game, because there was no reason to have an angel in the role of a ''monster''. (See terminology above.) By late First Edition and early Second Edition, the game included and defined [[angels]], [[devas]] and other highly powerful creatures of good; sometimes these were presented as allies for good characters, sometimes enemies for evil ones. This led to the criticism that religious icons were being disrespected by inclusion in the reference works.

In the Second Edition, the publishers tried to sanitize D&D by removing demons and devils, but many players (who enjoyed the challenge of destroying demons) resisted this effort. Later editions removed many references to "real" demons. Additionally, the terms "devil" and "demon" were replaced with the terms "baatezu" and "tanar'ri", respectively, and "the Nine Hells" (the outer planar home of devils/baatezu) was renamed "Baator".

However, in Third Edition, the game's original terms were readopted and blended--colloquially, for example, creatures from the Nine Hells (also called Baator) were called devils, but the most dominant species of the devils called themselves baatezu. An entire "mature" supplement (though there is no legal restriction on who may buy it, a large sticker is on the cover of most copies, stating it is for mature gamers only), known as the Book of Vile Darkness<ref>[http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/881610000 "Book of Vile Darkness"]</ref> was produced to introduce more overtly evil concepts into the game, ostensibly in ways for the DM to make the most horrific enemies possible for their players. A follow-up, the Book of Exalted Deeds<ref>[http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/880260000 "Book of Exalted Deeds"]</ref>, was created as a way for players to explore the philosophy and morality of good, and to make a good alignment more than a line on their character sheet. (The titles of both books are based on magic items in the game, both of which are extremely useful to a person of the proper alignment.)

The Fourth Edition Player's Handbook contains a "Warlock" class, which allows the player to make a pact with a certain creature to gain power. One option is the "Infernal Pact", allowing the player to literally make a deal with the devil.

===D&D and the Occult===
The game includes fictional depictions of supernatural abilities called magic, evil monsters called demons and devils, and fictional deities along with their followers. Christians are divided on how this interacts with their faith. A minority of Christians believe that fictional depictions of fantasy elements such as those found in ''[[The Chronicles of Narnia]]'', ''[[The Lord of the Rings]]'', ''[[Harry Potter]]'', or ''Dungeons & Dragons'' are blasphemous, but most Christians see no problem with such fictional works.

Starting in the late 1970s the game and others like it came under attack mainly from some fundamentalist Christians as promoting occult and criminal activity. The game's dangers were alleged in the ''Dark Dungeons'' tract by [[Jack Chick]]<ref>Jack Chick: [http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.asp "Dark Dungeons"]</ref>, which portrays D&D players committing suicide when their characters are killed or joining secret witches' covens and learning to cast real magic spells when their characters reach a high enough level.

The fact is that ''Dungeons & Dragons'' designers and players had nothing to do with occult or criminal activity and thirty years later it may be hard to understand how people could confuse D&D with occult activities. In the earliest days of D&D it was easy for an uninformed bystander to draw faulty conclusions based upon a limited knowledge of the game. In its earliest days, OD&D often sold out due to low print runs, leaving bystanders with little access to the rules and little direct knowledge of the game.

For example, bystanders knew the game was developing a devoted cult-following. There is an important distinction between a cult-following and a cult itself, but this was lost on some bystanders. As a cult-following, D&D developed an insular fraternity of fans who were plugged into something exciting and new. Each day the world of D&D expanded and every player everywhere had a hand in the growth of the game. The players were developing their own lexicon and making new and ever expanding rules. This close bond and strange lexicon was easily misunderstood by those with limited exposure to the game.

In the late seventies the game's popularity was preceded by rumors that players were involved in some strange occult activities. Bystanders knew that D&D players were talking about fantastic creatures, magical spells and even demons because the game often includes descriptions of [[occult]] elements like [[magic]], [[ghost]]s, [[spirit]]s, [[demon]]s and [[devil]]s. To an uninformed bystander this may be pretty scary stuff. But, the truth was significantly less mysterious and sensational.

These misperceptions have largely evaporated, both because of the game's popularity and better information about the product. Critics became aware that players were not involved in anything occult but were gaming in a fantasy setting. Most everyone in America knows someone who has played ''Dungeons & Dragons'', so these days it's all but impossible to blur the line between occult activity and role-playing games.

===God and gods===
One item of concern for conservative Christians is that players' characters do not usually worship [[God]], but instead choose a [[patron]] deity from a fictional [[polytheistic]] pantheon. The game settings manufactured by [[Wizards of the Coast]] (''Greyhawk'', ''Faerun'', ''Eberron'', etc.) expressly adopt a polytheistic [[pantheon]] of fictional deities and reject real-world [[religion]]s as a part of the game. (The Deities and Demigods<ref>[http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/881650000 "Deities and Demigods"]</ref> supplement offers several different takes on religion, including rules for a monotheistic game world, but deliberately sidesteps the question of any modern religion--Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.--even as it brings up pantheons of old myths, such as the Greek or Norse gods. It's likely they used only "dead" religions in order to avoid controversy.) The question of what extent and form of religion should be depicted in the game has been a question since the earliest days of the game. In an in depth look at monotheism in fantasy games, Joseph R.Ravitts raised some of the problems and benefits for a born-again Christian's point of view.<ref>"Monotheism in Gaming" by Joseph R. Ravitts, Pegasus Magazine Issue #4 published in 1981 by Judges' Guild</ref>

Ravitts already understood the power of role-playing, which is now well known. Namely, role-playing is a powerful behavior modification tool. If you pretend that you believe something, eventually you will believe that something. For this reason, he posited that it was important to avoid role-playing in a polytheistic world. Referencing the classic argument from ''[[Mere Christianity]]'' by [[C.S._Lewis | C.S. Lewis]], Ravitts explained how polytheism is really just [[atheism]] or [[monotheism]] in disguise. He believed that if players and DM's actively played in an atheistic world, they would eventually become atheists.

He then pointed out the difficulties of importing Christianity or other religions into D&D. Ravitts pointed out it is a simple matter to import mythological gods like [[Zeus]] or [[Thor]] into a fantasy setting. One simply imagines these gods are in the fantasy world and begins playing. But this is much more difficult with religious figures like [[Jesus]], [[Muhammad]] or [[Buddha]]. Each of these three men were real historic personages. For example, Jesus lived, died and rose again in the Middle East at a specific time and place.

Ravitts proposed two simple work-arounds, for those who care about their spiritual well-being. Firstly, one could assume that all humans are teleported from Earth or descended from folks who were teleported from Earth. These humans have preserved their religious identities and thus Christianity is an option for players without tampering with the historical nature of Jesus. Secondly Ravitts proposed altering the game's mythos to allow for an all-powerful detached God reigning over the "gods, demigods and devils". In this way the "gods" are not gods at all, but just ultra-powerful beings who distract souls from worshiping the one true God.

However, it is worth noting that novels and "sourcebooks" make occasional references to a "God of gods".

Of course there are alternatives such as ''[http://www.greenronin.com/catalog/grr1019 Testament]'' a D&D type game set in the Biblical Era. Further, many of the game worlds portray certain gods and religions as being metaphors for modern ones. (Even the incredibly polytheistic Forgotten Realms, where more than a hundred deities exist, features a triad of gods that could be based on the Holy Trinity.) But ultimately, D&D is a game of fantasy and players are encouraged to alter the game world to better suit their tastes, and many Christian players and DMs alter the game world so that it better fits their personal beliefs.

===The art of D&D===
Another criticism is that illustrations in the rule books for ''Dungeons & Dragons'' often contain images of immodestly dressed women. For example, in the First Edition ''Monster Manual'' a number of drawings depicted topless creatures of fantasy such as the harpy (half-vulture half-woman) or the succubus (a demoness). The OD&D reference ''Eldritch Wizardry'' featured the profile of a nude woman. Most of these images are fairly crudely rendered and are not particularly racy by today's standards, but they did exceed the limitations of the [[Comics Code]] of the time<ref>http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8580/cca3.html</ref>.

By the publication of Second Edition, the art and layout of the D&D game was managed by professionals. As a result the quality of the art increased significantly and anything racy was eliminated from the art work. There was some minor controversy with the revised Third Edition ''Monster Manual'''s artwork of the succubus and nymph (a water spirit in the form of a beautiful woman), but aside from these there is nothing particularly shocking in the art for a child or adult of any age.

===Unchristian Activities===
Although Dungeons & Dragons does not present itself as either pro-Christian or anti-Christian, the game features many elements which can be considered to agree with or go against the teachings of Christ. The game has drawn criticism for allowing players to undertake the roleplaying of un-Christian activities: the rules allow a player to have their character perform evil acts, including the summoning or worshiping of demons and devils. Certain fundamentalists disagree with the very format of the game in that player characters can pretend to cast imaginary spells while playing the game.

Some feel that the primary action of the game involves the fictional slaying of monsters and the fictional accumulation of wealth, some Christians feel that this goes against the teachings of Christ regarding [[pacifism]] ([[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]] 5:38-42) and the accumulation of [[wealth]] (Matthew 19:24). Others see these actions as heroic endeavors and wealth is a byproduct of doing good things. Either way, the game and it's choices are a matter of free will.

Former [[United Methodist Church]] minister James Wyatt wrote an essay comparing the freedom of a Dungeons & Dragons player to choose his own actions, to the Christian concept of Free Will. As in real life, a player may, when presented with a moral choice, decide for himself whether to do good or evil. If the player was not able to do evil, he would be forced to do good, removing his freedom. Similarly, God allows human beings to choose between good and evil in real life, and people must accept the consequences of their choice. The supplements that deal specifically with demons and devils make it quite clear that the afterlife for characters who are condemned to the Abyss or the Nine Heels is in no way pleasant, and may even be short.

Tracy Hickman, one of the main authors of the Dungeons & Dragons Dragonlance book series, and a Christian with conservative politics and theology, has written a number of articles defending and discussing D&D from a Christian perspective. <ref name="Waldron">The Journal of Religion and Popular Culture: [http://www.usask.ca/relst/jrpc/art9-roleplaying.html "Role-Playing Games and the Christian Right"]</ref> Others within the Dungeons & Dragons community responded by writing other defenses from rationalist perspectives or other perspectives or by writing parodies such as "Chess: The Subtle Sin: Should Christians play chess?". Some argue that in response to the perceived Christian persecution of the Dungeons & Dragons, darker themed, deliberately counter-cultural games appeared in reaction such as [[Call of Cthulhu]] which is based on the horror writing of [[H.P. Lovecraft]] and set in the [[Cthulhu|Cthulhu Mythos]]<ref name="Waldron"/>, or [[Vampire: the Masquerade]], where players act the roles of undead vampires.

====Possible Areas of Concern for Christians====
D&D is a "game of pretend" whereby players pretend to take certain actions and the DM adjudicates the results of those actions. By its very nature, this leaves players open to experiment with various moral quandaries and social dilemmas. This is a valuable tool for players to learn the implications and results of playing both good and evil characters. However, the possibility exists that such an experience may not be beneficial or appropriate for everyone--in particular, persons who already have difficulty separating fantasy with reality might be able to be helped by the game, but it could also make things worse. Due to the nature of roleplaying games, a great deal depends upon the individual group in question; a given game of Dungeons and Dragons might be benign from a Christian standpoint, or it might involve activities and ideas that a Christian would find profoundly distasteful.

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
* [http://aquela.com/roleplaying/r&r/index.html Religion and Roleplaying]
* [http://www.fansforchrist.org/new/articles/article03a.htm Christians Playing Dungeons and Dragons] - An informed Christian's perspective on Dungeons & Dragons.
* [http://www.trhickman.com/Intel/Essays/Ethic2.html Ethics in Fantasy: Morality and D&D] - Tracey Hickman's essay concerning Christian perspectives and common misunderstandings about Role-Playing Games
* [http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/3691 Full text of H.G. Wells ''Little Wars; a game for boys from twelve years of age to one hundred and fifty']

[[Category:Games]]

Dungeons and Dragons

2010-05-21T17:19:38Z

Jinxmchue: /* The Magic System */

'''Dungeons & Dragons''' (D&D or DnD) is a [[role-playing]] game with a medieval theme featuring [[myth]]ical creatures such as [[elf|elves]], [[dwarf (mythology)|dwarves]], [[orc]]s, and [[dragon]]s, but also semi-fictionalized [[demons]]. Players take the role of characters who solve a series of heroic adventures or quests. Though argued to be a harmless game, it has attracted a variety of criticism.

Players typically do not compete against one another; rather, the players cooperate to achieve goals and objectives while a referee, in this case called the ''dungeon master'' (DM) or ''game master'' (GM), interprets rules and adjudicates the success or failure of the players' efforts.

The game was first published in 1974 by Tactical Studies Rules (TSR). Most of those rules and many of the subsequent rules were authored by [[Gary Gygax]]. There are some who claim that [[Dave Arneson]] was the actual "inventor" of D&D, but this claim is disputed, not least by the fact that many references were authored by Gygax. After its original publisher TSR, Inc., went bankrupt, the game was sold to [[Wizards of the Coast]], a division of Hasbro.<ref>Wizards of the Coast's [http://www.wizards.com/dnd D&D site]</ref>

In the late 1970s, the game's popularity exploded, particularly on college campuses. ''Dungeons & Dragons'' spawned countless variations and permutations, but during the earliest days of the game's growth, there were accusations that the game contributed to Satanic worship, teen suicide and general moral depravity. These criticisms have been repeatedly addressed by the game's creators and defenders.

The 4th Edition of the game is the most recent, released in 2008.

==Game play==
''Dungeons & Dragons'' is a free-form game in which a referee (the Dungeon Master) describes a situational problem to the players and then the players reply with any imaginable response. The exploits of players can occur in any fantasy setting but at some point the adventure often occurs in a ''dungeon'' or subterranean locale not unlike ''[[Khazad-dûm|Moria]]'' in [[Tolkien]]'s ''[[The Lord of the Rings]]''.

Players' characters can gain more powers and abilities from earning ''experience points'' for completing various tasks (e.g. solving puzzles, killing enemies) during adventures.

===Alignment System===
Because D&D players can basically "do" anything there are moral implications to the choices players make. To provide a frame of reference and to help the game make sense, Gygax devised an alignment system. All characters (and monsters) are required to have an ''alignment'' and they must adhere to the beliefs of that alignment.

Morality is divided into "Good," "Neutral" and "Evil" while ethics are divided into "Lawful," "Neutral" and "Chaotic." By combining these two frameworks, we arrive at the nine alignments: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, true neutral ("neutral neutral"), chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil.

These alignments help players and referees roleplay characters and monsters.

In the original versions of the game, only the "ethical" (Law/Chaos) axis of morality was present. The "moral" (good/evil) axis was added in later editions. 4th Edition removes the axis concept, resulting in the alignments lawful good, good, unaligned, evil, and chaotic evil.

The ability of players to play evil characters has been among the criticisms against the game.

===Components of a Character===
A character is described in detail on a "character sheet" where the player records important facts about the character. This includes the character's "race", vocation, unique skills, and numerical ratings of the character's attributes.

In this case, "race" refers to a race from fantasy such as an elf, dwarf, gnome or halfling--effectively used as an archaic term for "species". The races which are allowed in the game vary from DM to DM according to the tastes of players and the setting that the DM has devised. The vocation or "class" of the character refers to the fantasy archetype the player wishes to play, e.g. wizard, barbarian, rogue, cleric, etc. The selection of race and class will impact skills and attributes which are available to the character as well as the strengths and weaknesses the character.

===The Magic System ===
The magic system used in Dungeons & Dragons is based very loosely on the writing of fantasy and science fiction author [[Jack Vance]]. Magic using characters must memorize their spells and a spell leaves the wizard's memory upon being cast. Novices and those who have never played the game should note that in this case, the player doesn't actually memorize anything. The "memorization" is really just a mechanic to help limit the number of spells a player can use per gaming episode. The 4th Edition makes significant changes to the system, basing most abilities on "per encounter" uses (as in, how many times per battle or event an ability can be used).

The depiction of the use of magic is another point of contention among those who criticize the game.

===The Combat System ===
To determine the outcome of man-to-man combat, players roll dice to determine if an attack "hits" and then if the attack hits how much damage the attack does. Damage reduces the defender's "hit points." When a combatant's hit points are depleted, that combatant is "dead" or incapacitated. This combat system was developed from a ship-to-ship naval combat game that Gygax adapted to describe medieval man-to-man combat.

==History and Development==
To many Americans ''Dungeons & Dragons'' seemed to appear from nothingness as a wholly born concoction of occult elements and hypnotic game play. The truth is that the game evolved from mundane roots in a quite corner of Wisconsin outside Milwaukee. The origins of D&D are found in a prior generation of [[miniatures games]] such as [[H.G. Wells]]' [[Little Wars]]. ''Little Wars'' is a set of rules which describe how to play a game with toy soldiers.

Wells' rules were themselves were based upon a earlier games which were primarily played by nobility and royals to teach warfare strategy. <ref>http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=6040&pageno=2 Foreword to Little Wars by ''H.G. Wells''</ref>. With the publication of ''Little Wars'', H.G. Wells hoped to bring a game previously known only to kings to the common man. Because tin soldiers do not bleed and do not leave widows, it was Wells hope that men could settle differences by little wars rather than real wars.

Miniature gaming such as ''Little Wars'' was nearly unknown in America, although there were pockets of hobbyists such as "International Federation of Gamers", a tiny group near Milwaukee Wisconsin.<ref>http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnDArchives_History.asp</ref> [[Gary Gygax]] and [[Dave Arneson]] were members of that gaming group. It can rightly be said that Gygax and Arneson are the fathers of modern role-playing games, but the contributions of other local gamers are muddied into this mix as well.

===Gygax & Arneson===
In the earliest days, the International Federation of Gamers was possessed of a grand name, but little more. Of course few records were kept at that time. Thus, there is some dispute about who exactly invented what aspects of the game. In 1969, Gary Gygax adapted rules meant to govern wooden ship combat into a medieval combat game which was published by Guidon Games under the name ''Chainmail''. The game was very popular locally and grew organically over the next few years. At the same time, ''[[The Lord of the Rings]]'' was gaining mass appeal in the United States. This inspired players to incorporate elements of fantasy into their wargames.

By 1970, Dave Arneson adapted these and other club rules into something generally referred to as ''the fantasy game'' <ref>http://jovianclouds.com/blackmoor/</ref>. ''The fantasy game'' had several key innovations --- many of which were of Arneson's devising. In previous wargames, players generally led an army of toy soldiers. But in ''the fantasy game'', each player had only one soldier, described as a ''character'' or ''player character''.

Further the game evolved to include the concept that at the next game session would pick up where the last game session ended. Another evolutionary concept was the idea of a referee or game master. The referee, often played by Arneson or Gygax, had the job of making final judgments and augmenting the rules as necessary to keep the game going. <ref>http://jovianclouds.com/blackmoor/rpg2.html</ref>

There is some question as to who exactly designed what in ''the fantasy game'' with at times Gygax and Arneson jointly and severably claiming to have "invented the game". There is no doubt that both many, and many gamers, where involved in the evolution of the game. Arneson's chief claims rest on his evolution of certain key concepts that would constitute all role-playing games to follow. Gygax's claim rests upon the fact that most of the early reference works were authored by Gygax.

===OD&D===
In 1972, Gary Gygax and others formed a partnership called Tactical Studies Rules and in 1974 Tactical Studies Rules published Gary Gygax' version of "the Fantasy Game", later named ''Dungeons & Dragons''. <ref>http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnDArchives_History.asp#</ref> This version of the game --- often called ''Original Dungeons & Dragons'', ''Old Dungeons & Dragons'' or ''OD&D'' --- was printed in staple-bound paperback form from folded sheets of 8.5 x 11 paper and sold as a boxed set.

By many accounts, ''OD&D'' was a clunky game, sparse on rules, but in this game one would find all the elements of a modern role-playing game: player characters, a game master, serial adventures, and the opportunity for character growth. Several print runs of this version sold out quickly and went on to exceed the expectations of everyone involved.

After the tremendous success of the D&D paperbacks, Tactical Studies Rules reorganized with partners Gary Gygax, Don Kaye and Brian Blume under the name TSR Hobbies Inc. In 1975, TSR Hobbies published OD&D supplements, Gygax's ''[[Greyhawk]]'' and Arneson's ''[[Blackmoor]]''. <ref>http://www.dadsdnd.com/greyhawk.html</ref> <ref>http://www.dadsdnd.com/blackmoor.html</ref>

''Dungeons & Dragons'' began to be noticed by American culture at about the same time the company released ''Eldritch Wizardry'' and ''God, Demigods & Heroes''. The cover of ''Eldritch Wizardry'' featured an nude dress female strewn over an altar. <ref>http://www.deigames.com/eldwiz2.JPG</ref> ''Gods, Demigods & Heroes'' was a mythological reference with gods and heroes from the legends and lore of Greeks, Egyptians, Indians, Norse and more. Many of these mythological gods are considered creatures of human invention, but some are now considered demons by the Christian Church.

Although the game was gaining popularity, the works served as a lightning rod for criticism. Although some of the art in these and later editions would violate the [[Comics Code]], the publishers at TSR failed to appreciate the danger of ignoring these rules. Some of TSR's management believed that D&D was marketed toward adult males, not teens and preteens, and thus the Comics Code did not apply. It soon became evident that D&D's popularity reached beyond college-age males.

===First Edition===
In 1977, TSR Hobbies published the Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set, a boxed set containing revised and abbreviated rules for easier introduction to the game. This was followed in 1978 by the publication of the "core rule books" of D&D: the ''Players Handbook'', the ''Dungeon Masters Guide'' and the ''Monster Manual''. (Later editions of this game would follow this pattern.) Taken as a whole with several other reference books this version of the game is alternatively referred to as Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, AD&D, 1E, 1ED&D. This version of the game revised and organized the notes from OD&D into a single playable whole in hardback books.

Although the art found in the books is hardly obscene and does not approach what is found regularly in American culture today, there were a handful of depictions that did not meet the Comics Code. For example, a harpy, a creature from Greek mythology, that is half-woman half-vulture was depicted with nipples revealed. <ref>''Monster Manual'' by Gary Gygax published by TSR Hobbies 1978</ref> And a mermaid was depicted topless with her hair covering parts of the chest. <ref>''Dungeon Masters Guide'' by Gary Gygax published by TSR Hobbies 1979</ref>

Additionally the game had references to many demons and devils (intended as adversaries). Also the game had a polytheist mythos with some players playing the part of clerics, or priests, of these imaginary or mythical gods. (See backlash below.)

===Second Edition===
In 1983, TSR Hobbies changed its name to TSR, Inc. For the next several years, TSR, Inc. released supplements and adventures for AD&D, along with reprints of the AD&D core books. Typical adventure supplements sold 10,000 to 100,000 units, while each print run of the AD&D core rules sold 40,000 copies. <ref>http://www.acaeum.com/library/printrun.html</ref> While the company continue to sell respectable amounts of product, internal disorganization, in-fighting and corporate inefficiencies limited profitability. After a bitter fight with partners, Gygax was forced from the board of directors and eventually left the company. With Arneson gone since First Edition, the game was now in the hands of a second generation.

In 1989, TSR Inc. released Second Edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. This version of the game was largely a rewrite of the previous edition that was nearly fully compatible with First Edition AD&D. The game was largely sanitized and edited, but not so much reborne. For example, the art of Second Edition achieved a more professional standard. The art did not violate the Comics Code. Second Edition removed all references to "real" gods, devils and demons and inserted divas and angelic creatures.

Under the umbrella of Second Edition D&D, TSR, Inc. released some of its most enduring and popular titles. Ravenloft, Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance were all second edition products.

===Third Edition===
In 1997, TSR, Inc. was purchased by [[Wizards of the Coast]]. (Wizards is often called WotC, and this acronym is pronounced ''what-see''.) Wizards (eventually acquired by Hasbro) continued to improve the art and graphics of D&D and in 2000 released ''Third Edition Dungeons & Dragons'' to supplant second edition. While preserving the concepts of RPGing and many of the archetypes of AD&D, Third Edition (3E) would do what Second Edition had not.

Third Edition rewrote many of the basic constructs of the game in an effort to "modernize" the game and streamline some of D&D's clumsiest and clunkiest mechanics. Third Edition rules and supplements broke from the tradition of improving an existing system. Rather third edition replaced the previous system with "new and better" mechanics.

By the time of the release of Third Edition, most of the controversy associated with D&D had dissipated as secular culture had digressed far beyond anything found in previous D&D. With little controversy or fanfare, D&D reintroduced demons and many of the darker concepts of ''Dungeons & Dragons''.

Now based in Seattle Washington, rather than Lake Geneva Wisconsin, the editors at WotC seem to exhibit the cultural norms found in Seattle rather than the heartlands. For example, rather than using the pronoun ''he'' in non-gender specific rules, Third Edition D&D bypasses the clumsy but [[political_correctness | politically correct]] construct ''he/she'', and describes rules based on hypothetical characters. For example, the 3rd Edition "iconic" paladin was a woman named Alhandra, so the rules text describing the paladin's abilities used "she"; 3rd Edition's "iconic" cleric was a man named Jozan, so the rules text describing the cleric's abilities used "he".

The D&D ethos traditionally favored ''good'' characters, but Third Edition seems to subscribe to a "balanced" view as the idea. For example, many of the more evil creatures in Dungeons and Dragons prey on each other as much as on good people (the iconic example being lawful evil devils and chaotic evil demons); some of the text in the game indicates that they should be left to do this, rather than someone trying to destroy one or the other and uniting them, however briefly, in a struggle against the interloper. This is a troubling symptom of our cultural drift from conservative values but not the cause of that drift.

===Fourth Edition===
With much fanfare, the Fourth Edition of the game was recently announced. Coveting the tremendous revenue of miniatures games like [[Games Workshop]]'s ''[[Warhammer]]'', Fourth Edition is compatible with the new D&D Miniatures game. Fourth Edition also uses many of the conventions wildly accepted in online computer games following widely successful games like Blizzard's [[World_of_Warcraft | World of Warcraft]] and [[Diablo]]. The game makes several other adjustments; see above for some such changes.

====D&D Online====
There is now a Dungeons & Dragons Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game (MMORPG) known as ''Dungeons & Dragons Online: Stormreach'' which takes place in the ''Eberron'' campaign setting. Online and computer games are similar to D&D in many respects, but the play of these games is entirely different. D&D is characterized by a human referee and complete freedom of action. Without these key components, the game is a mere shadow of D&D.

===Summary===

''Dungeons & Dragons'' is nothing more or less than a formalized game of pretend, similar to imaginary adventures that children everywhere play. But, the simplicity of this concept was not immediately evident to players of ''Dungeons & Dragons'' or the public at large. Although D&D has a fantasy theme and many rules for resolving actions, ''Dungeons & Dragons'' is at its core a game of pretend like "cops and robbers" or "cowboys and Indians".

==Concerns and Criticisms==
In the late seventies and early eighties, the sudden popularity of ''Dungeons & Dragons'' resulted in a cultural and religious backlash against perceived dangers from the game. ''Dungeons & Dragons'' was linked to the occult, witchcraft & demonology. Additionally there was some criticism about the art depicted in the earliest versions of the game. Much of this criticism came from the natural tendency of people to fear the unknown and to fear new ideas, but some of this criticism was valid and affected later versions of what was published under the name ''Dungeons & Dragons''.

===Demons and Devils===
In D&D, player characters (the player's in game persona) are constantly gaining strength and power. Therefore, they are forever seeking more powerful adversaries and more difficult challenges. For example, at the start of a campaign player characters may be doing battle with creatures short of stature with few may limitations (low intelligence, fear of sunlight) such as [[goblin]]s or [[kobold]]s. But as the player character's power increases, so to increases the deadliness of their opponents. In the search for ever more powerful opponents game designers eventually developed attributes for demons and devils.

The publishers of the game had imagined that they would sell a few hundred copies to college-aged males and never imagined that the game would experience explosive popularity, especially among teens as young as thirteen. Therefore, no thought or planning was invested into the potential impact of defining the powers and abilities of demons and devils. To the game's designers and players, killing a demon (in game) was no more controversial than killing a bishop in a game of chess.

But to bystanders the very inclusion of demons and devils was enough to cast suspicion upon the entire game--particularly since the game's much-touted freedom might allow a character to side with them. Additionally, the inclusions of demons and devils in the game raised other questions, such as why there are no angels in the game. There were no angels in the earliest editions of the game, because there was no reason to have an angel in the role of a ''monster''. (See terminology above.) By late First Edition and early Second Edition, the game included and defined [[angels]], [[devas]] and other highly powerful creatures of good; sometimes these were presented as allies for good characters, sometimes enemies for evil ones. This led to the criticism that religious icons were being disrespected by inclusion in the reference works.

In the Second Edition, the publishers tried to sanitize D&D by removing demons and devils, but many players (who enjoyed the challenge of destroying demons) resisted this effort. Later editions removed many references to "real" demons. Additionally, the terms "devil" and "demon" were replaced with the terms "baatezu" and "tanar'ri", respectively, and "the Nine Hells" (the outer planar home of devils/baatezu) was renamed "Baator".

However, in Third Edition, the game's original terms were readopted and blended--colloquially, for example, creatures from the Nine Hells (also called Baator) were called devils, but the most dominant species of the devils called themselves baatezu. An entire "mature" supplement (though there is no legal restriction on who may buy it, a large sticker is on the cover of most copies, stating it is for mature gamers only), known as the Book of Vile Darkness<ref>[http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/881610000 "Book of Vile Darkness"]</ref> was produced to introduce more overtly evil concepts into the game, ostensibly in ways for the DM to make the most horrific enemies possible for their players. A follow-up, the Book of Exalted Deeds<ref>[http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/880260000 "Book of Exalted Deeds"]</ref>, was created as a way for players to explore the philosophy and morality of good, and to make a good alignment more than a line on their character sheet. (The titles of both books are based on magic items in the game, both of which are extremely useful to a person of the proper alignment.)

The Fourth Edition Player's Handbook contains a "Warlock" class, which allows the player to make a pact with a certain creature to gain power. One option is the "Infernal Pact", allowing the player to literally make a deal with the devil.

===D&D and the Occult===
The game includes fictional depictions of supernatural abilities called magic, evil monsters called demons and devils, and fictional deities along with their followers. Christians are divided on how this interacts with their faith. A minority of Christians believe that fictional depictions of fantasy elements such as those found in ''[[The Chronicles of Narnia]]'', ''[[The Lord of the Rings]]'', ''[[Harry Potter]]'', or ''Dungeons & Dragons'' are blasphemous, but most Christians see no problem with such fictional works.

Starting in the late 1970s the game and others like it came under attack mainly from some fundamentalist Christians as promoting occult and criminal activity. The game's dangers were alleged in the ''Dark Dungeons'' tract by [[Jack Chick]]<ref>Jack Chick: [http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.asp "Dark Dungeons"]</ref>, which portrays D&D players committing suicide when their characters are killed or joining secret witches' covens and learning to cast real magic spells when their characters reach a high enough level.

The fact is that ''Dungeons & Dragons'' designers and players had nothing to do with occult or criminal activity and thirty years later it may be hard to understand how people could confuse D&D with occult activities. In the earliest days of D&D it was easy for an uninformed bystander to draw faulty conclusions based upon a limited knowledge of the game. In its earliest days, OD&D often sold out due to low print runs, leaving bystanders with little access to the rules and little direct knowledge of the game.

For example, bystanders knew the game was developing a devoted cult-following. There is an important distinction between a cult-following and a cult itself, but this was lost on some bystanders. As a cult-following, D&D developed an insular fraternity of fans who were plugged into something exciting and new. Each day the world of D&D expanded and every player everywhere had a hand in the growth of the game. The players were developing their own lexicon and making new and ever expanding rules. This close bond and strange lexicon was easily misunderstood by those with limited exposure to the game.

In the late seventies the game's popularity was preceded by rumors that players were involved in some strange occult activities. Bystanders knew that D&D players were talking about fantastic creatures, magical spells and even demons because the game often includes descriptions of [[occult]] elements like [[magic]], [[ghost]]s, [[spirit]]s, [[demon]]s and [[devil]]s. To an uninformed bystander this may be pretty scary stuff. But, the truth was significantly less mysterious and sensational.

These misperceptions have largely evaporated, both because of the game's popularity and better information about the product. Critics became aware that players were not involved in anything occult but were gaming in a fantasy setting. Most everyone in America knows someone who has played ''Dungeons & Dragons'', so these days it's all but impossible to blur the line between occult activity and role-playing games.

===God and gods===
One item of concern for conservative Christians is that players' characters do not usually worship [[God]], but instead choose a [[patron]] deity from a fictional [[polytheistic]] pantheon. The game settings manufactured by [[Wizards of the Coast]] (''Greyhawk'', ''Faerun'', ''Eberron'', etc.) expressly adopt a polytheistic [[pantheon]] of fictional deities and reject real-world [[religion]]s as a part of the game. (The Deities and Demigods<ref>[http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/881650000 "Deities and Demigods"]</ref> supplement offers several different takes on religion, including rules for a monotheistic game world, but deliberately sidesteps the question of any modern religion--Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.--even as it brings up pantheons of old myths, such as the Greek or Norse gods. It's likely they used only "dead" religions in order to avoid controversy.) The question of what extent and form of religion should be depicted in the game has been a question since the earliest days of the game. In an in depth look at monotheism in fantasy games, Joseph R.Ravitts raised some of the problems and benefits for a born-again Christian's point of view.<ref>"Monotheism in Gaming" by Joseph R. Ravitts, Pegasus Magazine Issue #4 published in 1981 by Judges' Guild</ref>

Ravitts already understood the power of role-playing, which is now well known. Namely, role-playing is a powerful behavior modification tool. If you pretend that you believe something, eventually you will believe that something. For this reason, he posited that it was important to avoid role-playing in a polytheistic world. Referencing the classic argument from ''[[Mere Christianity]]'' by [[C.S._Lewis | C.S. Lewis]], Ravitts explained how polytheism is really just [[atheism]] or [[monotheism]] in disguise. He believed that if players and DM's actively played in an atheistic world, they would eventually become atheists.

He then pointed out the difficulties of importing Christianity or other religions into D&D. Ravitts pointed out it is a simple matter to import mythological gods like [[Zeus]] or [[Thor]] into a fantasy setting. One simply imagines these gods are in the fantasy world and begins playing. But this is much more difficult with religious figures like [[Jesus]], [[Muhammad]] or [[Buddha]]. Each of these three men were real historic personages. For example, Jesus lived, died and rose again in the Middle East at a specific time and place.

Ravitts proposed two simple work-arounds, for those who care about their spiritual well-being. Firstly, one could assume that all humans are teleported from Earth or descended from folks who were teleported from Earth. These humans have preserved their religious identities and thus Christianity is an option for players without tampering with the historical nature of Jesus. Secondly Ravitts proposed altering the game's mythos to allow for an all-powerful detached God reigning over the "gods, demigods and devils". In this way the "gods" are not gods at all, but just ultra-powerful beings who distract souls from worshiping the one true God.

However, it is worth noting that novels and "sourcebooks" make occasional references to a "God of gods".

Of course there are alternatives such as ''[http://www.greenronin.com/catalog/grr1019 Testament]'' a D&D type game set in the Biblical Era. Further, many of the game worlds portray certain gods and religions as being metaphors for modern ones. (Even the incredibly polytheistic Forgotten Realms, where more than a hundred deities exist, features a triad of gods that could be based on the Holy Trinity.) But ultimately, D&D is a game of fantasy and players are encouraged to alter the game world to better suit their tastes, and many Christian players and DMs alter the game world so that it better fits their personal beliefs.

===The art of D&D===
Another criticism is that illustrations in the rule books for ''Dungeons & Dragons'' often contain images of immodestly dressed women. For example, in the First Edition ''Monster Manual'' a number of drawings depicted topless creatures of fantasy such as the harpy (half-vulture half-woman) or the succubus (a demoness). The OD&D reference ''Eldritch Wizardry'' featured the profile of a nude woman. Most of these images are fairly crudely rendered and are not particularly racy by today's standards, but they did exceed the limitations of the [[Comics Code]] of the time<ref>http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8580/cca3.html</ref>.

By the publication of Second Edition, the art and layout of the D&D game was managed by professionals. As a result the quality of the art increased significantly and anything racy was eliminated from the art work. There was some minor controversy with the revised Third Edition ''Monster Manual'''s artwork of the succubus and nymph (a water spirit in the form of a beautiful woman), but aside from these there is nothing particularly shocking in the art for a child or adult of any age.

===Unchristian Activities===
Although Dungeons & Dragons does not present itself as either pro-Christian or anti-Christian, the game features many elements which can be considered to agree with or go against the teachings of Christ. The game has drawn criticism for allowing players to undertake the roleplaying of un-Christian activities: the rules allow a player to have their character perform evil acts, including the summoning or worshiping of demons and devils. Certain fundamentalists disagree with the very format of the game in that player characters can pretend to cast imaginary spells while playing the game.

Some feel that the primary action of the game involves the fictional slaying of monsters and the fictional accumulation of wealth, some Christians feel that this goes against the teachings of Christ regarding [[pacifism]] ([[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]] 5:38-42) and the accumulation of [[wealth]] (Matthew 19:24). Others see these actions as heroic endeavors and wealth is a byproduct of doing good things. Either way, the game and it's choices are a matter of free will.

Former [[United Methodist Church]] minister James Wyatt wrote an essay comparing the freedom of a Dungeons & Dragons player to choose his own actions, to the Christian concept of Free Will. As in real life, a player may, when presented with a moral choice, decide for himself whether to do good or evil. If the player was not able to do evil, he would be forced to do good, removing his freedom. Similarly, God allows human beings to choose between good and evil in real life, and people must accept the consequences of their choice. The supplements that deal specifically with demons and devils make it quite clear that the afterlife for characters who are condemned to the Abyss or the Nine Heels is in no way pleasant, and may even be short.

Tracy Hickman, one of the main authors of the Dungeons & Dragons Dragonlance book series, and a Christian with conservative politics and theology, has written a number of articles defending and discussing D&D from a Christian perspective. <ref name="Waldron">The Journal of Religion and Popular Culture: [http://www.usask.ca/relst/jrpc/art9-roleplaying.html "Role-Playing Games and the Christian Right"]</ref> Others within the Dungeons & Dragons community responded by writing other defenses from rationalist perspectives or other perspectives or by writing parodies such as "Chess: The Subtle Sin: Should Christians play chess?". Some argue that in response to the perceived Christian persecution of the Dungeons & Dragons, darker themed, deliberately counter-cultural games appeared in reaction such as [[Call of Cthulhu]] which is based on the horror writing of [[H.P. Lovecraft]] and set in the [[Cthulhu|Cthulhu Mythos]]<ref name="Waldron"/>, or [[Vampire: the Masquerade]], where players act the roles of undead vampires.

====Possible Areas of Concern for Christians====
D&D is a "game of pretend" whereby players pretend to take certain actions and the DM adjudicates the results of those actions. By its very nature, this leaves players open to experiment with various moral quandaries and social dilemmas. This is a valuable tool for players to learn the implications and results of playing both good and evil characters. However, the possibility exists that such an experience may not be beneficial or appropriate for everyone--in particular, persons who already have difficulty separating fantasy with reality might be able to be helped by the game, but it could also make things worse. Due to the nature of roleplaying games, a great deal depends upon the individual group in question; a given game of Dungeons and Dragons might be benign from a Christian standpoint, or it might involve activities and ideas that a Christian would find profoundly distasteful.

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
* [http://aquela.com/roleplaying/r&r/index.html Religion and Roleplaying]
* [http://www.fansforchrist.org/new/articles/article03a.htm Christians Playing Dungeons and Dragons] - An informed Christian's perspective on Dungeons & Dragons.
* [http://www.trhickman.com/Intel/Essays/Ethic2.html Ethics in Fantasy: Morality and D&D] - Tracey Hickman's essay concerning Christian perspectives and common misunderstandings about Role-Playing Games
* [http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/3691 Full text of H.G. Wells ''Little Wars; a game for boys from twelve years of age to one hundred and fifty']

[[Category:Games]]

Dungeons and Dragons

2010-05-21T17:19:20Z

Jinxmchue: /* The Magic System */

'''Dungeons & Dragons''' (D&D or DnD) is a [[role-playing]] game with a medieval theme featuring [[myth]]ical creatures such as [[elf|elves]], [[dwarf (mythology)|dwarves]], [[orc]]s, and [[dragon]]s, but also semi-fictionalized [[demons]]. Players take the role of characters who solve a series of heroic adventures or quests. Though argued to be a harmless game, it has attracted a variety of criticism.

Players typically do not compete against one another; rather, the players cooperate to achieve goals and objectives while a referee, in this case called the ''dungeon master'' (DM) or ''game master'' (GM), interprets rules and adjudicates the success or failure of the players' efforts.

The game was first published in 1974 by Tactical Studies Rules (TSR). Most of those rules and many of the subsequent rules were authored by [[Gary Gygax]]. There are some who claim that [[Dave Arneson]] was the actual "inventor" of D&D, but this claim is disputed, not least by the fact that many references were authored by Gygax. After its original publisher TSR, Inc., went bankrupt, the game was sold to [[Wizards of the Coast]], a division of Hasbro.<ref>Wizards of the Coast's [http://www.wizards.com/dnd D&D site]</ref>

In the late 1970s, the game's popularity exploded, particularly on college campuses. ''Dungeons & Dragons'' spawned countless variations and permutations, but during the earliest days of the game's growth, there were accusations that the game contributed to Satanic worship, teen suicide and general moral depravity. These criticisms have been repeatedly addressed by the game's creators and defenders.

The 4th Edition of the game is the most recent, released in 2008.

==Game play==
''Dungeons & Dragons'' is a free-form game in which a referee (the Dungeon Master) describes a situational problem to the players and then the players reply with any imaginable response. The exploits of players can occur in any fantasy setting but at some point the adventure often occurs in a ''dungeon'' or subterranean locale not unlike ''[[Khazad-dûm|Moria]]'' in [[Tolkien]]'s ''[[The Lord of the Rings]]''.

Players' characters can gain more powers and abilities from earning ''experience points'' for completing various tasks (e.g. solving puzzles, killing enemies) during adventures.

===Alignment System===
Because D&D players can basically "do" anything there are moral implications to the choices players make. To provide a frame of reference and to help the game make sense, Gygax devised an alignment system. All characters (and monsters) are required to have an ''alignment'' and they must adhere to the beliefs of that alignment.

Morality is divided into "Good," "Neutral" and "Evil" while ethics are divided into "Lawful," "Neutral" and "Chaotic." By combining these two frameworks, we arrive at the nine alignments: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, true neutral ("neutral neutral"), chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil.

These alignments help players and referees roleplay characters and monsters.

In the original versions of the game, only the "ethical" (Law/Chaos) axis of morality was present. The "moral" (good/evil) axis was added in later editions. 4th Edition removes the axis concept, resulting in the alignments lawful good, good, unaligned, evil, and chaotic evil.

The ability of players to play evil characters has been among the criticisms against the game.

===Components of a Character===
A character is described in detail on a "character sheet" where the player records important facts about the character. This includes the character's "race", vocation, unique skills, and numerical ratings of the character's attributes.

In this case, "race" refers to a race from fantasy such as an elf, dwarf, gnome or halfling--effectively used as an archaic term for "species". The races which are allowed in the game vary from DM to DM according to the tastes of players and the setting that the DM has devised. The vocation or "class" of the character refers to the fantasy archetype the player wishes to play, e.g. wizard, barbarian, rogue, cleric, etc. The selection of race and class will impact skills and attributes which are available to the character as well as the strengths and weaknesses the character.

===The Magic System ===
The magic system used in Dungeons & Dragons is based very loosely on the writing of fantasy and science fiction author [[Jack Vance]]. Magic using characters must memorize their spells and a spell leaves the wizard's memory upon being cast. Novices and those who have never played the game should note that in this case, the player doesn't actually memorize anything. The "memorization" is really just a mechanic to help limit the number of spells a player can use per gaming episode. The 4th Edition makes significant changes to the system, basing most abilities on "per encounter" uses (as in, how many times per battle or event an ability can be used).

The use of magic is another point of contention among those who criticize the game.

===The Combat System ===
To determine the outcome of man-to-man combat, players roll dice to determine if an attack "hits" and then if the attack hits how much damage the attack does. Damage reduces the defender's "hit points." When a combatant's hit points are depleted, that combatant is "dead" or incapacitated. This combat system was developed from a ship-to-ship naval combat game that Gygax adapted to describe medieval man-to-man combat.

==History and Development==
To many Americans ''Dungeons & Dragons'' seemed to appear from nothingness as a wholly born concoction of occult elements and hypnotic game play. The truth is that the game evolved from mundane roots in a quite corner of Wisconsin outside Milwaukee. The origins of D&D are found in a prior generation of [[miniatures games]] such as [[H.G. Wells]]' [[Little Wars]]. ''Little Wars'' is a set of rules which describe how to play a game with toy soldiers.

Wells' rules were themselves were based upon a earlier games which were primarily played by nobility and royals to teach warfare strategy. <ref>http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=6040&pageno=2 Foreword to Little Wars by ''H.G. Wells''</ref>. With the publication of ''Little Wars'', H.G. Wells hoped to bring a game previously known only to kings to the common man. Because tin soldiers do not bleed and do not leave widows, it was Wells hope that men could settle differences by little wars rather than real wars.

Miniature gaming such as ''Little Wars'' was nearly unknown in America, although there were pockets of hobbyists such as "International Federation of Gamers", a tiny group near Milwaukee Wisconsin.<ref>http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnDArchives_History.asp</ref> [[Gary Gygax]] and [[Dave Arneson]] were members of that gaming group. It can rightly be said that Gygax and Arneson are the fathers of modern role-playing games, but the contributions of other local gamers are muddied into this mix as well.

===Gygax & Arneson===
In the earliest days, the International Federation of Gamers was possessed of a grand name, but little more. Of course few records were kept at that time. Thus, there is some dispute about who exactly invented what aspects of the game. In 1969, Gary Gygax adapted rules meant to govern wooden ship combat into a medieval combat game which was published by Guidon Games under the name ''Chainmail''. The game was very popular locally and grew organically over the next few years. At the same time, ''[[The Lord of the Rings]]'' was gaining mass appeal in the United States. This inspired players to incorporate elements of fantasy into their wargames.

By 1970, Dave Arneson adapted these and other club rules into something generally referred to as ''the fantasy game'' <ref>http://jovianclouds.com/blackmoor/</ref>. ''The fantasy game'' had several key innovations --- many of which were of Arneson's devising. In previous wargames, players generally led an army of toy soldiers. But in ''the fantasy game'', each player had only one soldier, described as a ''character'' or ''player character''.

Further the game evolved to include the concept that at the next game session would pick up where the last game session ended. Another evolutionary concept was the idea of a referee or game master. The referee, often played by Arneson or Gygax, had the job of making final judgments and augmenting the rules as necessary to keep the game going. <ref>http://jovianclouds.com/blackmoor/rpg2.html</ref>

There is some question as to who exactly designed what in ''the fantasy game'' with at times Gygax and Arneson jointly and severably claiming to have "invented the game". There is no doubt that both many, and many gamers, where involved in the evolution of the game. Arneson's chief claims rest on his evolution of certain key concepts that would constitute all role-playing games to follow. Gygax's claim rests upon the fact that most of the early reference works were authored by Gygax.

===OD&D===
In 1972, Gary Gygax and others formed a partnership called Tactical Studies Rules and in 1974 Tactical Studies Rules published Gary Gygax' version of "the Fantasy Game", later named ''Dungeons & Dragons''. <ref>http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnDArchives_History.asp#</ref> This version of the game --- often called ''Original Dungeons & Dragons'', ''Old Dungeons & Dragons'' or ''OD&D'' --- was printed in staple-bound paperback form from folded sheets of 8.5 x 11 paper and sold as a boxed set.

By many accounts, ''OD&D'' was a clunky game, sparse on rules, but in this game one would find all the elements of a modern role-playing game: player characters, a game master, serial adventures, and the opportunity for character growth. Several print runs of this version sold out quickly and went on to exceed the expectations of everyone involved.

After the tremendous success of the D&D paperbacks, Tactical Studies Rules reorganized with partners Gary Gygax, Don Kaye and Brian Blume under the name TSR Hobbies Inc. In 1975, TSR Hobbies published OD&D supplements, Gygax's ''[[Greyhawk]]'' and Arneson's ''[[Blackmoor]]''. <ref>http://www.dadsdnd.com/greyhawk.html</ref> <ref>http://www.dadsdnd.com/blackmoor.html</ref>

''Dungeons & Dragons'' began to be noticed by American culture at about the same time the company released ''Eldritch Wizardry'' and ''God, Demigods & Heroes''. The cover of ''Eldritch Wizardry'' featured an nude dress female strewn over an altar. <ref>http://www.deigames.com/eldwiz2.JPG</ref> ''Gods, Demigods & Heroes'' was a mythological reference with gods and heroes from the legends and lore of Greeks, Egyptians, Indians, Norse and more. Many of these mythological gods are considered creatures of human invention, but some are now considered demons by the Christian Church.

Although the game was gaining popularity, the works served as a lightning rod for criticism. Although some of the art in these and later editions would violate the [[Comics Code]], the publishers at TSR failed to appreciate the danger of ignoring these rules. Some of TSR's management believed that D&D was marketed toward adult males, not teens and preteens, and thus the Comics Code did not apply. It soon became evident that D&D's popularity reached beyond college-age males.

===First Edition===
In 1977, TSR Hobbies published the Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set, a boxed set containing revised and abbreviated rules for easier introduction to the game. This was followed in 1978 by the publication of the "core rule books" of D&D: the ''Players Handbook'', the ''Dungeon Masters Guide'' and the ''Monster Manual''. (Later editions of this game would follow this pattern.) Taken as a whole with several other reference books this version of the game is alternatively referred to as Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, AD&D, 1E, 1ED&D. This version of the game revised and organized the notes from OD&D into a single playable whole in hardback books.

Although the art found in the books is hardly obscene and does not approach what is found regularly in American culture today, there were a handful of depictions that did not meet the Comics Code. For example, a harpy, a creature from Greek mythology, that is half-woman half-vulture was depicted with nipples revealed. <ref>''Monster Manual'' by Gary Gygax published by TSR Hobbies 1978</ref> And a mermaid was depicted topless with her hair covering parts of the chest. <ref>''Dungeon Masters Guide'' by Gary Gygax published by TSR Hobbies 1979</ref>

Additionally the game had references to many demons and devils (intended as adversaries). Also the game had a polytheist mythos with some players playing the part of clerics, or priests, of these imaginary or mythical gods. (See backlash below.)

===Second Edition===
In 1983, TSR Hobbies changed its name to TSR, Inc. For the next several years, TSR, Inc. released supplements and adventures for AD&D, along with reprints of the AD&D core books. Typical adventure supplements sold 10,000 to 100,000 units, while each print run of the AD&D core rules sold 40,000 copies. <ref>http://www.acaeum.com/library/printrun.html</ref> While the company continue to sell respectable amounts of product, internal disorganization, in-fighting and corporate inefficiencies limited profitability. After a bitter fight with partners, Gygax was forced from the board of directors and eventually left the company. With Arneson gone since First Edition, the game was now in the hands of a second generation.

In 1989, TSR Inc. released Second Edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. This version of the game was largely a rewrite of the previous edition that was nearly fully compatible with First Edition AD&D. The game was largely sanitized and edited, but not so much reborne. For example, the art of Second Edition achieved a more professional standard. The art did not violate the Comics Code. Second Edition removed all references to "real" gods, devils and demons and inserted divas and angelic creatures.

Under the umbrella of Second Edition D&D, TSR, Inc. released some of its most enduring and popular titles. Ravenloft, Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance were all second edition products.

===Third Edition===
In 1997, TSR, Inc. was purchased by [[Wizards of the Coast]]. (Wizards is often called WotC, and this acronym is pronounced ''what-see''.) Wizards (eventually acquired by Hasbro) continued to improve the art and graphics of D&D and in 2000 released ''Third Edition Dungeons & Dragons'' to supplant second edition. While preserving the concepts of RPGing and many of the archetypes of AD&D, Third Edition (3E) would do what Second Edition had not.

Third Edition rewrote many of the basic constructs of the game in an effort to "modernize" the game and streamline some of D&D's clumsiest and clunkiest mechanics. Third Edition rules and supplements broke from the tradition of improving an existing system. Rather third edition replaced the previous system with "new and better" mechanics.

By the time of the release of Third Edition, most of the controversy associated with D&D had dissipated as secular culture had digressed far beyond anything found in previous D&D. With little controversy or fanfare, D&D reintroduced demons and many of the darker concepts of ''Dungeons & Dragons''.

Now based in Seattle Washington, rather than Lake Geneva Wisconsin, the editors at WotC seem to exhibit the cultural norms found in Seattle rather than the heartlands. For example, rather than using the pronoun ''he'' in non-gender specific rules, Third Edition D&D bypasses the clumsy but [[political_correctness | politically correct]] construct ''he/she'', and describes rules based on hypothetical characters. For example, the 3rd Edition "iconic" paladin was a woman named Alhandra, so the rules text describing the paladin's abilities used "she"; 3rd Edition's "iconic" cleric was a man named Jozan, so the rules text describing the cleric's abilities used "he".

The D&D ethos traditionally favored ''good'' characters, but Third Edition seems to subscribe to a "balanced" view as the idea. For example, many of the more evil creatures in Dungeons and Dragons prey on each other as much as on good people (the iconic example being lawful evil devils and chaotic evil demons); some of the text in the game indicates that they should be left to do this, rather than someone trying to destroy one or the other and uniting them, however briefly, in a struggle against the interloper. This is a troubling symptom of our cultural drift from conservative values but not the cause of that drift.

===Fourth Edition===
With much fanfare, the Fourth Edition of the game was recently announced. Coveting the tremendous revenue of miniatures games like [[Games Workshop]]'s ''[[Warhammer]]'', Fourth Edition is compatible with the new D&D Miniatures game. Fourth Edition also uses many of the conventions wildly accepted in online computer games following widely successful games like Blizzard's [[World_of_Warcraft | World of Warcraft]] and [[Diablo]]. The game makes several other adjustments; see above for some such changes.

====D&D Online====
There is now a Dungeons & Dragons Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game (MMORPG) known as ''Dungeons & Dragons Online: Stormreach'' which takes place in the ''Eberron'' campaign setting. Online and computer games are similar to D&D in many respects, but the play of these games is entirely different. D&D is characterized by a human referee and complete freedom of action. Without these key components, the game is a mere shadow of D&D.

===Summary===

''Dungeons & Dragons'' is nothing more or less than a formalized game of pretend, similar to imaginary adventures that children everywhere play. But, the simplicity of this concept was not immediately evident to players of ''Dungeons & Dragons'' or the public at large. Although D&D has a fantasy theme and many rules for resolving actions, ''Dungeons & Dragons'' is at its core a game of pretend like "cops and robbers" or "cowboys and Indians".

==Concerns and Criticisms==
In the late seventies and early eighties, the sudden popularity of ''Dungeons & Dragons'' resulted in a cultural and religious backlash against perceived dangers from the game. ''Dungeons & Dragons'' was linked to the occult, witchcraft & demonology. Additionally there was some criticism about the art depicted in the earliest versions of the game. Much of this criticism came from the natural tendency of people to fear the unknown and to fear new ideas, but some of this criticism was valid and affected later versions of what was published under the name ''Dungeons & Dragons''.

===Demons and Devils===
In D&D, player characters (the player's in game persona) are constantly gaining strength and power. Therefore, they are forever seeking more powerful adversaries and more difficult challenges. For example, at the start of a campaign player characters may be doing battle with creatures short of stature with few may limitations (low intelligence, fear of sunlight) such as [[goblin]]s or [[kobold]]s. But as the player character's power increases, so to increases the deadliness of their opponents. In the search for ever more powerful opponents game designers eventually developed attributes for demons and devils.

The publishers of the game had imagined that they would sell a few hundred copies to college-aged males and never imagined that the game would experience explosive popularity, especially among teens as young as thirteen. Therefore, no thought or planning was invested into the potential impact of defining the powers and abilities of demons and devils. To the game's designers and players, killing a demon (in game) was no more controversial than killing a bishop in a game of chess.

But to bystanders the very inclusion of demons and devils was enough to cast suspicion upon the entire game--particularly since the game's much-touted freedom might allow a character to side with them. Additionally, the inclusions of demons and devils in the game raised other questions, such as why there are no angels in the game. There were no angels in the earliest editions of the game, because there was no reason to have an angel in the role of a ''monster''. (See terminology above.) By late First Edition and early Second Edition, the game included and defined [[angels]], [[devas]] and other highly powerful creatures of good; sometimes these were presented as allies for good characters, sometimes enemies for evil ones. This led to the criticism that religious icons were being disrespected by inclusion in the reference works.

In the Second Edition, the publishers tried to sanitize D&D by removing demons and devils, but many players (who enjoyed the challenge of destroying demons) resisted this effort. Later editions removed many references to "real" demons. Additionally, the terms "devil" and "demon" were replaced with the terms "baatezu" and "tanar'ri", respectively, and "the Nine Hells" (the outer planar home of devils/baatezu) was renamed "Baator".

However, in Third Edition, the game's original terms were readopted and blended--colloquially, for example, creatures from the Nine Hells (also called Baator) were called devils, but the most dominant species of the devils called themselves baatezu. An entire "mature" supplement (though there is no legal restriction on who may buy it, a large sticker is on the cover of most copies, stating it is for mature gamers only), known as the Book of Vile Darkness<ref>[http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/881610000 "Book of Vile Darkness"]</ref> was produced to introduce more overtly evil concepts into the game, ostensibly in ways for the DM to make the most horrific enemies possible for their players. A follow-up, the Book of Exalted Deeds<ref>[http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/880260000 "Book of Exalted Deeds"]</ref>, was created as a way for players to explore the philosophy and morality of good, and to make a good alignment more than a line on their character sheet. (The titles of both books are based on magic items in the game, both of which are extremely useful to a person of the proper alignment.)

The Fourth Edition Player's Handbook contains a "Warlock" class, which allows the player to make a pact with a certain creature to gain power. One option is the "Infernal Pact", allowing the player to literally make a deal with the devil.

===D&D and the Occult===
The game includes fictional depictions of supernatural abilities called magic, evil monsters called demons and devils, and fictional deities along with their followers. Christians are divided on how this interacts with their faith. A minority of Christians believe that fictional depictions of fantasy elements such as those found in ''[[The Chronicles of Narnia]]'', ''[[The Lord of the Rings]]'', ''[[Harry Potter]]'', or ''Dungeons & Dragons'' are blasphemous, but most Christians see no problem with such fictional works.

Starting in the late 1970s the game and others like it came under attack mainly from some fundamentalist Christians as promoting occult and criminal activity. The game's dangers were alleged in the ''Dark Dungeons'' tract by [[Jack Chick]]<ref>Jack Chick: [http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.asp "Dark Dungeons"]</ref>, which portrays D&D players committing suicide when their characters are killed or joining secret witches' covens and learning to cast real magic spells when their characters reach a high enough level.

The fact is that ''Dungeons & Dragons'' designers and players had nothing to do with occult or criminal activity and thirty years later it may be hard to understand how people could confuse D&D with occult activities. In the earliest days of D&D it was easy for an uninformed bystander to draw faulty conclusions based upon a limited knowledge of the game. In its earliest days, OD&D often sold out due to low print runs, leaving bystanders with little access to the rules and little direct knowledge of the game.

For example, bystanders knew the game was developing a devoted cult-following. There is an important distinction between a cult-following and a cult itself, but this was lost on some bystanders. As a cult-following, D&D developed an insular fraternity of fans who were plugged into something exciting and new. Each day the world of D&D expanded and every player everywhere had a hand in the growth of the game. The players were developing their own lexicon and making new and ever expanding rules. This close bond and strange lexicon was easily misunderstood by those with limited exposure to the game.

In the late seventies the game's popularity was preceded by rumors that players were involved in some strange occult activities. Bystanders knew that D&D players were talking about fantastic creatures, magical spells and even demons because the game often includes descriptions of [[occult]] elements like [[magic]], [[ghost]]s, [[spirit]]s, [[demon]]s and [[devil]]s. To an uninformed bystander this may be pretty scary stuff. But, the truth was significantly less mysterious and sensational.

These misperceptions have largely evaporated, both because of the game's popularity and better information about the product. Critics became aware that players were not involved in anything occult but were gaming in a fantasy setting. Most everyone in America knows someone who has played ''Dungeons & Dragons'', so these days it's all but impossible to blur the line between occult activity and role-playing games.

===God and gods===
One item of concern for conservative Christians is that players' characters do not usually worship [[God]], but instead choose a [[patron]] deity from a fictional [[polytheistic]] pantheon. The game settings manufactured by [[Wizards of the Coast]] (''Greyhawk'', ''Faerun'', ''Eberron'', etc.) expressly adopt a polytheistic [[pantheon]] of fictional deities and reject real-world [[religion]]s as a part of the game. (The Deities and Demigods<ref>[http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/881650000 "Deities and Demigods"]</ref> supplement offers several different takes on religion, including rules for a monotheistic game world, but deliberately sidesteps the question of any modern religion--Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.--even as it brings up pantheons of old myths, such as the Greek or Norse gods. It's likely they used only "dead" religions in order to avoid controversy.) The question of what extent and form of religion should be depicted in the game has been a question since the earliest days of the game. In an in depth look at monotheism in fantasy games, Joseph R.Ravitts raised some of the problems and benefits for a born-again Christian's point of view.<ref>"Monotheism in Gaming" by Joseph R. Ravitts, Pegasus Magazine Issue #4 published in 1981 by Judges' Guild</ref>

Ravitts already understood the power of role-playing, which is now well known. Namely, role-playing is a powerful behavior modification tool. If you pretend that you believe something, eventually you will believe that something. For this reason, he posited that it was important to avoid role-playing in a polytheistic world. Referencing the classic argument from ''[[Mere Christianity]]'' by [[C.S._Lewis | C.S. Lewis]], Ravitts explained how polytheism is really just [[atheism]] or [[monotheism]] in disguise. He believed that if players and DM's actively played in an atheistic world, they would eventually become atheists.

He then pointed out the difficulties of importing Christianity or other religions into D&D. Ravitts pointed out it is a simple matter to import mythological gods like [[Zeus]] or [[Thor]] into a fantasy setting. One simply imagines these gods are in the fantasy world and begins playing. But this is much more difficult with religious figures like [[Jesus]], [[Muhammad]] or [[Buddha]]. Each of these three men were real historic personages. For example, Jesus lived, died and rose again in the Middle East at a specific time and place.

Ravitts proposed two simple work-arounds, for those who care about their spiritual well-being. Firstly, one could assume that all humans are teleported from Earth or descended from folks who were teleported from Earth. These humans have preserved their religious identities and thus Christianity is an option for players without tampering with the historical nature of Jesus. Secondly Ravitts proposed altering the game's mythos to allow for an all-powerful detached God reigning over the "gods, demigods and devils". In this way the "gods" are not gods at all, but just ultra-powerful beings who distract souls from worshiping the one true God.

However, it is worth noting that novels and "sourcebooks" make occasional references to a "God of gods".

Of course there are alternatives such as ''[http://www.greenronin.com/catalog/grr1019 Testament]'' a D&D type game set in the Biblical Era. Further, many of the game worlds portray certain gods and religions as being metaphors for modern ones. (Even the incredibly polytheistic Forgotten Realms, where more than a hundred deities exist, features a triad of gods that could be based on the Holy Trinity.) But ultimately, D&D is a game of fantasy and players are encouraged to alter the game world to better suit their tastes, and many Christian players and DMs alter the game world so that it better fits their personal beliefs.

===The art of D&D===
Another criticism is that illustrations in the rule books for ''Dungeons & Dragons'' often contain images of immodestly dressed women. For example, in the First Edition ''Monster Manual'' a number of drawings depicted topless creatures of fantasy such as the harpy (half-vulture half-woman) or the succubus (a demoness). The OD&D reference ''Eldritch Wizardry'' featured the profile of a nude woman. Most of these images are fairly crudely rendered and are not particularly racy by today's standards, but they did exceed the limitations of the [[Comics Code]] of the time<ref>http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8580/cca3.html</ref>.

By the publication of Second Edition, the art and layout of the D&D game was managed by professionals. As a result the quality of the art increased significantly and anything racy was eliminated from the art work. There was some minor controversy with the revised Third Edition ''Monster Manual'''s artwork of the succubus and nymph (a water spirit in the form of a beautiful woman), but aside from these there is nothing particularly shocking in the art for a child or adult of any age.

===Unchristian Activities===
Although Dungeons & Dragons does not present itself as either pro-Christian or anti-Christian, the game features many elements which can be considered to agree with or go against the teachings of Christ. The game has drawn criticism for allowing players to undertake the roleplaying of un-Christian activities: the rules allow a player to have their character perform evil acts, including the summoning or worshiping of demons and devils. Certain fundamentalists disagree with the very format of the game in that player characters can pretend to cast imaginary spells while playing the game.

Some feel that the primary action of the game involves the fictional slaying of monsters and the fictional accumulation of wealth, some Christians feel that this goes against the teachings of Christ regarding [[pacifism]] ([[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]] 5:38-42) and the accumulation of [[wealth]] (Matthew 19:24). Others see these actions as heroic endeavors and wealth is a byproduct of doing good things. Either way, the game and it's choices are a matter of free will.

Former [[United Methodist Church]] minister James Wyatt wrote an essay comparing the freedom of a Dungeons & Dragons player to choose his own actions, to the Christian concept of Free Will. As in real life, a player may, when presented with a moral choice, decide for himself whether to do good or evil. If the player was not able to do evil, he would be forced to do good, removing his freedom. Similarly, God allows human beings to choose between good and evil in real life, and people must accept the consequences of their choice. The supplements that deal specifically with demons and devils make it quite clear that the afterlife for characters who are condemned to the Abyss or the Nine Heels is in no way pleasant, and may even be short.

Tracy Hickman, one of the main authors of the Dungeons & Dragons Dragonlance book series, and a Christian with conservative politics and theology, has written a number of articles defending and discussing D&D from a Christian perspective. <ref name="Waldron">The Journal of Religion and Popular Culture: [http://www.usask.ca/relst/jrpc/art9-roleplaying.html "Role-Playing Games and the Christian Right"]</ref> Others within the Dungeons & Dragons community responded by writing other defenses from rationalist perspectives or other perspectives or by writing parodies such as "Chess: The Subtle Sin: Should Christians play chess?". Some argue that in response to the perceived Christian persecution of the Dungeons & Dragons, darker themed, deliberately counter-cultural games appeared in reaction such as [[Call of Cthulhu]] which is based on the horror writing of [[H.P. Lovecraft]] and set in the [[Cthulhu|Cthulhu Mythos]]<ref name="Waldron"/>, or [[Vampire: the Masquerade]], where players act the roles of undead vampires.

====Possible Areas of Concern for Christians====
D&D is a "game of pretend" whereby players pretend to take certain actions and the DM adjudicates the results of those actions. By its very nature, this leaves players open to experiment with various moral quandaries and social dilemmas. This is a valuable tool for players to learn the implications and results of playing both good and evil characters. However, the possibility exists that such an experience may not be beneficial or appropriate for everyone--in particular, persons who already have difficulty separating fantasy with reality might be able to be helped by the game, but it could also make things worse. Due to the nature of roleplaying games, a great deal depends upon the individual group in question; a given game of Dungeons and Dragons might be benign from a Christian standpoint, or it might involve activities and ideas that a Christian would find profoundly distasteful.

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
* [http://aquela.com/roleplaying/r&r/index.html Religion and Roleplaying]
* [http://www.fansforchrist.org/new/articles/article03a.htm Christians Playing Dungeons and Dragons] - An informed Christian's perspective on Dungeons & Dragons.
* [http://www.trhickman.com/Intel/Essays/Ethic2.html Ethics in Fantasy: Morality and D&D] - Tracey Hickman's essay concerning Christian perspectives and common misunderstandings about Role-Playing Games
* [http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/3691 Full text of H.G. Wells ''Little Wars; a game for boys from twelve years of age to one hundred and fifty']

[[Category:Games]]

Dungeons and Dragons

2010-05-21T17:18:00Z

Jinxmchue: /* The Combat System */

'''Dungeons & Dragons''' (D&D or DnD) is a [[role-playing]] game with a medieval theme featuring [[myth]]ical creatures such as [[elf|elves]], [[dwarf (mythology)|dwarves]], [[orc]]s, and [[dragon]]s, but also semi-fictionalized [[demons]]. Players take the role of characters who solve a series of heroic adventures or quests. Though argued to be a harmless game, it has attracted a variety of criticism.

Players typically do not compete against one another; rather, the players cooperate to achieve goals and objectives while a referee, in this case called the ''dungeon master'' (DM) or ''game master'' (GM), interprets rules and adjudicates the success or failure of the players' efforts.

The game was first published in 1974 by Tactical Studies Rules (TSR). Most of those rules and many of the subsequent rules were authored by [[Gary Gygax]]. There are some who claim that [[Dave Arneson]] was the actual "inventor" of D&D, but this claim is disputed, not least by the fact that many references were authored by Gygax. After its original publisher TSR, Inc., went bankrupt, the game was sold to [[Wizards of the Coast]], a division of Hasbro.<ref>Wizards of the Coast's [http://www.wizards.com/dnd D&D site]</ref>

In the late 1970s, the game's popularity exploded, particularly on college campuses. ''Dungeons & Dragons'' spawned countless variations and permutations, but during the earliest days of the game's growth, there were accusations that the game contributed to Satanic worship, teen suicide and general moral depravity. These criticisms have been repeatedly addressed by the game's creators and defenders.

The 4th Edition of the game is the most recent, released in 2008.

==Game play==
''Dungeons & Dragons'' is a free-form game in which a referee (the Dungeon Master) describes a situational problem to the players and then the players reply with any imaginable response. The exploits of players can occur in any fantasy setting but at some point the adventure often occurs in a ''dungeon'' or subterranean locale not unlike ''[[Khazad-dûm|Moria]]'' in [[Tolkien]]'s ''[[The Lord of the Rings]]''.

Players' characters can gain more powers and abilities from earning ''experience points'' for completing various tasks (e.g. solving puzzles, killing enemies) during adventures.

===Alignment System===
Because D&D players can basically "do" anything there are moral implications to the choices players make. To provide a frame of reference and to help the game make sense, Gygax devised an alignment system. All characters (and monsters) are required to have an ''alignment'' and they must adhere to the beliefs of that alignment.

Morality is divided into "Good," "Neutral" and "Evil" while ethics are divided into "Lawful," "Neutral" and "Chaotic." By combining these two frameworks, we arrive at the nine alignments: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, true neutral ("neutral neutral"), chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil.

These alignments help players and referees roleplay characters and monsters.

In the original versions of the game, only the "ethical" (Law/Chaos) axis of morality was present. The "moral" (good/evil) axis was added in later editions. 4th Edition removes the axis concept, resulting in the alignments lawful good, good, unaligned, evil, and chaotic evil.

The ability of players to play evil characters has been among the criticisms against the game.

===Components of a Character===
A character is described in detail on a "character sheet" where the player records important facts about the character. This includes the character's "race", vocation, unique skills, and numerical ratings of the character's attributes.

In this case, "race" refers to a race from fantasy such as an elf, dwarf, gnome or halfling--effectively used as an archaic term for "species". The races which are allowed in the game vary from DM to DM according to the tastes of players and the setting that the DM has devised. The vocation or "class" of the character refers to the fantasy archetype the player wishes to play, e.g. wizard, barbarian, rogue, cleric, etc. The selection of race and class will impact skills and attributes which are available to the character as well as the strengths and weaknesses the character.

===The Magic System ===
The magic system used in Dungeons & Dragons is based very loosely on the writing of fantasy and science fiction author [[Jack Vance]]. Magic using characters must memorize their spells and a spell leaves the wizard's memory upon being cast. Novices and those who have never played the game should note that in this case, the player doesn't actually memorize anything. The "memorization" is really just a mechanic to help limit the number of spells a player can use per gaming episode. The 4th Edition makes significant changes to the system, basing most abilities on "per encounter" uses (as in, how many times per battle or event an ability can be used).

===The Combat System ===
To determine the outcome of man-to-man combat, players roll dice to determine if an attack "hits" and then if the attack hits how much damage the attack does. Damage reduces the defender's "hit points." When a combatant's hit points are depleted, that combatant is "dead" or incapacitated. This combat system was developed from a ship-to-ship naval combat game that Gygax adapted to describe medieval man-to-man combat.

==History and Development==
To many Americans ''Dungeons & Dragons'' seemed to appear from nothingness as a wholly born concoction of occult elements and hypnotic game play. The truth is that the game evolved from mundane roots in a quite corner of Wisconsin outside Milwaukee. The origins of D&D are found in a prior generation of [[miniatures games]] such as [[H.G. Wells]]' [[Little Wars]]. ''Little Wars'' is a set of rules which describe how to play a game with toy soldiers.

Wells' rules were themselves were based upon a earlier games which were primarily played by nobility and royals to teach warfare strategy. <ref>http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=6040&pageno=2 Foreword to Little Wars by ''H.G. Wells''</ref>. With the publication of ''Little Wars'', H.G. Wells hoped to bring a game previously known only to kings to the common man. Because tin soldiers do not bleed and do not leave widows, it was Wells hope that men could settle differences by little wars rather than real wars.

Miniature gaming such as ''Little Wars'' was nearly unknown in America, although there were pockets of hobbyists such as "International Federation of Gamers", a tiny group near Milwaukee Wisconsin.<ref>http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnDArchives_History.asp</ref> [[Gary Gygax]] and [[Dave Arneson]] were members of that gaming group. It can rightly be said that Gygax and Arneson are the fathers of modern role-playing games, but the contributions of other local gamers are muddied into this mix as well.

===Gygax & Arneson===
In the earliest days, the International Federation of Gamers was possessed of a grand name, but little more. Of course few records were kept at that time. Thus, there is some dispute about who exactly invented what aspects of the game. In 1969, Gary Gygax adapted rules meant to govern wooden ship combat into a medieval combat game which was published by Guidon Games under the name ''Chainmail''. The game was very popular locally and grew organically over the next few years. At the same time, ''[[The Lord of the Rings]]'' was gaining mass appeal in the United States. This inspired players to incorporate elements of fantasy into their wargames.

By 1970, Dave Arneson adapted these and other club rules into something generally referred to as ''the fantasy game'' <ref>http://jovianclouds.com/blackmoor/</ref>. ''The fantasy game'' had several key innovations --- many of which were of Arneson's devising. In previous wargames, players generally led an army of toy soldiers. But in ''the fantasy game'', each player had only one soldier, described as a ''character'' or ''player character''.

Further the game evolved to include the concept that at the next game session would pick up where the last game session ended. Another evolutionary concept was the idea of a referee or game master. The referee, often played by Arneson or Gygax, had the job of making final judgments and augmenting the rules as necessary to keep the game going. <ref>http://jovianclouds.com/blackmoor/rpg2.html</ref>

There is some question as to who exactly designed what in ''the fantasy game'' with at times Gygax and Arneson jointly and severably claiming to have "invented the game". There is no doubt that both many, and many gamers, where involved in the evolution of the game. Arneson's chief claims rest on his evolution of certain key concepts that would constitute all role-playing games to follow. Gygax's claim rests upon the fact that most of the early reference works were authored by Gygax.

===OD&D===
In 1972, Gary Gygax and others formed a partnership called Tactical Studies Rules and in 1974 Tactical Studies Rules published Gary Gygax' version of "the Fantasy Game", later named ''Dungeons & Dragons''. <ref>http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnDArchives_History.asp#</ref> This version of the game --- often called ''Original Dungeons & Dragons'', ''Old Dungeons & Dragons'' or ''OD&D'' --- was printed in staple-bound paperback form from folded sheets of 8.5 x 11 paper and sold as a boxed set.

By many accounts, ''OD&D'' was a clunky game, sparse on rules, but in this game one would find all the elements of a modern role-playing game: player characters, a game master, serial adventures, and the opportunity for character growth. Several print runs of this version sold out quickly and went on to exceed the expectations of everyone involved.

After the tremendous success of the D&D paperbacks, Tactical Studies Rules reorganized with partners Gary Gygax, Don Kaye and Brian Blume under the name TSR Hobbies Inc. In 1975, TSR Hobbies published OD&D supplements, Gygax's ''[[Greyhawk]]'' and Arneson's ''[[Blackmoor]]''. <ref>http://www.dadsdnd.com/greyhawk.html</ref> <ref>http://www.dadsdnd.com/blackmoor.html</ref>

''Dungeons & Dragons'' began to be noticed by American culture at about the same time the company released ''Eldritch Wizardry'' and ''God, Demigods & Heroes''. The cover of ''Eldritch Wizardry'' featured an nude dress female strewn over an altar. <ref>http://www.deigames.com/eldwiz2.JPG</ref> ''Gods, Demigods & Heroes'' was a mythological reference with gods and heroes from the legends and lore of Greeks, Egyptians, Indians, Norse and more. Many of these mythological gods are considered creatures of human invention, but some are now considered demons by the Christian Church.

Although the game was gaining popularity, the works served as a lightning rod for criticism. Although some of the art in these and later editions would violate the [[Comics Code]], the publishers at TSR failed to appreciate the danger of ignoring these rules. Some of TSR's management believed that D&D was marketed toward adult males, not teens and preteens, and thus the Comics Code did not apply. It soon became evident that D&D's popularity reached beyond college-age males.

===First Edition===
In 1977, TSR Hobbies published the Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set, a boxed set containing revised and abbreviated rules for easier introduction to the game. This was followed in 1978 by the publication of the "core rule books" of D&D: the ''Players Handbook'', the ''Dungeon Masters Guide'' and the ''Monster Manual''. (Later editions of this game would follow this pattern.) Taken as a whole with several other reference books this version of the game is alternatively referred to as Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, AD&D, 1E, 1ED&D. This version of the game revised and organized the notes from OD&D into a single playable whole in hardback books.

Although the art found in the books is hardly obscene and does not approach what is found regularly in American culture today, there were a handful of depictions that did not meet the Comics Code. For example, a harpy, a creature from Greek mythology, that is half-woman half-vulture was depicted with nipples revealed. <ref>''Monster Manual'' by Gary Gygax published by TSR Hobbies 1978</ref> And a mermaid was depicted topless with her hair covering parts of the chest. <ref>''Dungeon Masters Guide'' by Gary Gygax published by TSR Hobbies 1979</ref>

Additionally the game had references to many demons and devils (intended as adversaries). Also the game had a polytheist mythos with some players playing the part of clerics, or priests, of these imaginary or mythical gods. (See backlash below.)

===Second Edition===
In 1983, TSR Hobbies changed its name to TSR, Inc. For the next several years, TSR, Inc. released supplements and adventures for AD&D, along with reprints of the AD&D core books. Typical adventure supplements sold 10,000 to 100,000 units, while each print run of the AD&D core rules sold 40,000 copies. <ref>http://www.acaeum.com/library/printrun.html</ref> While the company continue to sell respectable amounts of product, internal disorganization, in-fighting and corporate inefficiencies limited profitability. After a bitter fight with partners, Gygax was forced from the board of directors and eventually left the company. With Arneson gone since First Edition, the game was now in the hands of a second generation.

In 1989, TSR Inc. released Second Edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. This version of the game was largely a rewrite of the previous edition that was nearly fully compatible with First Edition AD&D. The game was largely sanitized and edited, but not so much reborne. For example, the art of Second Edition achieved a more professional standard. The art did not violate the Comics Code. Second Edition removed all references to "real" gods, devils and demons and inserted divas and angelic creatures.

Under the umbrella of Second Edition D&D, TSR, Inc. released some of its most enduring and popular titles. Ravenloft, Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance were all second edition products.

===Third Edition===
In 1997, TSR, Inc. was purchased by [[Wizards of the Coast]]. (Wizards is often called WotC, and this acronym is pronounced ''what-see''.) Wizards (eventually acquired by Hasbro) continued to improve the art and graphics of D&D and in 2000 released ''Third Edition Dungeons & Dragons'' to supplant second edition. While preserving the concepts of RPGing and many of the archetypes of AD&D, Third Edition (3E) would do what Second Edition had not.

Third Edition rewrote many of the basic constructs of the game in an effort to "modernize" the game and streamline some of D&D's clumsiest and clunkiest mechanics. Third Edition rules and supplements broke from the tradition of improving an existing system. Rather third edition replaced the previous system with "new and better" mechanics.

By the time of the release of Third Edition, most of the controversy associated with D&D had dissipated as secular culture had digressed far beyond anything found in previous D&D. With little controversy or fanfare, D&D reintroduced demons and many of the darker concepts of ''Dungeons & Dragons''.

Now based in Seattle Washington, rather than Lake Geneva Wisconsin, the editors at WotC seem to exhibit the cultural norms found in Seattle rather than the heartlands. For example, rather than using the pronoun ''he'' in non-gender specific rules, Third Edition D&D bypasses the clumsy but [[political_correctness | politically correct]] construct ''he/she'', and describes rules based on hypothetical characters. For example, the 3rd Edition "iconic" paladin was a woman named Alhandra, so the rules text describing the paladin's abilities used "she"; 3rd Edition's "iconic" cleric was a man named Jozan, so the rules text describing the cleric's abilities used "he".

The D&D ethos traditionally favored ''good'' characters, but Third Edition seems to subscribe to a "balanced" view as the idea. For example, many of the more evil creatures in Dungeons and Dragons prey on each other as much as on good people (the iconic example being lawful evil devils and chaotic evil demons); some of the text in the game indicates that they should be left to do this, rather than someone trying to destroy one or the other and uniting them, however briefly, in a struggle against the interloper. This is a troubling symptom of our cultural drift from conservative values but not the cause of that drift.

===Fourth Edition===
With much fanfare, the Fourth Edition of the game was recently announced. Coveting the tremendous revenue of miniatures games like [[Games Workshop]]'s ''[[Warhammer]]'', Fourth Edition is compatible with the new D&D Miniatures game. Fourth Edition also uses many of the conventions wildly accepted in online computer games following widely successful games like Blizzard's [[World_of_Warcraft | World of Warcraft]] and [[Diablo]]. The game makes several other adjustments; see above for some such changes.

====D&D Online====
There is now a Dungeons & Dragons Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game (MMORPG) known as ''Dungeons & Dragons Online: Stormreach'' which takes place in the ''Eberron'' campaign setting. Online and computer games are similar to D&D in many respects, but the play of these games is entirely different. D&D is characterized by a human referee and complete freedom of action. Without these key components, the game is a mere shadow of D&D.

===Summary===

''Dungeons & Dragons'' is nothing more or less than a formalized game of pretend, similar to imaginary adventures that children everywhere play. But, the simplicity of this concept was not immediately evident to players of ''Dungeons & Dragons'' or the public at large. Although D&D has a fantasy theme and many rules for resolving actions, ''Dungeons & Dragons'' is at its core a game of pretend like "cops and robbers" or "cowboys and Indians".

==Concerns and Criticisms==
In the late seventies and early eighties, the sudden popularity of ''Dungeons & Dragons'' resulted in a cultural and religious backlash against perceived dangers from the game. ''Dungeons & Dragons'' was linked to the occult, witchcraft & demonology. Additionally there was some criticism about the art depicted in the earliest versions of the game. Much of this criticism came from the natural tendency of people to fear the unknown and to fear new ideas, but some of this criticism was valid and affected later versions of what was published under the name ''Dungeons & Dragons''.

===Demons and Devils===
In D&D, player characters (the player's in game persona) are constantly gaining strength and power. Therefore, they are forever seeking more powerful adversaries and more difficult challenges. For example, at the start of a campaign player characters may be doing battle with creatures short of stature with few may limitations (low intelligence, fear of sunlight) such as [[goblin]]s or [[kobold]]s. But as the player character's power increases, so to increases the deadliness of their opponents. In the search for ever more powerful opponents game designers eventually developed attributes for demons and devils.

The publishers of the game had imagined that they would sell a few hundred copies to college-aged males and never imagined that the game would experience explosive popularity, especially among teens as young as thirteen. Therefore, no thought or planning was invested into the potential impact of defining the powers and abilities of demons and devils. To the game's designers and players, killing a demon (in game) was no more controversial than killing a bishop in a game of chess.

But to bystanders the very inclusion of demons and devils was enough to cast suspicion upon the entire game--particularly since the game's much-touted freedom might allow a character to side with them. Additionally, the inclusions of demons and devils in the game raised other questions, such as why there are no angels in the game. There were no angels in the earliest editions of the game, because there was no reason to have an angel in the role of a ''monster''. (See terminology above.) By late First Edition and early Second Edition, the game included and defined [[angels]], [[devas]] and other highly powerful creatures of good; sometimes these were presented as allies for good characters, sometimes enemies for evil ones. This led to the criticism that religious icons were being disrespected by inclusion in the reference works.

In the Second Edition, the publishers tried to sanitize D&D by removing demons and devils, but many players (who enjoyed the challenge of destroying demons) resisted this effort. Later editions removed many references to "real" demons. Additionally, the terms "devil" and "demon" were replaced with the terms "baatezu" and "tanar'ri", respectively, and "the Nine Hells" (the outer planar home of devils/baatezu) was renamed "Baator".

However, in Third Edition, the game's original terms were readopted and blended--colloquially, for example, creatures from the Nine Hells (also called Baator) were called devils, but the most dominant species of the devils called themselves baatezu. An entire "mature" supplement (though there is no legal restriction on who may buy it, a large sticker is on the cover of most copies, stating it is for mature gamers only), known as the Book of Vile Darkness<ref>[http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/881610000 "Book of Vile Darkness"]</ref> was produced to introduce more overtly evil concepts into the game, ostensibly in ways for the DM to make the most horrific enemies possible for their players. A follow-up, the Book of Exalted Deeds<ref>[http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/880260000 "Book of Exalted Deeds"]</ref>, was created as a way for players to explore the philosophy and morality of good, and to make a good alignment more than a line on their character sheet. (The titles of both books are based on magic items in the game, both of which are extremely useful to a person of the proper alignment.)

The Fourth Edition Player's Handbook contains a "Warlock" class, which allows the player to make a pact with a certain creature to gain power. One option is the "Infernal Pact", allowing the player to literally make a deal with the devil.

===D&D and the Occult===
The game includes fictional depictions of supernatural abilities called magic, evil monsters called demons and devils, and fictional deities along with their followers. Christians are divided on how this interacts with their faith. A minority of Christians believe that fictional depictions of fantasy elements such as those found in ''[[The Chronicles of Narnia]]'', ''[[The Lord of the Rings]]'', ''[[Harry Potter]]'', or ''Dungeons & Dragons'' are blasphemous, but most Christians see no problem with such fictional works.

Starting in the late 1970s the game and others like it came under attack mainly from some fundamentalist Christians as promoting occult and criminal activity. The game's dangers were alleged in the ''Dark Dungeons'' tract by [[Jack Chick]]<ref>Jack Chick: [http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.asp "Dark Dungeons"]</ref>, which portrays D&D players committing suicide when their characters are killed or joining secret witches' covens and learning to cast real magic spells when their characters reach a high enough level.

The fact is that ''Dungeons & Dragons'' designers and players had nothing to do with occult or criminal activity and thirty years later it may be hard to understand how people could confuse D&D with occult activities. In the earliest days of D&D it was easy for an uninformed bystander to draw faulty conclusions based upon a limited knowledge of the game. In its earliest days, OD&D often sold out due to low print runs, leaving bystanders with little access to the rules and little direct knowledge of the game.

For example, bystanders knew the game was developing a devoted cult-following. There is an important distinction between a cult-following and a cult itself, but this was lost on some bystanders. As a cult-following, D&D developed an insular fraternity of fans who were plugged into something exciting and new. Each day the world of D&D expanded and every player everywhere had a hand in the growth of the game. The players were developing their own lexicon and making new and ever expanding rules. This close bond and strange lexicon was easily misunderstood by those with limited exposure to the game.

In the late seventies the game's popularity was preceded by rumors that players were involved in some strange occult activities. Bystanders knew that D&D players were talking about fantastic creatures, magical spells and even demons because the game often includes descriptions of [[occult]] elements like [[magic]], [[ghost]]s, [[spirit]]s, [[demon]]s and [[devil]]s. To an uninformed bystander this may be pretty scary stuff. But, the truth was significantly less mysterious and sensational.

These misperceptions have largely evaporated, both because of the game's popularity and better information about the product. Critics became aware that players were not involved in anything occult but were gaming in a fantasy setting. Most everyone in America knows someone who has played ''Dungeons & Dragons'', so these days it's all but impossible to blur the line between occult activity and role-playing games.

===God and gods===
One item of concern for conservative Christians is that players' characters do not usually worship [[God]], but instead choose a [[patron]] deity from a fictional [[polytheistic]] pantheon. The game settings manufactured by [[Wizards of the Coast]] (''Greyhawk'', ''Faerun'', ''Eberron'', etc.) expressly adopt a polytheistic [[pantheon]] of fictional deities and reject real-world [[religion]]s as a part of the game. (The Deities and Demigods<ref>[http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/881650000 "Deities and Demigods"]</ref> supplement offers several different takes on religion, including rules for a monotheistic game world, but deliberately sidesteps the question of any modern religion--Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.--even as it brings up pantheons of old myths, such as the Greek or Norse gods. It's likely they used only "dead" religions in order to avoid controversy.) The question of what extent and form of religion should be depicted in the game has been a question since the earliest days of the game. In an in depth look at monotheism in fantasy games, Joseph R.Ravitts raised some of the problems and benefits for a born-again Christian's point of view.<ref>"Monotheism in Gaming" by Joseph R. Ravitts, Pegasus Magazine Issue #4 published in 1981 by Judges' Guild</ref>

Ravitts already understood the power of role-playing, which is now well known. Namely, role-playing is a powerful behavior modification tool. If you pretend that you believe something, eventually you will believe that something. For this reason, he posited that it was important to avoid role-playing in a polytheistic world. Referencing the classic argument from ''[[Mere Christianity]]'' by [[C.S._Lewis | C.S. Lewis]], Ravitts explained how polytheism is really just [[atheism]] or [[monotheism]] in disguise. He believed that if players and DM's actively played in an atheistic world, they would eventually become atheists.

He then pointed out the difficulties of importing Christianity or other religions into D&D. Ravitts pointed out it is a simple matter to import mythological gods like [[Zeus]] or [[Thor]] into a fantasy setting. One simply imagines these gods are in the fantasy world and begins playing. But this is much more difficult with religious figures like [[Jesus]], [[Muhammad]] or [[Buddha]]. Each of these three men were real historic personages. For example, Jesus lived, died and rose again in the Middle East at a specific time and place.

Ravitts proposed two simple work-arounds, for those who care about their spiritual well-being. Firstly, one could assume that all humans are teleported from Earth or descended from folks who were teleported from Earth. These humans have preserved their religious identities and thus Christianity is an option for players without tampering with the historical nature of Jesus. Secondly Ravitts proposed altering the game's mythos to allow for an all-powerful detached God reigning over the "gods, demigods and devils". In this way the "gods" are not gods at all, but just ultra-powerful beings who distract souls from worshiping the one true God.

However, it is worth noting that novels and "sourcebooks" make occasional references to a "God of gods".

Of course there are alternatives such as ''[http://www.greenronin.com/catalog/grr1019 Testament]'' a D&D type game set in the Biblical Era. Further, many of the game worlds portray certain gods and religions as being metaphors for modern ones. (Even the incredibly polytheistic Forgotten Realms, where more than a hundred deities exist, features a triad of gods that could be based on the Holy Trinity.) But ultimately, D&D is a game of fantasy and players are encouraged to alter the game world to better suit their tastes, and many Christian players and DMs alter the game world so that it better fits their personal beliefs.

===The art of D&D===
Another criticism is that illustrations in the rule books for ''Dungeons & Dragons'' often contain images of immodestly dressed women. For example, in the First Edition ''Monster Manual'' a number of drawings depicted topless creatures of fantasy such as the harpy (half-vulture half-woman) or the succubus (a demoness). The OD&D reference ''Eldritch Wizardry'' featured the profile of a nude woman. Most of these images are fairly crudely rendered and are not particularly racy by today's standards, but they did exceed the limitations of the [[Comics Code]] of the time<ref>http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8580/cca3.html</ref>.

By the publication of Second Edition, the art and layout of the D&D game was managed by professionals. As a result the quality of the art increased significantly and anything racy was eliminated from the art work. There was some minor controversy with the revised Third Edition ''Monster Manual'''s artwork of the succubus and nymph (a water spirit in the form of a beautiful woman), but aside from these there is nothing particularly shocking in the art for a child or adult of any age.

===Unchristian Activities===
Although Dungeons & Dragons does not present itself as either pro-Christian or anti-Christian, the game features many elements which can be considered to agree with or go against the teachings of Christ. The game has drawn criticism for allowing players to undertake the roleplaying of un-Christian activities: the rules allow a player to have their character perform evil acts, including the summoning or worshiping of demons and devils. Certain fundamentalists disagree with the very format of the game in that player characters can pretend to cast imaginary spells while playing the game.

Some feel that the primary action of the game involves the fictional slaying of monsters and the fictional accumulation of wealth, some Christians feel that this goes against the teachings of Christ regarding [[pacifism]] ([[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]] 5:38-42) and the accumulation of [[wealth]] (Matthew 19:24). Others see these actions as heroic endeavors and wealth is a byproduct of doing good things. Either way, the game and it's choices are a matter of free will.

Former [[United Methodist Church]] minister James Wyatt wrote an essay comparing the freedom of a Dungeons & Dragons player to choose his own actions, to the Christian concept of Free Will. As in real life, a player may, when presented with a moral choice, decide for himself whether to do good or evil. If the player was not able to do evil, he would be forced to do good, removing his freedom. Similarly, God allows human beings to choose between good and evil in real life, and people must accept the consequences of their choice. The supplements that deal specifically with demons and devils make it quite clear that the afterlife for characters who are condemned to the Abyss or the Nine Heels is in no way pleasant, and may even be short.

Tracy Hickman, one of the main authors of the Dungeons & Dragons Dragonlance book series, and a Christian with conservative politics and theology, has written a number of articles defending and discussing D&D from a Christian perspective. <ref name="Waldron">The Journal of Religion and Popular Culture: [http://www.usask.ca/relst/jrpc/art9-roleplaying.html "Role-Playing Games and the Christian Right"]</ref> Others within the Dungeons & Dragons community responded by writing other defenses from rationalist perspectives or other perspectives or by writing parodies such as "Chess: The Subtle Sin: Should Christians play chess?". Some argue that in response to the perceived Christian persecution of the Dungeons & Dragons, darker themed, deliberately counter-cultural games appeared in reaction such as [[Call of Cthulhu]] which is based on the horror writing of [[H.P. Lovecraft]] and set in the [[Cthulhu|Cthulhu Mythos]]<ref name="Waldron"/>, or [[Vampire: the Masquerade]], where players act the roles of undead vampires.

====Possible Areas of Concern for Christians====
D&D is a "game of pretend" whereby players pretend to take certain actions and the DM adjudicates the results of those actions. By its very nature, this leaves players open to experiment with various moral quandaries and social dilemmas. This is a valuable tool for players to learn the implications and results of playing both good and evil characters. However, the possibility exists that such an experience may not be beneficial or appropriate for everyone--in particular, persons who already have difficulty separating fantasy with reality might be able to be helped by the game, but it could also make things worse. Due to the nature of roleplaying games, a great deal depends upon the individual group in question; a given game of Dungeons and Dragons might be benign from a Christian standpoint, or it might involve activities and ideas that a Christian would find profoundly distasteful.

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
* [http://aquela.com/roleplaying/r&r/index.html Religion and Roleplaying]
* [http://www.fansforchrist.org/new/articles/article03a.htm Christians Playing Dungeons and Dragons] - An informed Christian's perspective on Dungeons & Dragons.
* [http://www.trhickman.com/Intel/Essays/Ethic2.html Ethics in Fantasy: Morality and D&D] - Tracey Hickman's essay concerning Christian perspectives and common misunderstandings about Role-Playing Games
* [http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/3691 Full text of H.G. Wells ''Little Wars; a game for boys from twelve years of age to one hundred and fifty']

[[Category:Games]]

Dungeons and Dragons

2010-05-21T17:16:11Z

Jinxmchue: /* The Magic System */ - clean-up

'''Dungeons & Dragons''' (D&D or DnD) is a [[role-playing]] game with a medieval theme featuring [[myth]]ical creatures such as [[elf|elves]], [[dwarf (mythology)|dwarves]], [[orc]]s, and [[dragon]]s, but also semi-fictionalized [[demons]]. Players take the role of characters who solve a series of heroic adventures or quests. Though argued to be a harmless game, it has attracted a variety of criticism.

Players typically do not compete against one another; rather, the players cooperate to achieve goals and objectives while a referee, in this case called the ''dungeon master'' (DM) or ''game master'' (GM), interprets rules and adjudicates the success or failure of the players' efforts.

The game was first published in 1974 by Tactical Studies Rules (TSR). Most of those rules and many of the subsequent rules were authored by [[Gary Gygax]]. There are some who claim that [[Dave Arneson]] was the actual "inventor" of D&D, but this claim is disputed, not least by the fact that many references were authored by Gygax. After its original publisher TSR, Inc., went bankrupt, the game was sold to [[Wizards of the Coast]], a division of Hasbro.<ref>Wizards of the Coast's [http://www.wizards.com/dnd D&D site]</ref>

In the late 1970s, the game's popularity exploded, particularly on college campuses. ''Dungeons & Dragons'' spawned countless variations and permutations, but during the earliest days of the game's growth, there were accusations that the game contributed to Satanic worship, teen suicide and general moral depravity. These criticisms have been repeatedly addressed by the game's creators and defenders.

The 4th Edition of the game is the most recent, released in 2008.

==Game play==
''Dungeons & Dragons'' is a free-form game in which a referee (the Dungeon Master) describes a situational problem to the players and then the players reply with any imaginable response. The exploits of players can occur in any fantasy setting but at some point the adventure often occurs in a ''dungeon'' or subterranean locale not unlike ''[[Khazad-dûm|Moria]]'' in [[Tolkien]]'s ''[[The Lord of the Rings]]''.

Players' characters can gain more powers and abilities from earning ''experience points'' for completing various tasks (e.g. solving puzzles, killing enemies) during adventures.

===Alignment System===
Because D&D players can basically "do" anything there are moral implications to the choices players make. To provide a frame of reference and to help the game make sense, Gygax devised an alignment system. All characters (and monsters) are required to have an ''alignment'' and they must adhere to the beliefs of that alignment.

Morality is divided into "Good," "Neutral" and "Evil" while ethics are divided into "Lawful," "Neutral" and "Chaotic." By combining these two frameworks, we arrive at the nine alignments: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, true neutral ("neutral neutral"), chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil.

These alignments help players and referees roleplay characters and monsters.

In the original versions of the game, only the "ethical" (Law/Chaos) axis of morality was present. The "moral" (good/evil) axis was added in later editions. 4th Edition removes the axis concept, resulting in the alignments lawful good, good, unaligned, evil, and chaotic evil.

The ability of players to play evil characters has been among the criticisms against the game.

===Components of a Character===
A character is described in detail on a "character sheet" where the player records important facts about the character. This includes the character's "race", vocation, unique skills, and numerical ratings of the character's attributes.

In this case, "race" refers to a race from fantasy such as an elf, dwarf, gnome or halfling--effectively used as an archaic term for "species". The races which are allowed in the game vary from DM to DM according to the tastes of players and the setting that the DM has devised. The vocation or "class" of the character refers to the fantasy archetype the player wishes to play, e.g. wizard, barbarian, rogue, cleric, etc. The selection of race and class will impact skills and attributes which are available to the character as well as the strengths and weaknesses the character.

===The Magic System ===
The magic system used in Dungeons & Dragons is based very loosely on the writing of fantasy and science fiction author [[Jack Vance]]. Magic using characters must memorize their spells and a spell leaves the wizard's memory upon being cast. Novices and those who have never played the game should note that in this case, the player doesn't actually memorize anything. The "memorization" is really just a mechanic to help limit the number of spells a player can use per gaming episode. The 4th Edition makes significant changes to the system, basing most abilities on "per encounter" uses (as in, how many times per battle or event an ability can be used).

===The Combat System ===
To determine the outcome of combat, players roll dice to determine if an attack "hits" and then if the attack hits how much damage the attack does. Damage reduces the defender's "hit points". When a combatant's hit points are depleted that combatant is "dead" or incapacitated. This combat system was developed from a ship-to-ship naval combat game that Gygax adapted to describe medieval man-to-man combat.

==History and Development==
To many Americans ''Dungeons & Dragons'' seemed to appear from nothingness as a wholly born concoction of occult elements and hypnotic game play. The truth is that the game evolved from mundane roots in a quite corner of Wisconsin outside Milwaukee. The origins of D&D are found in a prior generation of [[miniatures games]] such as [[H.G. Wells]]' [[Little Wars]]. ''Little Wars'' is a set of rules which describe how to play a game with toy soldiers.

Wells' rules were themselves were based upon a earlier games which were primarily played by nobility and royals to teach warfare strategy. <ref>http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=6040&pageno=2 Foreword to Little Wars by ''H.G. Wells''</ref>. With the publication of ''Little Wars'', H.G. Wells hoped to bring a game previously known only to kings to the common man. Because tin soldiers do not bleed and do not leave widows, it was Wells hope that men could settle differences by little wars rather than real wars.

Miniature gaming such as ''Little Wars'' was nearly unknown in America, although there were pockets of hobbyists such as "International Federation of Gamers", a tiny group near Milwaukee Wisconsin.<ref>http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnDArchives_History.asp</ref> [[Gary Gygax]] and [[Dave Arneson]] were members of that gaming group. It can rightly be said that Gygax and Arneson are the fathers of modern role-playing games, but the contributions of other local gamers are muddied into this mix as well.

===Gygax & Arneson===
In the earliest days, the International Federation of Gamers was possessed of a grand name, but little more. Of course few records were kept at that time. Thus, there is some dispute about who exactly invented what aspects of the game. In 1969, Gary Gygax adapted rules meant to govern wooden ship combat into a medieval combat game which was published by Guidon Games under the name ''Chainmail''. The game was very popular locally and grew organically over the next few years. At the same time, ''[[The Lord of the Rings]]'' was gaining mass appeal in the United States. This inspired players to incorporate elements of fantasy into their wargames.

By 1970, Dave Arneson adapted these and other club rules into something generally referred to as ''the fantasy game'' <ref>http://jovianclouds.com/blackmoor/</ref>. ''The fantasy game'' had several key innovations --- many of which were of Arneson's devising. In previous wargames, players generally led an army of toy soldiers. But in ''the fantasy game'', each player had only one soldier, described as a ''character'' or ''player character''.

Further the game evolved to include the concept that at the next game session would pick up where the last game session ended. Another evolutionary concept was the idea of a referee or game master. The referee, often played by Arneson or Gygax, had the job of making final judgments and augmenting the rules as necessary to keep the game going. <ref>http://jovianclouds.com/blackmoor/rpg2.html</ref>

There is some question as to who exactly designed what in ''the fantasy game'' with at times Gygax and Arneson jointly and severably claiming to have "invented the game". There is no doubt that both many, and many gamers, where involved in the evolution of the game. Arneson's chief claims rest on his evolution of certain key concepts that would constitute all role-playing games to follow. Gygax's claim rests upon the fact that most of the early reference works were authored by Gygax.

===OD&D===
In 1972, Gary Gygax and others formed a partnership called Tactical Studies Rules and in 1974 Tactical Studies Rules published Gary Gygax' version of "the Fantasy Game", later named ''Dungeons & Dragons''. <ref>http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnDArchives_History.asp#</ref> This version of the game --- often called ''Original Dungeons & Dragons'', ''Old Dungeons & Dragons'' or ''OD&D'' --- was printed in staple-bound paperback form from folded sheets of 8.5 x 11 paper and sold as a boxed set.

By many accounts, ''OD&D'' was a clunky game, sparse on rules, but in this game one would find all the elements of a modern role-playing game: player characters, a game master, serial adventures, and the opportunity for character growth. Several print runs of this version sold out quickly and went on to exceed the expectations of everyone involved.

After the tremendous success of the D&D paperbacks, Tactical Studies Rules reorganized with partners Gary Gygax, Don Kaye and Brian Blume under the name TSR Hobbies Inc. In 1975, TSR Hobbies published OD&D supplements, Gygax's ''[[Greyhawk]]'' and Arneson's ''[[Blackmoor]]''. <ref>http://www.dadsdnd.com/greyhawk.html</ref> <ref>http://www.dadsdnd.com/blackmoor.html</ref>

''Dungeons & Dragons'' began to be noticed by American culture at about the same time the company released ''Eldritch Wizardry'' and ''God, Demigods & Heroes''. The cover of ''Eldritch Wizardry'' featured an nude dress female strewn over an altar. <ref>http://www.deigames.com/eldwiz2.JPG</ref> ''Gods, Demigods & Heroes'' was a mythological reference with gods and heroes from the legends and lore of Greeks, Egyptians, Indians, Norse and more. Many of these mythological gods are considered creatures of human invention, but some are now considered demons by the Christian Church.

Although the game was gaining popularity, the works served as a lightning rod for criticism. Although some of the art in these and later editions would violate the [[Comics Code]], the publishers at TSR failed to appreciate the danger of ignoring these rules. Some of TSR's management believed that D&D was marketed toward adult males, not teens and preteens, and thus the Comics Code did not apply. It soon became evident that D&D's popularity reached beyond college-age males.

===First Edition===
In 1977, TSR Hobbies published the Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set, a boxed set containing revised and abbreviated rules for easier introduction to the game. This was followed in 1978 by the publication of the "core rule books" of D&D: the ''Players Handbook'', the ''Dungeon Masters Guide'' and the ''Monster Manual''. (Later editions of this game would follow this pattern.) Taken as a whole with several other reference books this version of the game is alternatively referred to as Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, AD&D, 1E, 1ED&D. This version of the game revised and organized the notes from OD&D into a single playable whole in hardback books.

Although the art found in the books is hardly obscene and does not approach what is found regularly in American culture today, there were a handful of depictions that did not meet the Comics Code. For example, a harpy, a creature from Greek mythology, that is half-woman half-vulture was depicted with nipples revealed. <ref>''Monster Manual'' by Gary Gygax published by TSR Hobbies 1978</ref> And a mermaid was depicted topless with her hair covering parts of the chest. <ref>''Dungeon Masters Guide'' by Gary Gygax published by TSR Hobbies 1979</ref>

Additionally the game had references to many demons and devils (intended as adversaries). Also the game had a polytheist mythos with some players playing the part of clerics, or priests, of these imaginary or mythical gods. (See backlash below.)

===Second Edition===
In 1983, TSR Hobbies changed its name to TSR, Inc. For the next several years, TSR, Inc. released supplements and adventures for AD&D, along with reprints of the AD&D core books. Typical adventure supplements sold 10,000 to 100,000 units, while each print run of the AD&D core rules sold 40,000 copies. <ref>http://www.acaeum.com/library/printrun.html</ref> While the company continue to sell respectable amounts of product, internal disorganization, in-fighting and corporate inefficiencies limited profitability. After a bitter fight with partners, Gygax was forced from the board of directors and eventually left the company. With Arneson gone since First Edition, the game was now in the hands of a second generation.

In 1989, TSR Inc. released Second Edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. This version of the game was largely a rewrite of the previous edition that was nearly fully compatible with First Edition AD&D. The game was largely sanitized and edited, but not so much reborne. For example, the art of Second Edition achieved a more professional standard. The art did not violate the Comics Code. Second Edition removed all references to "real" gods, devils and demons and inserted divas and angelic creatures.

Under the umbrella of Second Edition D&D, TSR, Inc. released some of its most enduring and popular titles. Ravenloft, Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance were all second edition products.

===Third Edition===
In 1997, TSR, Inc. was purchased by [[Wizards of the Coast]]. (Wizards is often called WotC, and this acronym is pronounced ''what-see''.) Wizards (eventually acquired by Hasbro) continued to improve the art and graphics of D&D and in 2000 released ''Third Edition Dungeons & Dragons'' to supplant second edition. While preserving the concepts of RPGing and many of the archetypes of AD&D, Third Edition (3E) would do what Second Edition had not.

Third Edition rewrote many of the basic constructs of the game in an effort to "modernize" the game and streamline some of D&D's clumsiest and clunkiest mechanics. Third Edition rules and supplements broke from the tradition of improving an existing system. Rather third edition replaced the previous system with "new and better" mechanics.

By the time of the release of Third Edition, most of the controversy associated with D&D had dissipated as secular culture had digressed far beyond anything found in previous D&D. With little controversy or fanfare, D&D reintroduced demons and many of the darker concepts of ''Dungeons & Dragons''.

Now based in Seattle Washington, rather than Lake Geneva Wisconsin, the editors at WotC seem to exhibit the cultural norms found in Seattle rather than the heartlands. For example, rather than using the pronoun ''he'' in non-gender specific rules, Third Edition D&D bypasses the clumsy but [[political_correctness | politically correct]] construct ''he/she'', and describes rules based on hypothetical characters. For example, the 3rd Edition "iconic" paladin was a woman named Alhandra, so the rules text describing the paladin's abilities used "she"; 3rd Edition's "iconic" cleric was a man named Jozan, so the rules text describing the cleric's abilities used "he".

The D&D ethos traditionally favored ''good'' characters, but Third Edition seems to subscribe to a "balanced" view as the idea. For example, many of the more evil creatures in Dungeons and Dragons prey on each other as much as on good people (the iconic example being lawful evil devils and chaotic evil demons); some of the text in the game indicates that they should be left to do this, rather than someone trying to destroy one or the other and uniting them, however briefly, in a struggle against the interloper. This is a troubling symptom of our cultural drift from conservative values but not the cause of that drift.

===Fourth Edition===
With much fanfare, the Fourth Edition of the game was recently announced. Coveting the tremendous revenue of miniatures games like [[Games Workshop]]'s ''[[Warhammer]]'', Fourth Edition is compatible with the new D&D Miniatures game. Fourth Edition also uses many of the conventions wildly accepted in online computer games following widely successful games like Blizzard's [[World_of_Warcraft | World of Warcraft]] and [[Diablo]]. The game makes several other adjustments; see above for some such changes.

====D&D Online====
There is now a Dungeons & Dragons Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game (MMORPG) known as ''Dungeons & Dragons Online: Stormreach'' which takes place in the ''Eberron'' campaign setting. Online and computer games are similar to D&D in many respects, but the play of these games is entirely different. D&D is characterized by a human referee and complete freedom of action. Without these key components, the game is a mere shadow of D&D.

===Summary===

''Dungeons & Dragons'' is nothing more or less than a formalized game of pretend, similar to imaginary adventures that children everywhere play. But, the simplicity of this concept was not immediately evident to players of ''Dungeons & Dragons'' or the public at large. Although D&D has a fantasy theme and many rules for resolving actions, ''Dungeons & Dragons'' is at its core a game of pretend like "cops and robbers" or "cowboys and Indians".

==Concerns and Criticisms==
In the late seventies and early eighties, the sudden popularity of ''Dungeons & Dragons'' resulted in a cultural and religious backlash against perceived dangers from the game. ''Dungeons & Dragons'' was linked to the occult, witchcraft & demonology. Additionally there was some criticism about the art depicted in the earliest versions of the game. Much of this criticism came from the natural tendency of people to fear the unknown and to fear new ideas, but some of this criticism was valid and affected later versions of what was published under the name ''Dungeons & Dragons''.

===Demons and Devils===
In D&D, player characters (the player's in game persona) are constantly gaining strength and power. Therefore, they are forever seeking more powerful adversaries and more difficult challenges. For example, at the start of a campaign player characters may be doing battle with creatures short of stature with few may limitations (low intelligence, fear of sunlight) such as [[goblin]]s or [[kobold]]s. But as the player character's power increases, so to increases the deadliness of their opponents. In the search for ever more powerful opponents game designers eventually developed attributes for demons and devils.

The publishers of the game had imagined that they would sell a few hundred copies to college-aged males and never imagined that the game would experience explosive popularity, especially among teens as young as thirteen. Therefore, no thought or planning was invested into the potential impact of defining the powers and abilities of demons and devils. To the game's designers and players, killing a demon (in game) was no more controversial than killing a bishop in a game of chess.

But to bystanders the very inclusion of demons and devils was enough to cast suspicion upon the entire game--particularly since the game's much-touted freedom might allow a character to side with them. Additionally, the inclusions of demons and devils in the game raised other questions, such as why there are no angels in the game. There were no angels in the earliest editions of the game, because there was no reason to have an angel in the role of a ''monster''. (See terminology above.) By late First Edition and early Second Edition, the game included and defined [[angels]], [[devas]] and other highly powerful creatures of good; sometimes these were presented as allies for good characters, sometimes enemies for evil ones. This led to the criticism that religious icons were being disrespected by inclusion in the reference works.

In the Second Edition, the publishers tried to sanitize D&D by removing demons and devils, but many players (who enjoyed the challenge of destroying demons) resisted this effort. Later editions removed many references to "real" demons. Additionally, the terms "devil" and "demon" were replaced with the terms "baatezu" and "tanar'ri", respectively, and "the Nine Hells" (the outer planar home of devils/baatezu) was renamed "Baator".

However, in Third Edition, the game's original terms were readopted and blended--colloquially, for example, creatures from the Nine Hells (also called Baator) were called devils, but the most dominant species of the devils called themselves baatezu. An entire "mature" supplement (though there is no legal restriction on who may buy it, a large sticker is on the cover of most copies, stating it is for mature gamers only), known as the Book of Vile Darkness<ref>[http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/881610000 "Book of Vile Darkness"]</ref> was produced to introduce more overtly evil concepts into the game, ostensibly in ways for the DM to make the most horrific enemies possible for their players. A follow-up, the Book of Exalted Deeds<ref>[http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/880260000 "Book of Exalted Deeds"]</ref>, was created as a way for players to explore the philosophy and morality of good, and to make a good alignment more than a line on their character sheet. (The titles of both books are based on magic items in the game, both of which are extremely useful to a person of the proper alignment.)

The Fourth Edition Player's Handbook contains a "Warlock" class, which allows the player to make a pact with a certain creature to gain power. One option is the "Infernal Pact", allowing the player to literally make a deal with the devil.

===D&D and the Occult===
The game includes fictional depictions of supernatural abilities called magic, evil monsters called demons and devils, and fictional deities along with their followers. Christians are divided on how this interacts with their faith. A minority of Christians believe that fictional depictions of fantasy elements such as those found in ''[[The Chronicles of Narnia]]'', ''[[The Lord of the Rings]]'', ''[[Harry Potter]]'', or ''Dungeons & Dragons'' are blasphemous, but most Christians see no problem with such fictional works.

Starting in the late 1970s the game and others like it came under attack mainly from some fundamentalist Christians as promoting occult and criminal activity. The game's dangers were alleged in the ''Dark Dungeons'' tract by [[Jack Chick]]<ref>Jack Chick: [http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.asp "Dark Dungeons"]</ref>, which portrays D&D players committing suicide when their characters are killed or joining secret witches' covens and learning to cast real magic spells when their characters reach a high enough level.

The fact is that ''Dungeons & Dragons'' designers and players had nothing to do with occult or criminal activity and thirty years later it may be hard to understand how people could confuse D&D with occult activities. In the earliest days of D&D it was easy for an uninformed bystander to draw faulty conclusions based upon a limited knowledge of the game. In its earliest days, OD&D often sold out due to low print runs, leaving bystanders with little access to the rules and little direct knowledge of the game.

For example, bystanders knew the game was developing a devoted cult-following. There is an important distinction between a cult-following and a cult itself, but this was lost on some bystanders. As a cult-following, D&D developed an insular fraternity of fans who were plugged into something exciting and new. Each day the world of D&D expanded and every player everywhere had a hand in the growth of the game. The players were developing their own lexicon and making new and ever expanding rules. This close bond and strange lexicon was easily misunderstood by those with limited exposure to the game.

In the late seventies the game's popularity was preceded by rumors that players were involved in some strange occult activities. Bystanders knew that D&D players were talking about fantastic creatures, magical spells and even demons because the game often includes descriptions of [[occult]] elements like [[magic]], [[ghost]]s, [[spirit]]s, [[demon]]s and [[devil]]s. To an uninformed bystander this may be pretty scary stuff. But, the truth was significantly less mysterious and sensational.

These misperceptions have largely evaporated, both because of the game's popularity and better information about the product. Critics became aware that players were not involved in anything occult but were gaming in a fantasy setting. Most everyone in America knows someone who has played ''Dungeons & Dragons'', so these days it's all but impossible to blur the line between occult activity and role-playing games.

===God and gods===
One item of concern for conservative Christians is that players' characters do not usually worship [[God]], but instead choose a [[patron]] deity from a fictional [[polytheistic]] pantheon. The game settings manufactured by [[Wizards of the Coast]] (''Greyhawk'', ''Faerun'', ''Eberron'', etc.) expressly adopt a polytheistic [[pantheon]] of fictional deities and reject real-world [[religion]]s as a part of the game. (The Deities and Demigods<ref>[http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/881650000 "Deities and Demigods"]</ref> supplement offers several different takes on religion, including rules for a monotheistic game world, but deliberately sidesteps the question of any modern religion--Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.--even as it brings up pantheons of old myths, such as the Greek or Norse gods. It's likely they used only "dead" religions in order to avoid controversy.) The question of what extent and form of religion should be depicted in the game has been a question since the earliest days of the game. In an in depth look at monotheism in fantasy games, Joseph R.Ravitts raised some of the problems and benefits for a born-again Christian's point of view.<ref>"Monotheism in Gaming" by Joseph R. Ravitts, Pegasus Magazine Issue #4 published in 1981 by Judges' Guild</ref>

Ravitts already understood the power of role-playing, which is now well known. Namely, role-playing is a powerful behavior modification tool. If you pretend that you believe something, eventually you will believe that something. For this reason, he posited that it was important to avoid role-playing in a polytheistic world. Referencing the classic argument from ''[[Mere Christianity]]'' by [[C.S._Lewis | C.S. Lewis]], Ravitts explained how polytheism is really just [[atheism]] or [[monotheism]] in disguise. He believed that if players and DM's actively played in an atheistic world, they would eventually become atheists.

He then pointed out the difficulties of importing Christianity or other religions into D&D. Ravitts pointed out it is a simple matter to import mythological gods like [[Zeus]] or [[Thor]] into a fantasy setting. One simply imagines these gods are in the fantasy world and begins playing. But this is much more difficult with religious figures like [[Jesus]], [[Muhammad]] or [[Buddha]]. Each of these three men were real historic personages. For example, Jesus lived, died and rose again in the Middle East at a specific time and place.

Ravitts proposed two simple work-arounds, for those who care about their spiritual well-being. Firstly, one could assume that all humans are teleported from Earth or descended from folks who were teleported from Earth. These humans have preserved their religious identities and thus Christianity is an option for players without tampering with the historical nature of Jesus. Secondly Ravitts proposed altering the game's mythos to allow for an all-powerful detached God reigning over the "gods, demigods and devils". In this way the "gods" are not gods at all, but just ultra-powerful beings who distract souls from worshiping the one true God.

However, it is worth noting that novels and "sourcebooks" make occasional references to a "God of gods".

Of course there are alternatives such as ''[http://www.greenronin.com/catalog/grr1019 Testament]'' a D&D type game set in the Biblical Era. Further, many of the game worlds portray certain gods and religions as being metaphors for modern ones. (Even the incredibly polytheistic Forgotten Realms, where more than a hundred deities exist, features a triad of gods that could be based on the Holy Trinity.) But ultimately, D&D is a game of fantasy and players are encouraged to alter the game world to better suit their tastes, and many Christian players and DMs alter the game world so that it better fits their personal beliefs.

===The art of D&D===
Another criticism is that illustrations in the rule books for ''Dungeons & Dragons'' often contain images of immodestly dressed women. For example, in the First Edition ''Monster Manual'' a number of drawings depicted topless creatures of fantasy such as the harpy (half-vulture half-woman) or the succubus (a demoness). The OD&D reference ''Eldritch Wizardry'' featured the profile of a nude woman. Most of these images are fairly crudely rendered and are not particularly racy by today's standards, but they did exceed the limitations of the [[Comics Code]] of the time<ref>http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8580/cca3.html</ref>.

By the publication of Second Edition, the art and layout of the D&D game was managed by professionals. As a result the quality of the art increased significantly and anything racy was eliminated from the art work. There was some minor controversy with the revised Third Edition ''Monster Manual'''s artwork of the succubus and nymph (a water spirit in the form of a beautiful woman), but aside from these there is nothing particularly shocking in the art for a child or adult of any age.

===Unchristian Activities===
Although Dungeons & Dragons does not present itself as either pro-Christian or anti-Christian, the game features many elements which can be considered to agree with or go against the teachings of Christ. The game has drawn criticism for allowing players to undertake the roleplaying of un-Christian activities: the rules allow a player to have their character perform evil acts, including the summoning or worshiping of demons and devils. Certain fundamentalists disagree with the very format of the game in that player characters can pretend to cast imaginary spells while playing the game.

Some feel that the primary action of the game involves the fictional slaying of monsters and the fictional accumulation of wealth, some Christians feel that this goes against the teachings of Christ regarding [[pacifism]] ([[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]] 5:38-42) and the accumulation of [[wealth]] (Matthew 19:24). Others see these actions as heroic endeavors and wealth is a byproduct of doing good things. Either way, the game and it's choices are a matter of free will.

Former [[United Methodist Church]] minister James Wyatt wrote an essay comparing the freedom of a Dungeons & Dragons player to choose his own actions, to the Christian concept of Free Will. As in real life, a player may, when presented with a moral choice, decide for himself whether to do good or evil. If the player was not able to do evil, he would be forced to do good, removing his freedom. Similarly, God allows human beings to choose between good and evil in real life, and people must accept the consequences of their choice. The supplements that deal specifically with demons and devils make it quite clear that the afterlife for characters who are condemned to the Abyss or the Nine Heels is in no way pleasant, and may even be short.

Tracy Hickman, one of the main authors of the Dungeons & Dragons Dragonlance book series, and a Christian with conservative politics and theology, has written a number of articles defending and discussing D&D from a Christian perspective. <ref name="Waldron">The Journal of Religion and Popular Culture: [http://www.usask.ca/relst/jrpc/art9-roleplaying.html "Role-Playing Games and the Christian Right"]</ref> Others within the Dungeons & Dragons community responded by writing other defenses from rationalist perspectives or other perspectives or by writing parodies such as "Chess: The Subtle Sin: Should Christians play chess?". Some argue that in response to the perceived Christian persecution of the Dungeons & Dragons, darker themed, deliberately counter-cultural games appeared in reaction such as [[Call of Cthulhu]] which is based on the horror writing of [[H.P. Lovecraft]] and set in the [[Cthulhu|Cthulhu Mythos]]<ref name="Waldron"/>, or [[Vampire: the Masquerade]], where players act the roles of undead vampires.

====Possible Areas of Concern for Christians====
D&D is a "game of pretend" whereby players pretend to take certain actions and the DM adjudicates the results of those actions. By its very nature, this leaves players open to experiment with various moral quandaries and social dilemmas. This is a valuable tool for players to learn the implications and results of playing both good and evil characters. However, the possibility exists that such an experience may not be beneficial or appropriate for everyone--in particular, persons who already have difficulty separating fantasy with reality might be able to be helped by the game, but it could also make things worse. Due to the nature of roleplaying games, a great deal depends upon the individual group in question; a given game of Dungeons and Dragons might be benign from a Christian standpoint, or it might involve activities and ideas that a Christian would find profoundly distasteful.

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
* [http://aquela.com/roleplaying/r&r/index.html Religion and Roleplaying]
* [http://www.fansforchrist.org/new/articles/article03a.htm Christians Playing Dungeons and Dragons] - An informed Christian's perspective on Dungeons & Dragons.
* [http://www.trhickman.com/Intel/Essays/Ethic2.html Ethics in Fantasy: Morality and D&D] - Tracey Hickman's essay concerning Christian perspectives and common misunderstandings about Role-Playing Games
* [http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/3691 Full text of H.G. Wells ''Little Wars; a game for boys from twelve years of age to one hundred and fifty']

[[Category:Games]]

Dungeons and Dragons

2010-05-21T15:04:09Z

Jinxmchue: /* Alignment System */ - continued clean-up

'''Dungeons & Dragons''' (D&D or DnD) is a [[role-playing]] game with a medieval theme featuring [[myth]]ical creatures such as [[elf|elves]], [[dwarf (mythology)|dwarves]], [[orc]]s, and [[dragon]]s, but also semi-fictionalized [[demons]]. Players take the role of characters who solve a series of heroic adventures or quests. Though argued to be a harmless game, it has attracted a variety of criticism.

Players typically do not compete against one another; rather, the players cooperate to achieve goals and objectives while a referee, in this case called the ''dungeon master'' (DM) or ''game master'' (GM), interprets rules and adjudicates the success or failure of the players' efforts.

The game was first published in 1974 by Tactical Studies Rules (TSR). Most of those rules and many of the subsequent rules were authored by [[Gary Gygax]]. There are some who claim that [[Dave Arneson]] was the actual "inventor" of D&D, but this claim is disputed, not least by the fact that many references were authored by Gygax. After its original publisher TSR, Inc., went bankrupt, the game was sold to [[Wizards of the Coast]], a division of Hasbro.<ref>Wizards of the Coast's [http://www.wizards.com/dnd D&D site]</ref>

In the late 1970s, the game's popularity exploded, particularly on college campuses. ''Dungeons & Dragons'' spawned countless variations and permutations, but during the earliest days of the game's growth, there were accusations that the game contributed to Satanic worship, teen suicide and general moral depravity. These criticisms have been repeatedly addressed by the game's creators and defenders.

The 4th Edition of the game is the most recent, released in 2008.

==Game play==
''Dungeons & Dragons'' is a free-form game in which a referee (the Dungeon Master) describes a situational problem to the players and then the players reply with any imaginable response. The exploits of players can occur in any fantasy setting but at some point the adventure often occurs in a ''dungeon'' or subterranean locale not unlike ''[[Khazad-dûm|Moria]]'' in [[Tolkien]]'s ''[[The Lord of the Rings]]''.

Players' characters can gain more powers and abilities from earning ''experience points'' for completing various tasks (e.g. solving puzzles, killing enemies) during adventures.

===Alignment System===
Because D&D players can basically "do" anything there are moral implications to the choices players make. To provide a frame of reference and to help the game make sense, Gygax devised an alignment system. All characters (and monsters) are required to have an ''alignment'' and they must adhere to the beliefs of that alignment.

Morality is divided into "Good," "Neutral" and "Evil" while ethics are divided into "Lawful," "Neutral" and "Chaotic." By combining these two frameworks, we arrive at the nine alignments: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, true neutral ("neutral neutral"), chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil.

These alignments help players and referees roleplay characters and monsters.

In the original versions of the game, only the "ethical" (Law/Chaos) axis of morality was present. The "moral" (good/evil) axis was added in later editions. 4th Edition removes the axis concept, resulting in the alignments lawful good, good, unaligned, evil, and chaotic evil.

The ability of players to play evil characters has been among the criticisms against the game.

===Components of a Character===
A character is described in detail on a "character sheet" where the player records important facts about the character. This includes the character's "race", vocation, unique skills, and numerical ratings of the character's attributes.

In this case, "race" refers to a race from fantasy such as an elf, dwarf, gnome or halfling--effectively used as an archaic term for "species". The races which are allowed in the game vary from DM to DM according to the tastes of players and the setting that the DM has devised. The vocation or "class" of the character refers to the fantasy archetype the player wishes to play, e.g. wizard, barbarian, rogue, cleric, etc. The selection of race and class will impact skills and attributes which are available to the character as well as the strengths and weaknesses the character.

===The Magic System ===
The magic system used in Dungeons & Dragons was originally adopted very roughly from the writing of fantasy and science fiction author [[Jack Vance]]. In the Vancian system, magic-users such as wizards must prepare all of their spells in advance for that day by memorizing them and a spell leaves the wizard's memory upon being cast. To cast the spell again, the magic-user must once again memorize the spell. The Vancian system was chosen for a variety of reasons such as its originality compared to pre-existing magical systems, its avoidance any connection with systems of magic described in any religion or occult theory, and it being the creation one of Gygax's favorite authors.<ref>Forum discussion: [http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/printthread.php?t=182603 "Is D&D magic purely Vancian?"]</ref><ref>RPGnet: [http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/10/10222.phtml Review of "The Primer of Practical Magic"]</ref> Novices and those who have never played the game should note that in this case, the player doesn't actually memorize anything. The character "memorization" is really just a mechanic to help limit the number of spells a player can use per gaming episode. The 4th Edition makes significant changes to the system, basing most abilities on "per encounter" uses (as in, how many times per battle or event an ability can be used).

===The Combat System ===
To determine the outcome of combat, players roll dice to determine if an attack "hits" and then if the attack hits how much damage the attack does. Damage reduces the defender's "hit points". When a combatant's hit points are depleted that combatant is "dead" or incapacitated. This combat system was developed from a ship-to-ship naval combat game that Gygax adapted to describe medieval man-to-man combat.

==History and Development==
To many Americans ''Dungeons & Dragons'' seemed to appear from nothingness as a wholly born concoction of occult elements and hypnotic game play. The truth is that the game evolved from mundane roots in a quite corner of Wisconsin outside Milwaukee. The origins of D&D are found in a prior generation of [[miniatures games]] such as [[H.G. Wells]]' [[Little Wars]]. ''Little Wars'' is a set of rules which describe how to play a game with toy soldiers.

Wells' rules were themselves were based upon a earlier games which were primarily played by nobility and royals to teach warfare strategy. <ref>http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=6040&pageno=2 Foreword to Little Wars by ''H.G. Wells''</ref>. With the publication of ''Little Wars'', H.G. Wells hoped to bring a game previously known only to kings to the common man. Because tin soldiers do not bleed and do not leave widows, it was Wells hope that men could settle differences by little wars rather than real wars.

Miniature gaming such as ''Little Wars'' was nearly unknown in America, although there were pockets of hobbyists such as "International Federation of Gamers", a tiny group near Milwaukee Wisconsin.<ref>http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnDArchives_History.asp</ref> [[Gary Gygax]] and [[Dave Arneson]] were members of that gaming group. It can rightly be said that Gygax and Arneson are the fathers of modern role-playing games, but the contributions of other local gamers are muddied into this mix as well.

===Gygax & Arneson===
In the earliest days, the International Federation of Gamers was possessed of a grand name, but little more. Of course few records were kept at that time. Thus, there is some dispute about who exactly invented what aspects of the game. In 1969, Gary Gygax adapted rules meant to govern wooden ship combat into a medieval combat game which was published by Guidon Games under the name ''Chainmail''. The game was very popular locally and grew organically over the next few years. At the same time, ''[[The Lord of the Rings]]'' was gaining mass appeal in the United States. This inspired players to incorporate elements of fantasy into their wargames.

By 1970, Dave Arneson adapted these and other club rules into something generally referred to as ''the fantasy game'' <ref>http://jovianclouds.com/blackmoor/</ref>. ''The fantasy game'' had several key innovations --- many of which were of Arneson's devising. In previous wargames, players generally led an army of toy soldiers. But in ''the fantasy game'', each player had only one soldier, described as a ''character'' or ''player character''.

Further the game evolved to include the concept that at the next game session would pick up where the last game session ended. Another evolutionary concept was the idea of a referee or game master. The referee, often played by Arneson or Gygax, had the job of making final judgments and augmenting the rules as necessary to keep the game going. <ref>http://jovianclouds.com/blackmoor/rpg2.html</ref>

There is some question as to who exactly designed what in ''the fantasy game'' with at times Gygax and Arneson jointly and severably claiming to have "invented the game". There is no doubt that both many, and many gamers, where involved in the evolution of the game. Arneson's chief claims rest on his evolution of certain key concepts that would constitute all role-playing games to follow. Gygax's claim rests upon the fact that most of the early reference works were authored by Gygax.

===OD&D===
In 1972, Gary Gygax and others formed a partnership called Tactical Studies Rules and in 1974 Tactical Studies Rules published Gary Gygax' version of "the Fantasy Game", later named ''Dungeons & Dragons''. <ref>http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnDArchives_History.asp#</ref> This version of the game --- often called ''Original Dungeons & Dragons'', ''Old Dungeons & Dragons'' or ''OD&D'' --- was printed in staple-bound paperback form from folded sheets of 8.5 x 11 paper and sold as a boxed set.

By many accounts, ''OD&D'' was a clunky game, sparse on rules, but in this game one would find all the elements of a modern role-playing game: player characters, a game master, serial adventures, and the opportunity for character growth. Several print runs of this version sold out quickly and went on to exceed the expectations of everyone involved.

After the tremendous success of the D&D paperbacks, Tactical Studies Rules reorganized with partners Gary Gygax, Don Kaye and Brian Blume under the name TSR Hobbies Inc. In 1975, TSR Hobbies published OD&D supplements, Gygax's ''[[Greyhawk]]'' and Arneson's ''[[Blackmoor]]''. <ref>http://www.dadsdnd.com/greyhawk.html</ref> <ref>http://www.dadsdnd.com/blackmoor.html</ref>

''Dungeons & Dragons'' began to be noticed by American culture at about the same time the company released ''Eldritch Wizardry'' and ''God, Demigods & Heroes''. The cover of ''Eldritch Wizardry'' featured an nude dress female strewn over an altar. <ref>http://www.deigames.com/eldwiz2.JPG</ref> ''Gods, Demigods & Heroes'' was a mythological reference with gods and heroes from the legends and lore of Greeks, Egyptians, Indians, Norse and more. Many of these mythological gods are considered creatures of human invention, but some are now considered demons by the Christian Church.

Although the game was gaining popularity, the works served as a lightning rod for criticism. Although some of the art in these and later editions would violate the [[Comics Code]], the publishers at TSR failed to appreciate the danger of ignoring these rules. Some of TSR's management believed that D&D was marketed toward adult males, not teens and preteens, and thus the Comics Code did not apply. It soon became evident that D&D's popularity reached beyond college-age males.

===First Edition===
In 1977, TSR Hobbies published the Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set, a boxed set containing revised and abbreviated rules for easier introduction to the game. This was followed in 1978 by the publication of the "core rule books" of D&D: the ''Players Handbook'', the ''Dungeon Masters Guide'' and the ''Monster Manual''. (Later editions of this game would follow this pattern.) Taken as a whole with several other reference books this version of the game is alternatively referred to as Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, AD&D, 1E, 1ED&D. This version of the game revised and organized the notes from OD&D into a single playable whole in hardback books.

Although the art found in the books is hardly obscene and does not approach what is found regularly in American culture today, there were a handful of depictions that did not meet the Comics Code. For example, a harpy, a creature from Greek mythology, that is half-woman half-vulture was depicted with nipples revealed. <ref>''Monster Manual'' by Gary Gygax published by TSR Hobbies 1978</ref> And a mermaid was depicted topless with her hair covering parts of the chest. <ref>''Dungeon Masters Guide'' by Gary Gygax published by TSR Hobbies 1979</ref>

Additionally the game had references to many demons and devils (intended as adversaries). Also the game had a polytheist mythos with some players playing the part of clerics, or priests, of these imaginary or mythical gods. (See backlash below.)

===Second Edition===
In 1983, TSR Hobbies changed its name to TSR, Inc. For the next several years, TSR, Inc. released supplements and adventures for AD&D, along with reprints of the AD&D core books. Typical adventure supplements sold 10,000 to 100,000 units, while each print run of the AD&D core rules sold 40,000 copies. <ref>http://www.acaeum.com/library/printrun.html</ref> While the company continue to sell respectable amounts of product, internal disorganization, in-fighting and corporate inefficiencies limited profitability. After a bitter fight with partners, Gygax was forced from the board of directors and eventually left the company. With Arneson gone since First Edition, the game was now in the hands of a second generation.

In 1989, TSR Inc. released Second Edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. This version of the game was largely a rewrite of the previous edition that was nearly fully compatible with First Edition AD&D. The game was largely sanitized and edited, but not so much reborne. For example, the art of Second Edition achieved a more professional standard. The art did not violate the Comics Code. Second Edition removed all references to "real" gods, devils and demons and inserted divas and angelic creatures.

Under the umbrella of Second Edition D&D, TSR, Inc. released some of its most enduring and popular titles. Ravenloft, Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance were all second edition products.

===Third Edition===
In 1997, TSR, Inc. was purchased by [[Wizards of the Coast]]. (Wizards is often called WotC, and this acronym is pronounced ''what-see''.) Wizards (eventually acquired by Hasbro) continued to improve the art and graphics of D&D and in 2000 released ''Third Edition Dungeons & Dragons'' to supplant second edition. While preserving the concepts of RPGing and many of the archetypes of AD&D, Third Edition (3E) would do what Second Edition had not.

Third Edition rewrote many of the basic constructs of the game in an effort to "modernize" the game and streamline some of D&D's clumsiest and clunkiest mechanics. Third Edition rules and supplements broke from the tradition of improving an existing system. Rather third edition replaced the previous system with "new and better" mechanics.

By the time of the release of Third Edition, most of the controversy associated with D&D had dissipated as secular culture had digressed far beyond anything found in previous D&D. With little controversy or fanfare, D&D reintroduced demons and many of the darker concepts of ''Dungeons & Dragons''.

Now based in Seattle Washington, rather than Lake Geneva Wisconsin, the editors at WotC seem to exhibit the cultural norms found in Seattle rather than the heartlands. For example, rather than using the pronoun ''he'' in non-gender specific rules, Third Edition D&D bypasses the clumsy but [[political_correctness | politically correct]] construct ''he/she'', and describes rules based on hypothetical characters. For example, the 3rd Edition "iconic" paladin was a woman named Alhandra, so the rules text describing the paladin's abilities used "she"; 3rd Edition's "iconic" cleric was a man named Jozan, so the rules text describing the cleric's abilities used "he".

The D&D ethos traditionally favored ''good'' characters, but Third Edition seems to subscribe to a "balanced" view as the idea. For example, many of the more evil creatures in Dungeons and Dragons prey on each other as much as on good people (the iconic example being lawful evil devils and chaotic evil demons); some of the text in the game indicates that they should be left to do this, rather than someone trying to destroy one or the other and uniting them, however briefly, in a struggle against the interloper. This is a troubling symptom of our cultural drift from conservative values but not the cause of that drift.

===Fourth Edition===
With much fanfare, the Fourth Edition of the game was recently announced. Coveting the tremendous revenue of miniatures games like [[Games Workshop]]'s ''[[Warhammer]]'', Fourth Edition is compatible with the new D&D Miniatures game. Fourth Edition also uses many of the conventions wildly accepted in online computer games following widely successful games like Blizzard's [[World_of_Warcraft | World of Warcraft]] and [[Diablo]]. The game makes several other adjustments; see above for some such changes.

====D&D Online====
There is now a Dungeons & Dragons Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game (MMORPG) known as ''Dungeons & Dragons Online: Stormreach'' which takes place in the ''Eberron'' campaign setting. Online and computer games are similar to D&D in many respects, but the play of these games is entirely different. D&D is characterized by a human referee and complete freedom of action. Without these key components, the game is a mere shadow of D&D.

===Summary===

''Dungeons & Dragons'' is nothing more or less than a formalized game of pretend, similar to imaginary adventures that children everywhere play. But, the simplicity of this concept was not immediately evident to players of ''Dungeons & Dragons'' or the public at large. Although D&D has a fantasy theme and many rules for resolving actions, ''Dungeons & Dragons'' is at its core a game of pretend like "cops and robbers" or "cowboys and Indians".

==Concerns and Criticisms==
In the late seventies and early eighties, the sudden popularity of ''Dungeons & Dragons'' resulted in a cultural and religious backlash against perceived dangers from the game. ''Dungeons & Dragons'' was linked to the occult, witchcraft & demonology. Additionally there was some criticism about the art depicted in the earliest versions of the game. Much of this criticism came from the natural tendency of people to fear the unknown and to fear new ideas, but some of this criticism was valid and affected later versions of what was published under the name ''Dungeons & Dragons''.

===Demons and Devils===
In D&D, player characters (the player's in game persona) are constantly gaining strength and power. Therefore, they are forever seeking more powerful adversaries and more difficult challenges. For example, at the start of a campaign player characters may be doing battle with creatures short of stature with few may limitations (low intelligence, fear of sunlight) such as [[goblin]]s or [[kobold]]s. But as the player character's power increases, so to increases the deadliness of their opponents. In the search for ever more powerful opponents game designers eventually developed attributes for demons and devils.

The publishers of the game had imagined that they would sell a few hundred copies to college-aged males and never imagined that the game would experience explosive popularity, especially among teens as young as thirteen. Therefore, no thought or planning was invested into the potential impact of defining the powers and abilities of demons and devils. To the game's designers and players, killing a demon (in game) was no more controversial than killing a bishop in a game of chess.

But to bystanders the very inclusion of demons and devils was enough to cast suspicion upon the entire game--particularly since the game's much-touted freedom might allow a character to side with them. Additionally, the inclusions of demons and devils in the game raised other questions, such as why there are no angels in the game. There were no angels in the earliest editions of the game, because there was no reason to have an angel in the role of a ''monster''. (See terminology above.) By late First Edition and early Second Edition, the game included and defined [[angels]], [[devas]] and other highly powerful creatures of good; sometimes these were presented as allies for good characters, sometimes enemies for evil ones. This led to the criticism that religious icons were being disrespected by inclusion in the reference works.

In the Second Edition, the publishers tried to sanitize D&D by removing demons and devils, but many players (who enjoyed the challenge of destroying demons) resisted this effort. Later editions removed many references to "real" demons. Additionally, the terms "devil" and "demon" were replaced with the terms "baatezu" and "tanar'ri", respectively, and "the Nine Hells" (the outer planar home of devils/baatezu) was renamed "Baator".

However, in Third Edition, the game's original terms were readopted and blended--colloquially, for example, creatures from the Nine Hells (also called Baator) were called devils, but the most dominant species of the devils called themselves baatezu. An entire "mature" supplement (though there is no legal restriction on who may buy it, a large sticker is on the cover of most copies, stating it is for mature gamers only), known as the Book of Vile Darkness<ref>[http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/881610000 "Book of Vile Darkness"]</ref> was produced to introduce more overtly evil concepts into the game, ostensibly in ways for the DM to make the most horrific enemies possible for their players. A follow-up, the Book of Exalted Deeds<ref>[http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/880260000 "Book of Exalted Deeds"]</ref>, was created as a way for players to explore the philosophy and morality of good, and to make a good alignment more than a line on their character sheet. (The titles of both books are based on magic items in the game, both of which are extremely useful to a person of the proper alignment.)

The Fourth Edition Player's Handbook contains a "Warlock" class, which allows the player to make a pact with a certain creature to gain power. One option is the "Infernal Pact", allowing the player to literally make a deal with the devil.

===D&D and the Occult===
The game includes fictional depictions of supernatural abilities called magic, evil monsters called demons and devils, and fictional deities along with their followers. Christians are divided on how this interacts with their faith. A minority of Christians believe that fictional depictions of fantasy elements such as those found in ''[[The Chronicles of Narnia]]'', ''[[The Lord of the Rings]]'', ''[[Harry Potter]]'', or ''Dungeons & Dragons'' are blasphemous, but most Christians see no problem with such fictional works.

Starting in the late 1970s the game and others like it came under attack mainly from some fundamentalist Christians as promoting occult and criminal activity. The game's dangers were alleged in the ''Dark Dungeons'' tract by [[Jack Chick]]<ref>Jack Chick: [http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.asp "Dark Dungeons"]</ref>, which portrays D&D players committing suicide when their characters are killed or joining secret witches' covens and learning to cast real magic spells when their characters reach a high enough level.

The fact is that ''Dungeons & Dragons'' designers and players had nothing to do with occult or criminal activity and thirty years later it may be hard to understand how people could confuse D&D with occult activities. In the earliest days of D&D it was easy for an uninformed bystander to draw faulty conclusions based upon a limited knowledge of the game. In its earliest days, OD&D often sold out due to low print runs, leaving bystanders with little access to the rules and little direct knowledge of the game.

For example, bystanders knew the game was developing a devoted cult-following. There is an important distinction between a cult-following and a cult itself, but this was lost on some bystanders. As a cult-following, D&D developed an insular fraternity of fans who were plugged into something exciting and new. Each day the world of D&D expanded and every player everywhere had a hand in the growth of the game. The players were developing their own lexicon and making new and ever expanding rules. This close bond and strange lexicon was easily misunderstood by those with limited exposure to the game.

In the late seventies the game's popularity was preceded by rumors that players were involved in some strange occult activities. Bystanders knew that D&D players were talking about fantastic creatures, magical spells and even demons because the game often includes descriptions of [[occult]] elements like [[magic]], [[ghost]]s, [[spirit]]s, [[demon]]s and [[devil]]s. To an uninformed bystander this may be pretty scary stuff. But, the truth was significantly less mysterious and sensational.

These misperceptions have largely evaporated, both because of the game's popularity and better information about the product. Critics became aware that players were not involved in anything occult but were gaming in a fantasy setting. Most everyone in America knows someone who has played ''Dungeons & Dragons'', so these days it's all but impossible to blur the line between occult activity and role-playing games.

===God and gods===
One item of concern for conservative Christians is that players' characters do not usually worship [[God]], but instead choose a [[patron]] deity from a fictional [[polytheistic]] pantheon. The game settings manufactured by [[Wizards of the Coast]] (''Greyhawk'', ''Faerun'', ''Eberron'', etc.) expressly adopt a polytheistic [[pantheon]] of fictional deities and reject real-world [[religion]]s as a part of the game. (The Deities and Demigods<ref>[http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/881650000 "Deities and Demigods"]</ref> supplement offers several different takes on religion, including rules for a monotheistic game world, but deliberately sidesteps the question of any modern religion--Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.--even as it brings up pantheons of old myths, such as the Greek or Norse gods. It's likely they used only "dead" religions in order to avoid controversy.) The question of what extent and form of religion should be depicted in the game has been a question since the earliest days of the game. In an in depth look at monotheism in fantasy games, Joseph R.Ravitts raised some of the problems and benefits for a born-again Christian's point of view.<ref>"Monotheism in Gaming" by Joseph R. Ravitts, Pegasus Magazine Issue #4 published in 1981 by Judges' Guild</ref>

Ravitts already understood the power of role-playing, which is now well known. Namely, role-playing is a powerful behavior modification tool. If you pretend that you believe something, eventually you will believe that something. For this reason, he posited that it was important to avoid role-playing in a polytheistic world. Referencing the classic argument from ''[[Mere Christianity]]'' by [[C.S._Lewis | C.S. Lewis]], Ravitts explained how polytheism is really just [[atheism]] or [[monotheism]] in disguise. He believed that if players and DM's actively played in an atheistic world, they would eventually become atheists.

He then pointed out the difficulties of importing Christianity or other religions into D&D. Ravitts pointed out it is a simple matter to import mythological gods like [[Zeus]] or [[Thor]] into a fantasy setting. One simply imagines these gods are in the fantasy world and begins playing. But this is much more difficult with religious figures like [[Jesus]], [[Muhammad]] or [[Buddha]]. Each of these three men were real historic personages. For example, Jesus lived, died and rose again in the Middle East at a specific time and place.

Ravitts proposed two simple work-arounds, for those who care about their spiritual well-being. Firstly, one could assume that all humans are teleported from Earth or descended from folks who were teleported from Earth. These humans have preserved their religious identities and thus Christianity is an option for players without tampering with the historical nature of Jesus. Secondly Ravitts proposed altering the game's mythos to allow for an all-powerful detached God reigning over the "gods, demigods and devils". In this way the "gods" are not gods at all, but just ultra-powerful beings who distract souls from worshiping the one true God.

However, it is worth noting that novels and "sourcebooks" make occasional references to a "God of gods".

Of course there are alternatives such as ''[http://www.greenronin.com/catalog/grr1019 Testament]'' a D&D type game set in the Biblical Era. Further, many of the game worlds portray certain gods and religions as being metaphors for modern ones. (Even the incredibly polytheistic Forgotten Realms, where more than a hundred deities exist, features a triad of gods that could be based on the Holy Trinity.) But ultimately, D&D is a game of fantasy and players are encouraged to alter the game world to better suit their tastes, and many Christian players and DMs alter the game world so that it better fits their personal beliefs.

===The art of D&D===
Another criticism is that illustrations in the rule books for ''Dungeons & Dragons'' often contain images of immodestly dressed women. For example, in the First Edition ''Monster Manual'' a number of drawings depicted topless creatures of fantasy such as the harpy (half-vulture half-woman) or the succubus (a demoness). The OD&D reference ''Eldritch Wizardry'' featured the profile of a nude woman. Most of these images are fairly crudely rendered and are not particularly racy by today's standards, but they did exceed the limitations of the [[Comics Code]] of the time<ref>http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8580/cca3.html</ref>.

By the publication of Second Edition, the art and layout of the D&D game was managed by professionals. As a result the quality of the art increased significantly and anything racy was eliminated from the art work. There was some minor controversy with the revised Third Edition ''Monster Manual'''s artwork of the succubus and nymph (a water spirit in the form of a beautiful woman), but aside from these there is nothing particularly shocking in the art for a child or adult of any age.

===Unchristian Activities===
Although Dungeons & Dragons does not present itself as either pro-Christian or anti-Christian, the game features many elements which can be considered to agree with or go against the teachings of Christ. The game has drawn criticism for allowing players to undertake the roleplaying of un-Christian activities: the rules allow a player to have their character perform evil acts, including the summoning or worshiping of demons and devils. Certain fundamentalists disagree with the very format of the game in that player characters can pretend to cast imaginary spells while playing the game.

Some feel that the primary action of the game involves the fictional slaying of monsters and the fictional accumulation of wealth, some Christians feel that this goes against the teachings of Christ regarding [[pacifism]] ([[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]] 5:38-42) and the accumulation of [[wealth]] (Matthew 19:24). Others see these actions as heroic endeavors and wealth is a byproduct of doing good things. Either way, the game and it's choices are a matter of free will.

Former [[United Methodist Church]] minister James Wyatt wrote an essay comparing the freedom of a Dungeons & Dragons player to choose his own actions, to the Christian concept of Free Will. As in real life, a player may, when presented with a moral choice, decide for himself whether to do good or evil. If the player was not able to do evil, he would be forced to do good, removing his freedom. Similarly, God allows human beings to choose between good and evil in real life, and people must accept the consequences of their choice. The supplements that deal specifically with demons and devils make it quite clear that the afterlife for characters who are condemned to the Abyss or the Nine Heels is in no way pleasant, and may even be short.

Tracy Hickman, one of the main authors of the Dungeons & Dragons Dragonlance book series, and a Christian with conservative politics and theology, has written a number of articles defending and discussing D&D from a Christian perspective. <ref name="Waldron">The Journal of Religion and Popular Culture: [http://www.usask.ca/relst/jrpc/art9-roleplaying.html "Role-Playing Games and the Christian Right"]</ref> Others within the Dungeons & Dragons community responded by writing other defenses from rationalist perspectives or other perspectives or by writing parodies such as "Chess: The Subtle Sin: Should Christians play chess?". Some argue that in response to the perceived Christian persecution of the Dungeons & Dragons, darker themed, deliberately counter-cultural games appeared in reaction such as [[Call of Cthulhu]] which is based on the horror writing of [[H.P. Lovecraft]] and set in the [[Cthulhu|Cthulhu Mythos]]<ref name="Waldron"/>, or [[Vampire: the Masquerade]], where players act the roles of undead vampires.

====Possible Areas of Concern for Christians====
D&D is a "game of pretend" whereby players pretend to take certain actions and the DM adjudicates the results of those actions. By its very nature, this leaves players open to experiment with various moral quandaries and social dilemmas. This is a valuable tool for players to learn the implications and results of playing both good and evil characters. However, the possibility exists that such an experience may not be beneficial or appropriate for everyone--in particular, persons who already have difficulty separating fantasy with reality might be able to be helped by the game, but it could also make things worse. Due to the nature of roleplaying games, a great deal depends upon the individual group in question; a given game of Dungeons and Dragons might be benign from a Christian standpoint, or it might involve activities and ideas that a Christian would find profoundly distasteful.

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
* [http://aquela.com/roleplaying/r&r/index.html Religion and Roleplaying]
* [http://www.fansforchrist.org/new/articles/article03a.htm Christians Playing Dungeons and Dragons] - An informed Christian's perspective on Dungeons & Dragons.
* [http://www.trhickman.com/Intel/Essays/Ethic2.html Ethics in Fantasy: Morality and D&D] - Tracey Hickman's essay concerning Christian perspectives and common misunderstandings about Role-Playing Games
* [http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/3691 Full text of H.G. Wells ''Little Wars; a game for boys from twelve years of age to one hundred and fifty']

[[Category:Games]]

Dungeons and Dragons

2010-05-21T14:53:31Z

Jinxmchue: /* Alignment System */ - quotes work better here

'''Dungeons & Dragons''' (D&D or DnD) is a [[role-playing]] game with a medieval theme featuring [[myth]]ical creatures such as [[elf|elves]], [[dwarf (mythology)|dwarves]], [[orc]]s, and [[dragon]]s, but also semi-fictionalized [[demons]]. Players take the role of characters who solve a series of heroic adventures or quests. Though argued to be a harmless game, it has attracted a variety of criticism.

Players typically do not compete against one another; rather, the players cooperate to achieve goals and objectives while a referee, in this case called the ''dungeon master'' (DM) or ''game master'' (GM), interprets rules and adjudicates the success or failure of the players' efforts.

The game was first published in 1974 by Tactical Studies Rules (TSR). Most of those rules and many of the subsequent rules were authored by [[Gary Gygax]]. There are some who claim that [[Dave Arneson]] was the actual "inventor" of D&D, but this claim is disputed, not least by the fact that many references were authored by Gygax. After its original publisher TSR, Inc., went bankrupt, the game was sold to [[Wizards of the Coast]], a division of Hasbro.<ref>Wizards of the Coast's [http://www.wizards.com/dnd D&D site]</ref>

In the late 1970s, the game's popularity exploded, particularly on college campuses. ''Dungeons & Dragons'' spawned countless variations and permutations, but during the earliest days of the game's growth, there were accusations that the game contributed to Satanic worship, teen suicide and general moral depravity. These criticisms have been repeatedly addressed by the game's creators and defenders.

The 4th Edition of the game is the most recent, released in 2008.

==Game play==
''Dungeons & Dragons'' is a free-form game in which a referee (the Dungeon Master) describes a situational problem to the players and then the players reply with any imaginable response. The exploits of players can occur in any fantasy setting but at some point the adventure often occurs in a ''dungeon'' or subterranean locale not unlike ''[[Khazad-dûm|Moria]]'' in [[Tolkien]]'s ''[[The Lord of the Rings]]''.

Players' characters can gain more powers and abilities from earning ''experience points'' for completing various tasks (e.g. solving puzzles, killing enemies) during adventures.

===Alignment System===
Because D&D players can basically "do" anything there are moral implications to the choices players make. To provide a frame of reference and to help the game make sense Gygax devised an alignment system. All characters are required to choose an ''alignment'' and the character must adhere to the beliefs of that alignment. Similarly, all monsters have alignments and thus their actions can be predictable and make sense.

"Good" characters strive to do acts of goodness and while avoiding actions which are hurtful to others. "Evil" characters think only of their own desires. Morally "Neutral" characters don't care much about good or evil. At the same time "Lawful" characters believe that it is important to adhere to the rule of law, while "Chaotic" characters are more concerned with personal freedoms than with laws. Ethically "Neutral" characters do not care whether an action is lawful or chaotic. By combining these two frameworks, we arrive at the nine alignments: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, true neutral ("neutral neutral"), chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil.

These alignments help a player separate what the player or referee would do in a given situation from how the character or monster might react in the same situation. Some DMs forbid evil characters as they are often disruptive to the game, though the rules do not expressly require that players choose good characters. The ability to play evil characters has been among the criticisms against the game.

In the original versions of the game, only the "ethical" (Law/Chaos) axis of morality was present. The "moral" (good/evil) axis was added in later editions. 4th Edition removes the axis concept, resulting in the alignments lawful good, good, unaligned, evil, and chaotic evil.

===Components of a Character===
A character is described in detail on a "character sheet" where the player records important facts about the character. This includes the character's "race", vocation, unique skills, and numerical ratings of the character's attributes.

In this case, "race" refers to a race from fantasy such as an elf, dwarf, gnome or halfling--effectively used as an archaic term for "species". The races which are allowed in the game vary from DM to DM according to the tastes of players and the setting that the DM has devised. The vocation or "class" of the character refers to the fantasy archetype the player wishes to play, e.g. wizard, barbarian, rogue, cleric, etc. The selection of race and class will impact skills and attributes which are available to the character as well as the strengths and weaknesses the character.

===The Magic System ===
The magic system used in Dungeons & Dragons was originally adopted very roughly from the writing of fantasy and science fiction author [[Jack Vance]]. In the Vancian system, magic-users such as wizards must prepare all of their spells in advance for that day by memorizing them and a spell leaves the wizard's memory upon being cast. To cast the spell again, the magic-user must once again memorize the spell. The Vancian system was chosen for a variety of reasons such as its originality compared to pre-existing magical systems, its avoidance any connection with systems of magic described in any religion or occult theory, and it being the creation one of Gygax's favorite authors.<ref>Forum discussion: [http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/printthread.php?t=182603 "Is D&D magic purely Vancian?"]</ref><ref>RPGnet: [http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/10/10222.phtml Review of "The Primer of Practical Magic"]</ref> Novices and those who have never played the game should note that in this case, the player doesn't actually memorize anything. The character "memorization" is really just a mechanic to help limit the number of spells a player can use per gaming episode. The 4th Edition makes significant changes to the system, basing most abilities on "per encounter" uses (as in, how many times per battle or event an ability can be used).

===The Combat System ===
To determine the outcome of combat, players roll dice to determine if an attack "hits" and then if the attack hits how much damage the attack does. Damage reduces the defender's "hit points". When a combatant's hit points are depleted that combatant is "dead" or incapacitated. This combat system was developed from a ship-to-ship naval combat game that Gygax adapted to describe medieval man-to-man combat.

==History and Development==
To many Americans ''Dungeons & Dragons'' seemed to appear from nothingness as a wholly born concoction of occult elements and hypnotic game play. The truth is that the game evolved from mundane roots in a quite corner of Wisconsin outside Milwaukee. The origins of D&D are found in a prior generation of [[miniatures games]] such as [[H.G. Wells]]' [[Little Wars]]. ''Little Wars'' is a set of rules which describe how to play a game with toy soldiers.

Wells' rules were themselves were based upon a earlier games which were primarily played by nobility and royals to teach warfare strategy. <ref>http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=6040&pageno=2 Foreword to Little Wars by ''H.G. Wells''</ref>. With the publication of ''Little Wars'', H.G. Wells hoped to bring a game previously known only to kings to the common man. Because tin soldiers do not bleed and do not leave widows, it was Wells hope that men could settle differences by little wars rather than real wars.

Miniature gaming such as ''Little Wars'' was nearly unknown in America, although there were pockets of hobbyists such as "International Federation of Gamers", a tiny group near Milwaukee Wisconsin.<ref>http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnDArchives_History.asp</ref> [[Gary Gygax]] and [[Dave Arneson]] were members of that gaming group. It can rightly be said that Gygax and Arneson are the fathers of modern role-playing games, but the contributions of other local gamers are muddied into this mix as well.

===Gygax & Arneson===
In the earliest days, the International Federation of Gamers was possessed of a grand name, but little more. Of course few records were kept at that time. Thus, there is some dispute about who exactly invented what aspects of the game. In 1969, Gary Gygax adapted rules meant to govern wooden ship combat into a medieval combat game which was published by Guidon Games under the name ''Chainmail''. The game was very popular locally and grew organically over the next few years. At the same time, ''[[The Lord of the Rings]]'' was gaining mass appeal in the United States. This inspired players to incorporate elements of fantasy into their wargames.

By 1970, Dave Arneson adapted these and other club rules into something generally referred to as ''the fantasy game'' <ref>http://jovianclouds.com/blackmoor/</ref>. ''The fantasy game'' had several key innovations --- many of which were of Arneson's devising. In previous wargames, players generally led an army of toy soldiers. But in ''the fantasy game'', each player had only one soldier, described as a ''character'' or ''player character''.

Further the game evolved to include the concept that at the next game session would pick up where the last game session ended. Another evolutionary concept was the idea of a referee or game master. The referee, often played by Arneson or Gygax, had the job of making final judgments and augmenting the rules as necessary to keep the game going. <ref>http://jovianclouds.com/blackmoor/rpg2.html</ref>

There is some question as to who exactly designed what in ''the fantasy game'' with at times Gygax and Arneson jointly and severably claiming to have "invented the game". There is no doubt that both many, and many gamers, where involved in the evolution of the game. Arneson's chief claims rest on his evolution of certain key concepts that would constitute all role-playing games to follow. Gygax's claim rests upon the fact that most of the early reference works were authored by Gygax.

===OD&D===
In 1972, Gary Gygax and others formed a partnership called Tactical Studies Rules and in 1974 Tactical Studies Rules published Gary Gygax' version of "the Fantasy Game", later named ''Dungeons & Dragons''. <ref>http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnDArchives_History.asp#</ref> This version of the game --- often called ''Original Dungeons & Dragons'', ''Old Dungeons & Dragons'' or ''OD&D'' --- was printed in staple-bound paperback form from folded sheets of 8.5 x 11 paper and sold as a boxed set.

By many accounts, ''OD&D'' was a clunky game, sparse on rules, but in this game one would find all the elements of a modern role-playing game: player characters, a game master, serial adventures, and the opportunity for character growth. Several print runs of this version sold out quickly and went on to exceed the expectations of everyone involved.

After the tremendous success of the D&D paperbacks, Tactical Studies Rules reorganized with partners Gary Gygax, Don Kaye and Brian Blume under the name TSR Hobbies Inc. In 1975, TSR Hobbies published OD&D supplements, Gygax's ''[[Greyhawk]]'' and Arneson's ''[[Blackmoor]]''. <ref>http://www.dadsdnd.com/greyhawk.html</ref> <ref>http://www.dadsdnd.com/blackmoor.html</ref>

''Dungeons & Dragons'' began to be noticed by American culture at about the same time the company released ''Eldritch Wizardry'' and ''God, Demigods & Heroes''. The cover of ''Eldritch Wizardry'' featured an nude dress female strewn over an altar. <ref>http://www.deigames.com/eldwiz2.JPG</ref> ''Gods, Demigods & Heroes'' was a mythological reference with gods and heroes from the legends and lore of Greeks, Egyptians, Indians, Norse and more. Many of these mythological gods are considered creatures of human invention, but some are now considered demons by the Christian Church.

Although the game was gaining popularity, the works served as a lightning rod for criticism. Although some of the art in these and later editions would violate the [[Comics Code]], the publishers at TSR failed to appreciate the danger of ignoring these rules. Some of TSR's management believed that D&D was marketed toward adult males, not teens and preteens, and thus the Comics Code did not apply. It soon became evident that D&D's popularity reached beyond college-age males.

===First Edition===
In 1977, TSR Hobbies published the Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set, a boxed set containing revised and abbreviated rules for easier introduction to the game. This was followed in 1978 by the publication of the "core rule books" of D&D: the ''Players Handbook'', the ''Dungeon Masters Guide'' and the ''Monster Manual''. (Later editions of this game would follow this pattern.) Taken as a whole with several other reference books this version of the game is alternatively referred to as Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, AD&D, 1E, 1ED&D. This version of the game revised and organized the notes from OD&D into a single playable whole in hardback books.

Although the art found in the books is hardly obscene and does not approach what is found regularly in American culture today, there were a handful of depictions that did not meet the Comics Code. For example, a harpy, a creature from Greek mythology, that is half-woman half-vulture was depicted with nipples revealed. <ref>''Monster Manual'' by Gary Gygax published by TSR Hobbies 1978</ref> And a mermaid was depicted topless with her hair covering parts of the chest. <ref>''Dungeon Masters Guide'' by Gary Gygax published by TSR Hobbies 1979</ref>

Additionally the game had references to many demons and devils (intended as adversaries). Also the game had a polytheist mythos with some players playing the part of clerics, or priests, of these imaginary or mythical gods. (See backlash below.)

===Second Edition===
In 1983, TSR Hobbies changed its name to TSR, Inc. For the next several years, TSR, Inc. released supplements and adventures for AD&D, along with reprints of the AD&D core books. Typical adventure supplements sold 10,000 to 100,000 units, while each print run of the AD&D core rules sold 40,000 copies. <ref>http://www.acaeum.com/library/printrun.html</ref> While the company continue to sell respectable amounts of product, internal disorganization, in-fighting and corporate inefficiencies limited profitability. After a bitter fight with partners, Gygax was forced from the board of directors and eventually left the company. With Arneson gone since First Edition, the game was now in the hands of a second generation.

In 1989, TSR Inc. released Second Edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. This version of the game was largely a rewrite of the previous edition that was nearly fully compatible with First Edition AD&D. The game was largely sanitized and edited, but not so much reborne. For example, the art of Second Edition achieved a more professional standard. The art did not violate the Comics Code. Second Edition removed all references to "real" gods, devils and demons and inserted divas and angelic creatures.

Under the umbrella of Second Edition D&D, TSR, Inc. released some of its most enduring and popular titles. Ravenloft, Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance were all second edition products.

===Third Edition===
In 1997, TSR, Inc. was purchased by [[Wizards of the Coast]]. (Wizards is often called WotC, and this acronym is pronounced ''what-see''.) Wizards (eventually acquired by Hasbro) continued to improve the art and graphics of D&D and in 2000 released ''Third Edition Dungeons & Dragons'' to supplant second edition. While preserving the concepts of RPGing and many of the archetypes of AD&D, Third Edition (3E) would do what Second Edition had not.

Third Edition rewrote many of the basic constructs of the game in an effort to "modernize" the game and streamline some of D&D's clumsiest and clunkiest mechanics. Third Edition rules and supplements broke from the tradition of improving an existing system. Rather third edition replaced the previous system with "new and better" mechanics.

By the time of the release of Third Edition, most of the controversy associated with D&D had dissipated as secular culture had digressed far beyond anything found in previous D&D. With little controversy or fanfare, D&D reintroduced demons and many of the darker concepts of ''Dungeons & Dragons''.

Now based in Seattle Washington, rather than Lake Geneva Wisconsin, the editors at WotC seem to exhibit the cultural norms found in Seattle rather than the heartlands. For example, rather than using the pronoun ''he'' in non-gender specific rules, Third Edition D&D bypasses the clumsy but [[political_correctness | politically correct]] construct ''he/she'', and describes rules based on hypothetical characters. For example, the 3rd Edition "iconic" paladin was a woman named Alhandra, so the rules text describing the paladin's abilities used "she"; 3rd Edition's "iconic" cleric was a man named Jozan, so the rules text describing the cleric's abilities used "he".

The D&D ethos traditionally favored ''good'' characters, but Third Edition seems to subscribe to a "balanced" view as the idea. For example, many of the more evil creatures in Dungeons and Dragons prey on each other as much as on good people (the iconic example being lawful evil devils and chaotic evil demons); some of the text in the game indicates that they should be left to do this, rather than someone trying to destroy one or the other and uniting them, however briefly, in a struggle against the interloper. This is a troubling symptom of our cultural drift from conservative values but not the cause of that drift.

===Fourth Edition===
With much fanfare, the Fourth Edition of the game was recently announced. Coveting the tremendous revenue of miniatures games like [[Games Workshop]]'s ''[[Warhammer]]'', Fourth Edition is compatible with the new D&D Miniatures game. Fourth Edition also uses many of the conventions wildly accepted in online computer games following widely successful games like Blizzard's [[World_of_Warcraft | World of Warcraft]] and [[Diablo]]. The game makes several other adjustments; see above for some such changes.

====D&D Online====
There is now a Dungeons & Dragons Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game (MMORPG) known as ''Dungeons & Dragons Online: Stormreach'' which takes place in the ''Eberron'' campaign setting. Online and computer games are similar to D&D in many respects, but the play of these games is entirely different. D&D is characterized by a human referee and complete freedom of action. Without these key components, the game is a mere shadow of D&D.

===Summary===

''Dungeons & Dragons'' is nothing more or less than a formalized game of pretend, similar to imaginary adventures that children everywhere play. But, the simplicity of this concept was not immediately evident to players of ''Dungeons & Dragons'' or the public at large. Although D&D has a fantasy theme and many rules for resolving actions, ''Dungeons & Dragons'' is at its core a game of pretend like "cops and robbers" or "cowboys and Indians".

==Concerns and Criticisms==
In the late seventies and early eighties, the sudden popularity of ''Dungeons & Dragons'' resulted in a cultural and religious backlash against perceived dangers from the game. ''Dungeons & Dragons'' was linked to the occult, witchcraft & demonology. Additionally there was some criticism about the art depicted in the earliest versions of the game. Much of this criticism came from the natural tendency of people to fear the unknown and to fear new ideas, but some of this criticism was valid and affected later versions of what was published under the name ''Dungeons & Dragons''.

===Demons and Devils===
In D&D, player characters (the player's in game persona) are constantly gaining strength and power. Therefore, they are forever seeking more powerful adversaries and more difficult challenges. For example, at the start of a campaign player characters may be doing battle with creatures short of stature with few may limitations (low intelligence, fear of sunlight) such as [[goblin]]s or [[kobold]]s. But as the player character's power increases, so to increases the deadliness of their opponents. In the search for ever more powerful opponents game designers eventually developed attributes for demons and devils.

The publishers of the game had imagined that they would sell a few hundred copies to college-aged males and never imagined that the game would experience explosive popularity, especially among teens as young as thirteen. Therefore, no thought or planning was invested into the potential impact of defining the powers and abilities of demons and devils. To the game's designers and players, killing a demon (in game) was no more controversial than killing a bishop in a game of chess.

But to bystanders the very inclusion of demons and devils was enough to cast suspicion upon the entire game--particularly since the game's much-touted freedom might allow a character to side with them. Additionally, the inclusions of demons and devils in the game raised other questions, such as why there are no angels in the game. There were no angels in the earliest editions of the game, because there was no reason to have an angel in the role of a ''monster''. (See terminology above.) By late First Edition and early Second Edition, the game included and defined [[angels]], [[devas]] and other highly powerful creatures of good; sometimes these were presented as allies for good characters, sometimes enemies for evil ones. This led to the criticism that religious icons were being disrespected by inclusion in the reference works.

In the Second Edition, the publishers tried to sanitize D&D by removing demons and devils, but many players (who enjoyed the challenge of destroying demons) resisted this effort. Later editions removed many references to "real" demons. Additionally, the terms "devil" and "demon" were replaced with the terms "baatezu" and "tanar'ri", respectively, and "the Nine Hells" (the outer planar home of devils/baatezu) was renamed "Baator".

However, in Third Edition, the game's original terms were readopted and blended--colloquially, for example, creatures from the Nine Hells (also called Baator) were called devils, but the most dominant species of the devils called themselves baatezu. An entire "mature" supplement (though there is no legal restriction on who may buy it, a large sticker is on the cover of most copies, stating it is for mature gamers only), known as the Book of Vile Darkness<ref>[http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/881610000 "Book of Vile Darkness"]</ref> was produced to introduce more overtly evil concepts into the game, ostensibly in ways for the DM to make the most horrific enemies possible for their players. A follow-up, the Book of Exalted Deeds<ref>[http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/880260000 "Book of Exalted Deeds"]</ref>, was created as a way for players to explore the philosophy and morality of good, and to make a good alignment more than a line on their character sheet. (The titles of both books are based on magic items in the game, both of which are extremely useful to a person of the proper alignment.)

The Fourth Edition Player's Handbook contains a "Warlock" class, which allows the player to make a pact with a certain creature to gain power. One option is the "Infernal Pact", allowing the player to literally make a deal with the devil.

===D&D and the Occult===
The game includes fictional depictions of supernatural abilities called magic, evil monsters called demons and devils, and fictional deities along with their followers. Christians are divided on how this interacts with their faith. A minority of Christians believe that fictional depictions of fantasy elements such as those found in ''[[The Chronicles of Narnia]]'', ''[[The Lord of the Rings]]'', ''[[Harry Potter]]'', or ''Dungeons & Dragons'' are blasphemous, but most Christians see no problem with such fictional works.

Starting in the late 1970s the game and others like it came under attack mainly from some fundamentalist Christians as promoting occult and criminal activity. The game's dangers were alleged in the ''Dark Dungeons'' tract by [[Jack Chick]]<ref>Jack Chick: [http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.asp "Dark Dungeons"]</ref>, which portrays D&D players committing suicide when their characters are killed or joining secret witches' covens and learning to cast real magic spells when their characters reach a high enough level.

The fact is that ''Dungeons & Dragons'' designers and players had nothing to do with occult or criminal activity and thirty years later it may be hard to understand how people could confuse D&D with occult activities. In the earliest days of D&D it was easy for an uninformed bystander to draw faulty conclusions based upon a limited knowledge of the game. In its earliest days, OD&D often sold out due to low print runs, leaving bystanders with little access to the rules and little direct knowledge of the game.

For example, bystanders knew the game was developing a devoted cult-following. There is an important distinction between a cult-following and a cult itself, but this was lost on some bystanders. As a cult-following, D&D developed an insular fraternity of fans who were plugged into something exciting and new. Each day the world of D&D expanded and every player everywhere had a hand in the growth of the game. The players were developing their own lexicon and making new and ever expanding rules. This close bond and strange lexicon was easily misunderstood by those with limited exposure to the game.

In the late seventies the game's popularity was preceded by rumors that players were involved in some strange occult activities. Bystanders knew that D&D players were talking about fantastic creatures, magical spells and even demons because the game often includes descriptions of [[occult]] elements like [[magic]], [[ghost]]s, [[spirit]]s, [[demon]]s and [[devil]]s. To an uninformed bystander this may be pretty scary stuff. But, the truth was significantly less mysterious and sensational.

These misperceptions have largely evaporated, both because of the game's popularity and better information about the product. Critics became aware that players were not involved in anything occult but were gaming in a fantasy setting. Most everyone in America knows someone who has played ''Dungeons & Dragons'', so these days it's all but impossible to blur the line between occult activity and role-playing games.

===God and gods===
One item of concern for conservative Christians is that players' characters do not usually worship [[God]], but instead choose a [[patron]] deity from a fictional [[polytheistic]] pantheon. The game settings manufactured by [[Wizards of the Coast]] (''Greyhawk'', ''Faerun'', ''Eberron'', etc.) expressly adopt a polytheistic [[pantheon]] of fictional deities and reject real-world [[religion]]s as a part of the game. (The Deities and Demigods<ref>[http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/881650000 "Deities and Demigods"]</ref> supplement offers several different takes on religion, including rules for a monotheistic game world, but deliberately sidesteps the question of any modern religion--Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.--even as it brings up pantheons of old myths, such as the Greek or Norse gods. It's likely they used only "dead" religions in order to avoid controversy.) The question of what extent and form of religion should be depicted in the game has been a question since the earliest days of the game. In an in depth look at monotheism in fantasy games, Joseph R.Ravitts raised some of the problems and benefits for a born-again Christian's point of view.<ref>"Monotheism in Gaming" by Joseph R. Ravitts, Pegasus Magazine Issue #4 published in 1981 by Judges' Guild</ref>

Ravitts already understood the power of role-playing, which is now well known. Namely, role-playing is a powerful behavior modification tool. If you pretend that you believe something, eventually you will believe that something. For this reason, he posited that it was important to avoid role-playing in a polytheistic world. Referencing the classic argument from ''[[Mere Christianity]]'' by [[C.S._Lewis | C.S. Lewis]], Ravitts explained how polytheism is really just [[atheism]] or [[monotheism]] in disguise. He believed that if players and DM's actively played in an atheistic world, they would eventually become atheists.

He then pointed out the difficulties of importing Christianity or other religions into D&D. Ravitts pointed out it is a simple matter to import mythological gods like [[Zeus]] or [[Thor]] into a fantasy setting. One simply imagines these gods are in the fantasy world and begins playing. But this is much more difficult with religious figures like [[Jesus]], [[Muhammad]] or [[Buddha]]. Each of these three men were real historic personages. For example, Jesus lived, died and rose again in the Middle East at a specific time and place.

Ravitts proposed two simple work-arounds, for those who care about their spiritual well-being. Firstly, one could assume that all humans are teleported from Earth or descended from folks who were teleported from Earth. These humans have preserved their religious identities and thus Christianity is an option for players without tampering with the historical nature of Jesus. Secondly Ravitts proposed altering the game's mythos to allow for an all-powerful detached God reigning over the "gods, demigods and devils". In this way the "gods" are not gods at all, but just ultra-powerful beings who distract souls from worshiping the one true God.

However, it is worth noting that novels and "sourcebooks" make occasional references to a "God of gods".

Of course there are alternatives such as ''[http://www.greenronin.com/catalog/grr1019 Testament]'' a D&D type game set in the Biblical Era. Further, many of the game worlds portray certain gods and religions as being metaphors for modern ones. (Even the incredibly polytheistic Forgotten Realms, where more than a hundred deities exist, features a triad of gods that could be based on the Holy Trinity.) But ultimately, D&D is a game of fantasy and players are encouraged to alter the game world to better suit their tastes, and many Christian players and DMs alter the game world so that it better fits their personal beliefs.

===The art of D&D===
Another criticism is that illustrations in the rule books for ''Dungeons & Dragons'' often contain images of immodestly dressed women. For example, in the First Edition ''Monster Manual'' a number of drawings depicted topless creatures of fantasy such as the harpy (half-vulture half-woman) or the succubus (a demoness). The OD&D reference ''Eldritch Wizardry'' featured the profile of a nude woman. Most of these images are fairly crudely rendered and are not particularly racy by today's standards, but they did exceed the limitations of the [[Comics Code]] of the time<ref>http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8580/cca3.html</ref>.

By the publication of Second Edition, the art and layout of the D&D game was managed by professionals. As a result the quality of the art increased significantly and anything racy was eliminated from the art work. There was some minor controversy with the revised Third Edition ''Monster Manual'''s artwork of the succubus and nymph (a water spirit in the form of a beautiful woman), but aside from these there is nothing particularly shocking in the art for a child or adult of any age.

===Unchristian Activities===
Although Dungeons & Dragons does not present itself as either pro-Christian or anti-Christian, the game features many elements which can be considered to agree with or go against the teachings of Christ. The game has drawn criticism for allowing players to undertake the roleplaying of un-Christian activities: the rules allow a player to have their character perform evil acts, including the summoning or worshiping of demons and devils. Certain fundamentalists disagree with the very format of the game in that player characters can pretend to cast imaginary spells while playing the game.

Some feel that the primary action of the game involves the fictional slaying of monsters and the fictional accumulation of wealth, some Christians feel that this goes against the teachings of Christ regarding [[pacifism]] ([[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]] 5:38-42) and the accumulation of [[wealth]] (Matthew 19:24). Others see these actions as heroic endeavors and wealth is a byproduct of doing good things. Either way, the game and it's choices are a matter of free will.

Former [[United Methodist Church]] minister James Wyatt wrote an essay comparing the freedom of a Dungeons & Dragons player to choose his own actions, to the Christian concept of Free Will. As in real life, a player may, when presented with a moral choice, decide for himself whether to do good or evil. If the player was not able to do evil, he would be forced to do good, removing his freedom. Similarly, God allows human beings to choose between good and evil in real life, and people must accept the consequences of their choice. The supplements that deal specifically with demons and devils make it quite clear that the afterlife for characters who are condemned to the Abyss or the Nine Heels is in no way pleasant, and may even be short.

Tracy Hickman, one of the main authors of the Dungeons & Dragons Dragonlance book series, and a Christian with conservative politics and theology, has written a number of articles defending and discussing D&D from a Christian perspective. <ref name="Waldron">The Journal of Religion and Popular Culture: [http://www.usask.ca/relst/jrpc/art9-roleplaying.html "Role-Playing Games and the Christian Right"]</ref> Others within the Dungeons & Dragons community responded by writing other defenses from rationalist perspectives or other perspectives or by writing parodies such as "Chess: The Subtle Sin: Should Christians play chess?". Some argue that in response to the perceived Christian persecution of the Dungeons & Dragons, darker themed, deliberately counter-cultural games appeared in reaction such as [[Call of Cthulhu]] which is based on the horror writing of [[H.P. Lovecraft]] and set in the [[Cthulhu|Cthulhu Mythos]]<ref name="Waldron"/>, or [[Vampire: the Masquerade]], where players act the roles of undead vampires.

====Possible Areas of Concern for Christians====
D&D is a "game of pretend" whereby players pretend to take certain actions and the DM adjudicates the results of those actions. By its very nature, this leaves players open to experiment with various moral quandaries and social dilemmas. This is a valuable tool for players to learn the implications and results of playing both good and evil characters. However, the possibility exists that such an experience may not be beneficial or appropriate for everyone--in particular, persons who already have difficulty separating fantasy with reality might be able to be helped by the game, but it could also make things worse. Due to the nature of roleplaying games, a great deal depends upon the individual group in question; a given game of Dungeons and Dragons might be benign from a Christian standpoint, or it might involve activities and ideas that a Christian would find profoundly distasteful.

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
* [http://aquela.com/roleplaying/r&r/index.html Religion and Roleplaying]
* [http://www.fansforchrist.org/new/articles/article03a.htm Christians Playing Dungeons and Dragons] - An informed Christian's perspective on Dungeons & Dragons.
* [http://www.trhickman.com/Intel/Essays/Ethic2.html Ethics in Fantasy: Morality and D&D] - Tracey Hickman's essay concerning Christian perspectives and common misunderstandings about Role-Playing Games
* [http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/3691 Full text of H.G. Wells ''Little Wars; a game for boys from twelve years of age to one hundred and fifty']

[[Category:Games]]

Dungeons and Dragons

2010-05-21T03:52:41Z

Jinxmchue: /* Game play */

'''Dungeons & Dragons''' (D&D or DnD) is a [[role-playing]] game with a medieval theme featuring [[myth]]ical creatures such as [[elf|elves]], [[dwarf (mythology)|dwarves]], [[orc]]s, and [[dragon]]s, but also semi-fictionalized [[demons]]. Players take the role of characters who solve a series of heroic adventures or quests. Though argued to be a harmless game, it has attracted a variety of criticism.

Players typically do not compete against one another; rather, the players cooperate to achieve goals and objectives while a referee, in this case called the ''dungeon master'' (DM) or ''game master'' (GM), interprets rules and adjudicates the success or failure of the players' efforts.

The game was first published in 1974 by Tactical Studies Rules (TSR). Most of those rules and many of the subsequent rules were authored by [[Gary Gygax]]. There are some who claim that [[Dave Arneson]] was the actual "inventor" of D&D, but this claim is disputed, not least by the fact that many references were authored by Gygax. After its original publisher TSR, Inc., went bankrupt, the game was sold to [[Wizards of the Coast]], a division of Hasbro.<ref>Wizards of the Coast's [http://www.wizards.com/dnd D&D site]</ref>

In the late 1970s, the game's popularity exploded, particularly on college campuses. ''Dungeons & Dragons'' spawned countless variations and permutations, but during the earliest days of the game's growth, there were accusations that the game contributed to Satanic worship, teen suicide and general moral depravity. These criticisms have been repeatedly addressed by the game's creators and defenders.

The 4th Edition of the game is the most recent, released in 2008.

==Game play==
''Dungeons & Dragons'' is a free-form game in which a referee (the Dungeon Master) describes a situational problem to the players and then the players reply with any imaginable response. The exploits of players can occur in any fantasy setting but at some point the adventure often occurs in a ''dungeon'' or subterranean locale not unlike ''[[Khazad-dûm|Moria]]'' in [[Tolkien]]'s ''[[The Lord of the Rings]]''.

Players' characters can gain more powers and abilities from earning ''experience points'' for completing various tasks (e.g. solving puzzles, killing enemies) during adventures.

===Alignment System===
Because D&D players can basically do "anything" there are moral implications to the choices players make. To provide a frame of reference and to help the game make sense Gygax devised an alignment system. All characters are required to choose an ''alignment'' and the character must adhere to the beliefs of that alignment. Similarly, all monsters have alignments and thus their actions can be predictable and make sense.

"Good" characters strive to do acts of goodness and while avoiding actions which are hurtful to others. "Evil" characters think only of their own desires. Morally "Neutral" characters don't care much about good or evil. At the same time "Lawful" characters believe that it is important to adhere to the rule of law, while "Chaotic" characters are more concerned with personal freedoms than with laws. Ethically "Neutral" characters do not care whether an action is lawful or chaotic. By combining these two frameworks, we arrive at the nine alignments: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, true neutral ("neutral neutral"), chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil.

These alignments help a player separate what the player or referee would do in a given situation from how the character or monster might react in the same situation. Some DMs forbid evil characters as they are often disruptive to the game, though the rules do not expressly require that players choose good characters. The ability to play evil characters has been among the criticisms against the game.

In the original versions of the game, only the "ethical" (Law/Chaos) axis of morality was present. The "moral" (good/evil) axis was added in later editions. 4th Edition removes the axis concept, resulting in the alignments lawful good, good, unaligned, evil, and chaotic evil.

===Components of a Character===
A character is described in detail on a "character sheet" where the player records important facts about the character. This includes the character's "race", vocation, unique skills, and numerical ratings of the character's attributes.

In this case, "race" refers to a race from fantasy such as an elf, dwarf, gnome or halfling--effectively used as an archaic term for "species". The races which are allowed in the game vary from DM to DM according to the tastes of players and the setting that the DM has devised. The vocation or "class" of the character refers to the fantasy archetype the player wishes to play, e.g. wizard, barbarian, rogue, cleric, etc. The selection of race and class will impact skills and attributes which are available to the character as well as the strengths and weaknesses the character.

===The Magic System ===
The magic system used in Dungeons & Dragons was originally adopted very roughly from the writing of fantasy and science fiction author [[Jack Vance]]. In the Vancian system, magic-users such as wizards must prepare all of their spells in advance for that day by memorizing them and a spell leaves the wizard's memory upon being cast. To cast the spell again, the magic-user must once again memorize the spell. The Vancian system was chosen for a variety of reasons such as its originality compared to pre-existing magical systems, its avoidance any connection with systems of magic described in any religion or occult theory, and it being the creation one of Gygax's favorite authors.<ref>Forum discussion: [http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/printthread.php?t=182603 "Is D&D magic purely Vancian?"]</ref><ref>RPGnet: [http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/10/10222.phtml Review of "The Primer of Practical Magic"]</ref> Novices and those who have never played the game should note that in this case, the player doesn't actually memorize anything. The character "memorization" is really just a mechanic to help limit the number of spells a player can use per gaming episode. The 4th Edition makes significant changes to the system, basing most abilities on "per encounter" uses (as in, how many times per battle or event an ability can be used).

===The Combat System ===
To determine the outcome of combat, players roll dice to determine if an attack "hits" and then if the attack hits how much damage the attack does. Damage reduces the defender's "hit points". When a combatant's hit points are depleted that combatant is "dead" or incapacitated. This combat system was developed from a ship-to-ship naval combat game that Gygax adapted to describe medieval man-to-man combat.

==History and Development==
To many Americans ''Dungeons & Dragons'' seemed to appear from nothingness as a wholly born concoction of occult elements and hypnotic game play. The truth is that the game evolved from mundane roots in a quite corner of Wisconsin outside Milwaukee. The origins of D&D are found in a prior generation of [[miniatures games]] such as [[H.G. Wells]]' [[Little Wars]]. ''Little Wars'' is a set of rules which describe how to play a game with toy soldiers.

Wells' rules were themselves were based upon a earlier games which were primarily played by nobility and royals to teach warfare strategy. <ref>http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=6040&pageno=2 Foreword to Little Wars by ''H.G. Wells''</ref>. With the publication of ''Little Wars'', H.G. Wells hoped to bring a game previously known only to kings to the common man. Because tin soldiers do not bleed and do not leave widows, it was Wells hope that men could settle differences by little wars rather than real wars.

Miniature gaming such as ''Little Wars'' was nearly unknown in America, although there were pockets of hobbyists such as "International Federation of Gamers", a tiny group near Milwaukee Wisconsin.<ref>http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnDArchives_History.asp</ref> [[Gary Gygax]] and [[Dave Arneson]] were members of that gaming group. It can rightly be said that Gygax and Arneson are the fathers of modern role-playing games, but the contributions of other local gamers are muddied into this mix as well.

===Gygax & Arneson===
In the earliest days, the International Federation of Gamers was possessed of a grand name, but little more. Of course few records were kept at that time. Thus, there is some dispute about who exactly invented what aspects of the game. In 1969, Gary Gygax adapted rules meant to govern wooden ship combat into a medieval combat game which was published by Guidon Games under the name ''Chainmail''. The game was very popular locally and grew organically over the next few years. At the same time, ''[[The Lord of the Rings]]'' was gaining mass appeal in the United States. This inspired players to incorporate elements of fantasy into their wargames.

By 1970, Dave Arneson adapted these and other club rules into something generally referred to as ''the fantasy game'' <ref>http://jovianclouds.com/blackmoor/</ref>. ''The fantasy game'' had several key innovations --- many of which were of Arneson's devising. In previous wargames, players generally led an army of toy soldiers. But in ''the fantasy game'', each player had only one soldier, described as a ''character'' or ''player character''.

Further the game evolved to include the concept that at the next game session would pick up where the last game session ended. Another evolutionary concept was the idea of a referee or game master. The referee, often played by Arneson or Gygax, had the job of making final judgments and augmenting the rules as necessary to keep the game going. <ref>http://jovianclouds.com/blackmoor/rpg2.html</ref>

There is some question as to who exactly designed what in ''the fantasy game'' with at times Gygax and Arneson jointly and severably claiming to have "invented the game". There is no doubt that both many, and many gamers, where involved in the evolution of the game. Arneson's chief claims rest on his evolution of certain key concepts that would constitute all role-playing games to follow. Gygax's claim rests upon the fact that most of the early reference works were authored by Gygax.

===OD&D===
In 1972, Gary Gygax and others formed a partnership called Tactical Studies Rules and in 1974 Tactical Studies Rules published Gary Gygax' version of "the Fantasy Game", later named ''Dungeons & Dragons''. <ref>http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnDArchives_History.asp#</ref> This version of the game --- often called ''Original Dungeons & Dragons'', ''Old Dungeons & Dragons'' or ''OD&D'' --- was printed in staple-bound paperback form from folded sheets of 8.5 x 11 paper and sold as a boxed set.

By many accounts, ''OD&D'' was a clunky game, sparse on rules, but in this game one would find all the elements of a modern role-playing game: player characters, a game master, serial adventures, and the opportunity for character growth. Several print runs of this version sold out quickly and went on to exceed the expectations of everyone involved.

After the tremendous success of the D&D paperbacks, Tactical Studies Rules reorganized with partners Gary Gygax, Don Kaye and Brian Blume under the name TSR Hobbies Inc. In 1975, TSR Hobbies published OD&D supplements, Gygax's ''[[Greyhawk]]'' and Arneson's ''[[Blackmoor]]''. <ref>http://www.dadsdnd.com/greyhawk.html</ref> <ref>http://www.dadsdnd.com/blackmoor.html</ref>

''Dungeons & Dragons'' began to be noticed by American culture at about the same time the company released ''Eldritch Wizardry'' and ''God, Demigods & Heroes''. The cover of ''Eldritch Wizardry'' featured an nude dress female strewn over an altar. <ref>http://www.deigames.com/eldwiz2.JPG</ref> ''Gods, Demigods & Heroes'' was a mythological reference with gods and heroes from the legends and lore of Greeks, Egyptians, Indians, Norse and more. Many of these mythological gods are considered creatures of human invention, but some are now considered demons by the Christian Church.

Although the game was gaining popularity, the works served as a lightning rod for criticism. Although some of the art in these and later editions would violate the [[Comics Code]], the publishers at TSR failed to appreciate the danger of ignoring these rules. Some of TSR's management believed that D&D was marketed toward adult males, not teens and preteens, and thus the Comics Code did not apply. It soon became evident that D&D's popularity reached beyond college-age males.

===First Edition===
In 1977, TSR Hobbies published the Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set, a boxed set containing revised and abbreviated rules for easier introduction to the game. This was followed in 1978 by the publication of the "core rule books" of D&D: the ''Players Handbook'', the ''Dungeon Masters Guide'' and the ''Monster Manual''. (Later editions of this game would follow this pattern.) Taken as a whole with several other reference books this version of the game is alternatively referred to as Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, AD&D, 1E, 1ED&D. This version of the game revised and organized the notes from OD&D into a single playable whole in hardback books.

Although the art found in the books is hardly obscene and does not approach what is found regularly in American culture today, there were a handful of depictions that did not meet the Comics Code. For example, a harpy, a creature from Greek mythology, that is half-woman half-vulture was depicted with nipples revealed. <ref>''Monster Manual'' by Gary Gygax published by TSR Hobbies 1978</ref> And a mermaid was depicted topless with her hair covering parts of the chest. <ref>''Dungeon Masters Guide'' by Gary Gygax published by TSR Hobbies 1979</ref>

Additionally the game had references to many demons and devils (intended as adversaries). Also the game had a polytheist mythos with some players playing the part of clerics, or priests, of these imaginary or mythical gods. (See backlash below.)

===Second Edition===
In 1983, TSR Hobbies changed its name to TSR, Inc. For the next several years, TSR, Inc. released supplements and adventures for AD&D, along with reprints of the AD&D core books. Typical adventure supplements sold 10,000 to 100,000 units, while each print run of the AD&D core rules sold 40,000 copies. <ref>http://www.acaeum.com/library/printrun.html</ref> While the company continue to sell respectable amounts of product, internal disorganization, in-fighting and corporate inefficiencies limited profitability. After a bitter fight with partners, Gygax was forced from the board of directors and eventually left the company. With Arneson gone since First Edition, the game was now in the hands of a second generation.

In 1989, TSR Inc. released Second Edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. This version of the game was largely a rewrite of the previous edition that was nearly fully compatible with First Edition AD&D. The game was largely sanitized and edited, but not so much reborne. For example, the art of Second Edition achieved a more professional standard. The art did not violate the Comics Code. Second Edition removed all references to "real" gods, devils and demons and inserted divas and angelic creatures.

Under the umbrella of Second Edition D&D, TSR, Inc. released some of its most enduring and popular titles. Ravenloft, Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance were all second edition products.

===Third Edition===
In 1997, TSR, Inc. was purchased by [[Wizards of the Coast]]. (Wizards is often called WotC, and this acronym is pronounced ''what-see''.) Wizards (eventually acquired by Hasbro) continued to improve the art and graphics of D&D and in 2000 released ''Third Edition Dungeons & Dragons'' to supplant second edition. While preserving the concepts of RPGing and many of the archetypes of AD&D, Third Edition (3E) would do what Second Edition had not.

Third Edition rewrote many of the basic constructs of the game in an effort to "modernize" the game and streamline some of D&D's clumsiest and clunkiest mechanics. Third Edition rules and supplements broke from the tradition of improving an existing system. Rather third edition replaced the previous system with "new and better" mechanics.

By the time of the release of Third Edition, most of the controversy associated with D&D had dissipated as secular culture had digressed far beyond anything found in previous D&D. With little controversy or fanfare, D&D reintroduced demons and many of the darker concepts of ''Dungeons & Dragons''.

Now based in Seattle Washington, rather than Lake Geneva Wisconsin, the editors at WotC seem to exhibit the cultural norms found in Seattle rather than the heartlands. For example, rather than using the pronoun ''he'' in non-gender specific rules, Third Edition D&D bypasses the clumsy but [[political_correctness | politically correct]] construct ''he/she'', and describes rules based on hypothetical characters. For example, the 3rd Edition "iconic" paladin was a woman named Alhandra, so the rules text describing the paladin's abilities used "she"; 3rd Edition's "iconic" cleric was a man named Jozan, so the rules text describing the cleric's abilities used "he".

The D&D ethos traditionally favored ''good'' characters, but Third Edition seems to subscribe to a "balanced" view as the idea. For example, many of the more evil creatures in Dungeons and Dragons prey on each other as much as on good people (the iconic example being lawful evil devils and chaotic evil demons); some of the text in the game indicates that they should be left to do this, rather than someone trying to destroy one or the other and uniting them, however briefly, in a struggle against the interloper. This is a troubling symptom of our cultural drift from conservative values but not the cause of that drift.

===Fourth Edition===
With much fanfare, the Fourth Edition of the game was recently announced. Coveting the tremendous revenue of miniatures games like [[Games Workshop]]'s ''[[Warhammer]]'', Fourth Edition is compatible with the new D&D Miniatures game. Fourth Edition also uses many of the conventions wildly accepted in online computer games following widely successful games like Blizzard's [[World_of_Warcraft | World of Warcraft]] and [[Diablo]]. The game makes several other adjustments; see above for some such changes.

====D&D Online====
There is now a Dungeons & Dragons Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game (MMORPG) known as ''Dungeons & Dragons Online: Stormreach'' which takes place in the ''Eberron'' campaign setting. Online and computer games are similar to D&D in many respects, but the play of these games is entirely different. D&D is characterized by a human referee and complete freedom of action. Without these key components, the game is a mere shadow of D&D.

===Summary===

''Dungeons & Dragons'' is nothing more or less than a formalized game of pretend, similar to imaginary adventures that children everywhere play. But, the simplicity of this concept was not immediately evident to players of ''Dungeons & Dragons'' or the public at large. Although D&D has a fantasy theme and many rules for resolving actions, ''Dungeons & Dragons'' is at its core a game of pretend like "cops and robbers" or "cowboys and Indians".

==Concerns and Criticisms==
In the late seventies and early eighties, the sudden popularity of ''Dungeons & Dragons'' resulted in a cultural and religious backlash against perceived dangers from the game. ''Dungeons & Dragons'' was linked to the occult, witchcraft & demonology. Additionally there was some criticism about the art depicted in the earliest versions of the game. Much of this criticism came from the natural tendency of people to fear the unknown and to fear new ideas, but some of this criticism was valid and affected later versions of what was published under the name ''Dungeons & Dragons''.

===Demons and Devils===
In D&D, player characters (the player's in game persona) are constantly gaining strength and power. Therefore, they are forever seeking more powerful adversaries and more difficult challenges. For example, at the start of a campaign player characters may be doing battle with creatures short of stature with few may limitations (low intelligence, fear of sunlight) such as [[goblin]]s or [[kobold]]s. But as the player character's power increases, so to increases the deadliness of their opponents. In the search for ever more powerful opponents game designers eventually developed attributes for demons and devils.

The publishers of the game had imagined that they would sell a few hundred copies to college-aged males and never imagined that the game would experience explosive popularity, especially among teens as young as thirteen. Therefore, no thought or planning was invested into the potential impact of defining the powers and abilities of demons and devils. To the game's designers and players, killing a demon (in game) was no more controversial than killing a bishop in a game of chess.

But to bystanders the very inclusion of demons and devils was enough to cast suspicion upon the entire game--particularly since the game's much-touted freedom might allow a character to side with them. Additionally, the inclusions of demons and devils in the game raised other questions, such as why there are no angels in the game. There were no angels in the earliest editions of the game, because there was no reason to have an angel in the role of a ''monster''. (See terminology above.) By late First Edition and early Second Edition, the game included and defined [[angels]], [[devas]] and other highly powerful creatures of good; sometimes these were presented as allies for good characters, sometimes enemies for evil ones. This led to the criticism that religious icons were being disrespected by inclusion in the reference works.

In the Second Edition, the publishers tried to sanitize D&D by removing demons and devils, but many players (who enjoyed the challenge of destroying demons) resisted this effort. Later editions removed many references to "real" demons. Additionally, the terms "devil" and "demon" were replaced with the terms "baatezu" and "tanar'ri", respectively, and "the Nine Hells" (the outer planar home of devils/baatezu) was renamed "Baator".

However, in Third Edition, the game's original terms were readopted and blended--colloquially, for example, creatures from the Nine Hells (also called Baator) were called devils, but the most dominant species of the devils called themselves baatezu. An entire "mature" supplement (though there is no legal restriction on who may buy it, a large sticker is on the cover of most copies, stating it is for mature gamers only), known as the Book of Vile Darkness<ref>[http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/881610000 "Book of Vile Darkness"]</ref> was produced to introduce more overtly evil concepts into the game, ostensibly in ways for the DM to make the most horrific enemies possible for their players. A follow-up, the Book of Exalted Deeds<ref>[http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/880260000 "Book of Exalted Deeds"]</ref>, was created as a way for players to explore the philosophy and morality of good, and to make a good alignment more than a line on their character sheet. (The titles of both books are based on magic items in the game, both of which are extremely useful to a person of the proper alignment.)

The Fourth Edition Player's Handbook contains a "Warlock" class, which allows the player to make a pact with a certain creature to gain power. One option is the "Infernal Pact", allowing the player to literally make a deal with the devil.

===D&D and the Occult===
The game includes fictional depictions of supernatural abilities called magic, evil monsters called demons and devils, and fictional deities along with their followers. Christians are divided on how this interacts with their faith. A minority of Christians believe that fictional depictions of fantasy elements such as those found in ''[[The Chronicles of Narnia]]'', ''[[The Lord of the Rings]]'', ''[[Harry Potter]]'', or ''Dungeons & Dragons'' are blasphemous, but most Christians see no problem with such fictional works.

Starting in the late 1970s the game and others like it came under attack mainly from some fundamentalist Christians as promoting occult and criminal activity. The game's dangers were alleged in the ''Dark Dungeons'' tract by [[Jack Chick]]<ref>Jack Chick: [http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.asp "Dark Dungeons"]</ref>, which portrays D&D players committing suicide when their characters are killed or joining secret witches' covens and learning to cast real magic spells when their characters reach a high enough level.

The fact is that ''Dungeons & Dragons'' designers and players had nothing to do with occult or criminal activity and thirty years later it may be hard to understand how people could confuse D&D with occult activities. In the earliest days of D&D it was easy for an uninformed bystander to draw faulty conclusions based upon a limited knowledge of the game. In its earliest days, OD&D often sold out due to low print runs, leaving bystanders with little access to the rules and little direct knowledge of the game.

For example, bystanders knew the game was developing a devoted cult-following. There is an important distinction between a cult-following and a cult itself, but this was lost on some bystanders. As a cult-following, D&D developed an insular fraternity of fans who were plugged into something exciting and new. Each day the world of D&D expanded and every player everywhere had a hand in the growth of the game. The players were developing their own lexicon and making new and ever expanding rules. This close bond and strange lexicon was easily misunderstood by those with limited exposure to the game.

In the late seventies the game's popularity was preceded by rumors that players were involved in some strange occult activities. Bystanders knew that D&D players were talking about fantastic creatures, magical spells and even demons because the game often includes descriptions of [[occult]] elements like [[magic]], [[ghost]]s, [[spirit]]s, [[demon]]s and [[devil]]s. To an uninformed bystander this may be pretty scary stuff. But, the truth was significantly less mysterious and sensational.

These misperceptions have largely evaporated, both because of the game's popularity and better information about the product. Critics became aware that players were not involved in anything occult but were gaming in a fantasy setting. Most everyone in America knows someone who has played ''Dungeons & Dragons'', so these days it's all but impossible to blur the line between occult activity and role-playing games.

===God and gods===
One item of concern for conservative Christians is that players' characters do not usually worship [[God]], but instead choose a [[patron]] deity from a fictional [[polytheistic]] pantheon. The game settings manufactured by [[Wizards of the Coast]] (''Greyhawk'', ''Faerun'', ''Eberron'', etc.) expressly adopt a polytheistic [[pantheon]] of fictional deities and reject real-world [[religion]]s as a part of the game. (The Deities and Demigods<ref>[http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/881650000 "Deities and Demigods"]</ref> supplement offers several different takes on religion, including rules for a monotheistic game world, but deliberately sidesteps the question of any modern religion--Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.--even as it brings up pantheons of old myths, such as the Greek or Norse gods. It's likely they used only "dead" religions in order to avoid controversy.) The question of what extent and form of religion should be depicted in the game has been a question since the earliest days of the game. In an in depth look at monotheism in fantasy games, Joseph R.Ravitts raised some of the problems and benefits for a born-again Christian's point of view.<ref>"Monotheism in Gaming" by Joseph R. Ravitts, Pegasus Magazine Issue #4 published in 1981 by Judges' Guild</ref>

Ravitts already understood the power of role-playing, which is now well known. Namely, role-playing is a powerful behavior modification tool. If you pretend that you believe something, eventually you will believe that something. For this reason, he posited that it was important to avoid role-playing in a polytheistic world. Referencing the classic argument from ''[[Mere Christianity]]'' by [[C.S._Lewis | C.S. Lewis]], Ravitts explained how polytheism is really just [[atheism]] or [[monotheism]] in disguise. He believed that if players and DM's actively played in an atheistic world, they would eventually become atheists.

He then pointed out the difficulties of importing Christianity or other religions into D&D. Ravitts pointed out it is a simple matter to import mythological gods like [[Zeus]] or [[Thor]] into a fantasy setting. One simply imagines these gods are in the fantasy world and begins playing. But this is much more difficult with religious figures like [[Jesus]], [[Muhammad]] or [[Buddha]]. Each of these three men were real historic personages. For example, Jesus lived, died and rose again in the Middle East at a specific time and place.

Ravitts proposed two simple work-arounds, for those who care about their spiritual well-being. Firstly, one could assume that all humans are teleported from Earth or descended from folks who were teleported from Earth. These humans have preserved their religious identities and thus Christianity is an option for players without tampering with the historical nature of Jesus. Secondly Ravitts proposed altering the game's mythos to allow for an all-powerful detached God reigning over the "gods, demigods and devils". In this way the "gods" are not gods at all, but just ultra-powerful beings who distract souls from worshiping the one true God.

However, it is worth noting that novels and "sourcebooks" make occasional references to a "God of gods".

Of course there are alternatives such as ''[http://www.greenronin.com/catalog/grr1019 Testament]'' a D&D type game set in the Biblical Era. Further, many of the game worlds portray certain gods and religions as being metaphors for modern ones. (Even the incredibly polytheistic Forgotten Realms, where more than a hundred deities exist, features a triad of gods that could be based on the Holy Trinity.) But ultimately, D&D is a game of fantasy and players are encouraged to alter the game world to better suit their tastes, and many Christian players and DMs alter the game world so that it better fits their personal beliefs.

===The art of D&D===
Another criticism is that illustrations in the rule books for ''Dungeons & Dragons'' often contain images of immodestly dressed women. For example, in the First Edition ''Monster Manual'' a number of drawings depicted topless creatures of fantasy such as the harpy (half-vulture half-woman) or the succubus (a demoness). The OD&D reference ''Eldritch Wizardry'' featured the profile of a nude woman. Most of these images are fairly crudely rendered and are not particularly racy by today's standards, but they did exceed the limitations of the [[Comics Code]] of the time<ref>http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8580/cca3.html</ref>.

By the publication of Second Edition, the art and layout of the D&D game was managed by professionals. As a result the quality of the art increased significantly and anything racy was eliminated from the art work. There was some minor controversy with the revised Third Edition ''Monster Manual'''s artwork of the succubus and nymph (a water spirit in the form of a beautiful woman), but aside from these there is nothing particularly shocking in the art for a child or adult of any age.

===Unchristian Activities===
Although Dungeons & Dragons does not present itself as either pro-Christian or anti-Christian, the game features many elements which can be considered to agree with or go against the teachings of Christ. The game has drawn criticism for allowing players to undertake the roleplaying of un-Christian activities: the rules allow a player to have their character perform evil acts, including the summoning or worshiping of demons and devils. Certain fundamentalists disagree with the very format of the game in that player characters can pretend to cast imaginary spells while playing the game.

Some feel that the primary action of the game involves the fictional slaying of monsters and the fictional accumulation of wealth, some Christians feel that this goes against the teachings of Christ regarding [[pacifism]] ([[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]] 5:38-42) and the accumulation of [[wealth]] (Matthew 19:24). Others see these actions as heroic endeavors and wealth is a byproduct of doing good things. Either way, the game and it's choices are a matter of free will.

Former [[United Methodist Church]] minister James Wyatt wrote an essay comparing the freedom of a Dungeons & Dragons player to choose his own actions, to the Christian concept of Free Will. As in real life, a player may, when presented with a moral choice, decide for himself whether to do good or evil. If the player was not able to do evil, he would be forced to do good, removing his freedom. Similarly, God allows human beings to choose between good and evil in real life, and people must accept the consequences of their choice. The supplements that deal specifically with demons and devils make it quite clear that the afterlife for characters who are condemned to the Abyss or the Nine Heels is in no way pleasant, and may even be short.

Tracy Hickman, one of the main authors of the Dungeons & Dragons Dragonlance book series, and a Christian with conservative politics and theology, has written a number of articles defending and discussing D&D from a Christian perspective. <ref name="Waldron">The Journal of Religion and Popular Culture: [http://www.usask.ca/relst/jrpc/art9-roleplaying.html "Role-Playing Games and the Christian Right"]</ref> Others within the Dungeons & Dragons community responded by writing other defenses from rationalist perspectives or other perspectives or by writing parodies such as "Chess: The Subtle Sin: Should Christians play chess?". Some argue that in response to the perceived Christian persecution of the Dungeons & Dragons, darker themed, deliberately counter-cultural games appeared in reaction such as [[Call of Cthulhu]] which is based on the horror writing of [[H.P. Lovecraft]] and set in the [[Cthulhu|Cthulhu Mythos]]<ref name="Waldron"/>, or [[Vampire: the Masquerade]], where players act the roles of undead vampires.

====Possible Areas of Concern for Christians====
D&D is a "game of pretend" whereby players pretend to take certain actions and the DM adjudicates the results of those actions. By its very nature, this leaves players open to experiment with various moral quandaries and social dilemmas. This is a valuable tool for players to learn the implications and results of playing both good and evil characters. However, the possibility exists that such an experience may not be beneficial or appropriate for everyone--in particular, persons who already have difficulty separating fantasy with reality might be able to be helped by the game, but it could also make things worse. Due to the nature of roleplaying games, a great deal depends upon the individual group in question; a given game of Dungeons and Dragons might be benign from a Christian standpoint, or it might involve activities and ideas that a Christian would find profoundly distasteful.

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
* [http://aquela.com/roleplaying/r&r/index.html Religion and Roleplaying]
* [http://www.fansforchrist.org/new/articles/article03a.htm Christians Playing Dungeons and Dragons] - An informed Christian's perspective on Dungeons & Dragons.
* [http://www.trhickman.com/Intel/Essays/Ethic2.html Ethics in Fantasy: Morality and D&D] - Tracey Hickman's essay concerning Christian perspectives and common misunderstandings about Role-Playing Games
* [http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/3691 Full text of H.G. Wells ''Little Wars; a game for boys from twelve years of age to one hundred and fifty']

[[Category:Games]]

Oculus

2010-05-21T03:42:22Z

Jinxmchue:

An '''oculus''' is a circular opening in a roof which allows for rain and sunlight to spill through the roof of a building.<ref>''Oculus'' [http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?oculus Websters Dictionary]. Accessed 12 January 2008.</ref> [[Vatican]] architecture, especially in [[Saint Peter's Basilica]], makes great use of this architectural device. It is a relic of Roman times, in a way, and was used in circular, vaulted temples like the [[Pantheon]] under the Republic.

==References==
<references/>
[[category:Architecture]]

Oculus

2010-05-21T03:41:20Z

Jinxmchue: Undo revision 779856 by Truthmeister (Talk)

An '''oculus''' is a circular opening in a roof which allows for rain and sunlight to spill through the roof to illuminate the interior of a building.<ref>''Oculus'' [http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?oculus Websters Dictionary]. Accessed 12 January 2008.</ref> [[Vatican]] architecture, especially in [[Saint Peter's Basilica]], makes great use of this architectural device. It is a relic of Roman times, in a way, and was used in circular, vaulted temples like the [[Pantheon]] under the Republic.

==References==
<references/>
[[category:Architecture]]

PZ Myers

2010-05-20T03:37:07Z

Jinxmchue: /* Communion host */ - rm duplicated material

'''Paul Zachary Myers''', better known as '''PZ Myers''', is a [[liberal]] [[evolutionist]] activist in the [[creation-evolution controversy]], contributing to [[The Panda's Thumb (blog)|The Panda's Thumb]] and [[Pharyngula (blog)|Pharyngula]] blogs. Myers is also an associate [[professor]] of [[biology]] at the [[University of Minnesota Morris]] (UMM)<ref name="citypages">[http://citypages.com/databank/26/1303/article13908.asp?page=1 ''The Mad Scientist''] City Pages, Volume 26 - Issue 1303, November 23, 2005 Cover story</ref>

PZ Myers commented, while listening to [[Michael Behe]] lecture on [[Intelligent design]], that "In science, we scream a lot."<ref name="citypages"/> According to ''Evolution News'', he opposes democratically-elected school boards deciding how evolution should be taught; feeling that it should instead be done by "Scientists with years of training in the subject, and qualified science teachers who understand the fundamentals of the theory." <ref>Egnor, Michael [http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/12/pz_myers_darwinists_know_whats.html ''P.Z. Myers: Darwinists Know What’s Best for Your Children''] Evolution News December 18, 2007</ref>

== PZ Myers and militant atheism ==

PZ Myers is an outspoken [[atheism|atheist]] who has openly advocated the elimination of religion, likening it to illiteracy.<ref>http://www.atheistrev.com/2008/03/pz-myers-on-eliminating-religion.html</ref>
His language is extremely militant at times, and laced with expletives. In a diatribe in which he described those who believe in the Bible as "lunatics" and "bigots," Myers said:

{{QuoteBox|I say, screw the polite words and careful rhetoric. It's time for scientists to break out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles, and get out there and hammer on the lunatics and idiots.<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20070420142719/http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/perspective/</ref>}}

PZ Myers frequently rants against religion, religious people, and religious institutions (e.g. churches) on his blog. Myers has called evangelical Christianity "a blight upon the earth,"<ref>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/03/left_or_right_religion_and_pol.php/</ref> religious people "ignorant, deluded, wicked, foolish, or oppressed victims of obsolete mythologies,"<ref>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/im_surrounded.php</ref> and considers every church to be a "parasitic institution that contributes nothing to the tax base and encourages further ignorance in the population."<ref>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/how_do_you_save_small_town_cha.php</ref>

Unsurprisingly, Myers' radical, hateful views on religion and religious people are [[Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia|whitewashed from the Wikipedia article about him]] by pro-evolution/anti-Creationism/anti-Intelligent Design editors who are his fans. The Wikipedia article on [[Conservapedia]] lists Myers as a critic of Conservapedia founder [[Andy Schlafly]]'s attempts to secure [[Richard Lenski]]'s raw data.

=== Debating ===

In January 2008, Myers participated in a debate with [[Discovery Institute]] fellow Geoffrey Simmons on [[Minneapolis]]/[[St. Paul]] radio station KKMS.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk5Y3VoBeVQ</ref>

=== ''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed'' ===

Myers appeared in the film ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]''. In the film, Myers compared religion to knitting and said it should be nothing more than "something fun that people get together and do on the weekend and really doesn't affect their life as much as it has been so far."<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHiZjOH1NmQ</ref> Up to and after the release of the film, PZ Myers viciously attacked the film and its makers many times and engaged in bizarre behavior. Two of the most notable incidents involved his failed attempt to gate-crash a showing of the film at the [[Mall of America]]<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/science/21expelledw.html</ref> and his crashing and disruption (including plugging himself) of a conference call held by ''Expelled'''s producers after calling in early (likely to eavesdrop) and overhearing and then dishonestly using the phone code that allowed two-way communication.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYAblaZmogA</ref><ref>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/i_always_aim_to_misbehave.php</ref> Most bizarrely, in the latter incident, Myers interruption of the producers' call began with his referring to himself in the third person, probably in an attempt to conceal both his identity and the fact that he used a phone code he was not authorized to use.
=== Communion host ===
On July 8, 2008, PZ Myers posted an entry attacking Roman Catholic beliefs regards Communion. He was reacting to a news story, in which a student at the University of Central Florida described a physical confrontation over his failure to consume a communion wafer.<ref>'Body Of Christ' Snatched From Church, Held Hostage By UCF Student, July 5, 2008[http://www.wftv.com/news/16798008/detail.html]</ref><ref>'Body Of Christ" Returned To Church After Student Receives Email Threats, July 7, 2008[http://www.wftv.com/news/16806050/detail.html]</ref> After ridiculing some people as "petty, hateful, and stupid," and asserting that "nothing makes them stupider than religion," Myers requested that his readers steal consecrated Communion wafers for him, so that he could desecrate them on camera. This rant predictably resulted in a strongly negative response from Catholics and those who support freedom of religious expression <ref>http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1459</ref>; Myers has since complained about the "hate mail" and "death threats" he has received, comparing the defense of Communion to a "witch hunt." To date, the University of Minnesota has not taken official action against Myers for his inflammatory remarks, other than to remove the link to his blog from his faculty page.<ref>http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1460</ref> PZ Myers followed through with his threat, desecrating a eucharist and tearing out pages of a copy of the [[Koran]] and a copy of [[Richard Dawkins]]' ''The God Delusion''.<ref>http://discoverthefaith.com/2008/07/26/update-on-professor-myers-desecration-of-eucharist/</ref>

Meanwhile, Myers posted two vitriolic emails he had received and included the email addresses where they supposedly had come from. Predictably, his readers responded with their own threatening and harassing emails even though at the time it was not clear whether or not the email addresses had been spoofed One was allegedly from someone at 1-800-Flowers, though the husband of the user of the address subsequently owned up to sending the e-mail.<ref>http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/071608-woman-fired-over-death-threat.html</ref> The account owner was fired by the company. Myers commented on the firing, saying, "She apparently did something stupid, which I don't have sympathy for. I would just rather not see people getting fired over an e-mail message."<ref>http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/071608-woman-fired-over-death-threat.html?page=2)</ref> Myers attempted to save face, claiming that the unsurprising behavior by his readers was not the intent behind his posting of the email addresses, and called for his readers to stop "dunning these people with email, threatening them back, signing them up for spam, or otherwise being a jerk." These pleas fell on deaf ears, while PZ Myers continued to avoid doing the obvious thing in simply removing the email addresses from his blog.<ref>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/stop_it_now_please.php</ref><ref>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/mail_dump.php</ref>

===Creation Museum buffoonery===
In August 2009, Myers led a group of over 300 atheist and agnostic students on a tour of the [[Creation Museum]]. During the visit, the 52-year-old Myers eagerly climbed onto a dinosaur model which was clearly identified as being for children to sit on for photographs.<ref>http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/2009/08/16/children-and-the-creation-museum/</ref> Myers donned a borrowed cowboy hat and was egged on by the cheers and laughter of the students.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQQl2TMrgbM</ref>

==Myers and Conservapedia==
True to liberal values, Myers has banned all direct references and links to Conservapedia on his blog due to what he claims was "serious problems with spamming" involving Conservapedia members.<ref>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/10/conservapdia_has_a_new_project.php</ref> Of course, no spamming (repeatedly posting the same message) actually occurred, making Myers' accusation a lie. Rather, his banning is an attempt to silence legitimate criticism which he is simply incapable of addressing.

==References ==
{{reflist}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.scienceblogs.com/pharyngula Pharyngula] '''Non-family-friendly content warning.'''

{{DEFAULTSORT:Myers, Paul Zachary}}

[[Category:Evolution]]
[[Category:Biologists]]
[[Category:Atheists]]
[[Category:Evolutionists]]

{{nb_Atheism}}

PZ Myers

2010-05-20T03:34:58Z

Jinxmchue: /* Communion host */ - fixes

'''Paul Zachary Myers''', better known as '''PZ Myers''', is a [[liberal]] [[evolutionist]] activist in the [[creation-evolution controversy]], contributing to [[The Panda's Thumb (blog)|The Panda's Thumb]] and [[Pharyngula (blog)|Pharyngula]] blogs. Myers is also an associate [[professor]] of [[biology]] at the [[University of Minnesota Morris]] (UMM)<ref name="citypages">[http://citypages.com/databank/26/1303/article13908.asp?page=1 ''The Mad Scientist''] City Pages, Volume 26 - Issue 1303, November 23, 2005 Cover story</ref>

PZ Myers commented, while listening to [[Michael Behe]] lecture on [[Intelligent design]], that "In science, we scream a lot."<ref name="citypages"/> According to ''Evolution News'', he opposes democratically-elected school boards deciding how evolution should be taught; feeling that it should instead be done by "Scientists with years of training in the subject, and qualified science teachers who understand the fundamentals of the theory." <ref>Egnor, Michael [http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/12/pz_myers_darwinists_know_whats.html ''P.Z. Myers: Darwinists Know What’s Best for Your Children''] Evolution News December 18, 2007</ref>

== PZ Myers and militant atheism ==

PZ Myers is an outspoken [[atheism|atheist]] who has openly advocated the elimination of religion, likening it to illiteracy.<ref>http://www.atheistrev.com/2008/03/pz-myers-on-eliminating-religion.html</ref>
His language is extremely militant at times, and laced with expletives. In a diatribe in which he described those who believe in the Bible as "lunatics" and "bigots," Myers said:

{{QuoteBox|I say, screw the polite words and careful rhetoric. It's time for scientists to break out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles, and get out there and hammer on the lunatics and idiots.<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20070420142719/http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/perspective/</ref>}}

PZ Myers frequently rants against religion, religious people, and religious institutions (e.g. churches) on his blog. Myers has called evangelical Christianity "a blight upon the earth,"<ref>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/03/left_or_right_religion_and_pol.php/</ref> religious people "ignorant, deluded, wicked, foolish, or oppressed victims of obsolete mythologies,"<ref>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/im_surrounded.php</ref> and considers every church to be a "parasitic institution that contributes nothing to the tax base and encourages further ignorance in the population."<ref>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/how_do_you_save_small_town_cha.php</ref>

Unsurprisingly, Myers' radical, hateful views on religion and religious people are [[Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia|whitewashed from the Wikipedia article about him]] by pro-evolution/anti-Creationism/anti-Intelligent Design editors who are his fans. The Wikipedia article on [[Conservapedia]] lists Myers as a critic of Conservapedia founder [[Andy Schlafly]]'s attempts to secure [[Richard Lenski]]'s raw data.

=== Debating ===

In January 2008, Myers participated in a debate with [[Discovery Institute]] fellow Geoffrey Simmons on [[Minneapolis]]/[[St. Paul]] radio station KKMS.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk5Y3VoBeVQ</ref>

=== ''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed'' ===

Myers appeared in the film ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]''. In the film, Myers compared religion to knitting and said it should be nothing more than "something fun that people get together and do on the weekend and really doesn't affect their life as much as it has been so far."<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHiZjOH1NmQ</ref> Up to and after the release of the film, PZ Myers viciously attacked the film and its makers many times and engaged in bizarre behavior. Two of the most notable incidents involved his failed attempt to gate-crash a showing of the film at the [[Mall of America]]<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/science/21expelledw.html</ref> and his crashing and disruption (including plugging himself) of a conference call held by ''Expelled'''s producers after calling in early (likely to eavesdrop) and overhearing and then dishonestly using the phone code that allowed two-way communication.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYAblaZmogA</ref><ref>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/i_always_aim_to_misbehave.php</ref> Most bizarrely, in the latter incident, Myers interruption of the producers' call began with his referring to himself in the third person, probably in an attempt to conceal both his identity and the fact that he used a phone code he was not authorized to use.
=== Communion host ===
On July 8, 2008, PZ Myers posted an entry attacking Roman Catholic beliefs regards Communion. He was reacting to a news story, in which a student at the University of Central Florida described a physical confrontation over his failure to consume a communion wafer.<ref>'Body Of Christ' Snatched From Church, Held Hostage By UCF Student, July 5, 2008[http://www.wftv.com/news/16798008/detail.html]</ref><ref>'Body Of Christ" Returned To Church After Student Receives Email Threats, July 7, 2008[http://www.wftv.com/news/16806050/detail.html]</ref> After ridiculing some people as "petty, hateful, and stupid," and asserting that "nothing makes them stupider than religion," Myers requested that his readers steal consecrated Communion wafers for him, so that he could desecrate them on camera. This rant predictably resulted in a strongly negative response from Catholics and those who support freedom of religious expression <ref>http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1459</ref>; Myers has since complained about the "hate mail" and "death threats" he has received, comparing the defense of Communion to a "witch hunt." To date, the University of Minnesota has not taken official action against Myers for his inflammatory remarks, other than to remove the link to his blog from his faculty page.<ref>http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1460</ref> PZ Myers followed through with his threat, desecrating a eucharist and tearing out pages of a copy of the [[Koran]] and a copy of [[Richard Dawkins]]' ''The God Delusion''.<ref>http://discoverthefaith.com/2008/07/26/update-on-professor-myers-desecration-of-eucharist/</ref>

Meanwhile, Myers posted two vitriolic emails he had received and included the email addresses where they supposedly had come from. Predictably, his readers responded with their own threatening and harassing emails even though at the time it was not clear whether or not the email addresses had been spoofed One was allegedly from someone at 1-800-Flowers, though the husband of the user of the address subsequently owned up to sending the e-mail.<ref>http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/071608-woman-fired-over-death-threat.html</ref> The account owner was fired by the company. Myers commented on the firing, saying, "She apparently did something stupid, which I don't have sympathy for. I would just rather not see people getting fired over an e-mail message." <ref>http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/071608-woman-fired-over-death-threat.html?page=2)</ref> Myers attempted to save face, claiming that the unsurprising behavior by his readers was not the intent behind his posting of the email addresses, and called for his readers to stop "dunning these people with email, threatening them back, signing them up for spam, or otherwise being a jerk." These pleas fell on deaf ears, while PZ Myers continued to avoid doing the obvious thing in simply removing the email addresses from his blog.<ref>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/stop_it_now_please.php</ref><ref>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/mail_dump.php</ref>On July 8, 2008, PZ Myers posted an entry attacking Roman Catholic beliefs regards Communion. He was reacting to a news story, in which a student at the University of Central Florida described a physical confrontation over his failure to consume a communion wafer.<ref>'Body Of Christ' Snatched From Church, Held Hostage By UCF Student, July 5, 2008[http://www.wftv.com/news/16798008/detail.html]</ref><ref>'Body Of Christ" Returned To Church After Student Receives Email Threats, July 7, 2008[http://www.wftv.com/news/16806050/detail.html]</ref> After ridiculing some people as "petty, hateful, and stupid," and asserting that "nothing makes them stupider than religion," Myers requested that his readers steal consecrated Communion wafers for him, so that he could desecrate them on camera. This rant predictably resulted in a strongly negative response from Catholics and those who support freedom of religious expression <ref>http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1459</ref>; Myers has since complained about the "hate mail" and "death threats" he has received, comparing the defense of Communion to a "witch hunt." To date, the University of Minnesota has not taken official action against Myers for his inflammatory remarks, other than to remove the link to his blog from his faculty page.<ref>http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1460</ref> PZ Myers followed through with his threat, desecrating a eucharist and tearing out pages of a copy of the [[Koran]] and a copy of [[Richard Dawkins]]' ''The God Delusion''.<ref>http://discoverthefaith.com/2008/07/26/update-on-professor-myers-desecration-of-eucharist/</ref>

Meanwhile, Myers posted two vitriolic emails he had received and included the email addresses where they supposedly had come from. Predictably, his readers responded with their own threatening and harassing emails even though at the time it was not clear whether or not the email addresses (one of which was allegedly from someone at 1-800-Flowers had been spoofed. The husband of the user of the the 1-800-Flowers address subsequently owned up to sending the e-mail).<ref>http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/071608-woman-fired-over-death-threat.html</ref>The account owner was fired by the company. Myers commented on the firing, saying, "She apparently did something stupid, which I don't have sympathy for. I would just rather not see people getting fired over an e-mail message." (http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/071608-woman-fired-over-death-threat.html?page=2)</ref>
Myers attempted to save face, claiming that the unsurprising behavior by his readers was not the intent behind his posting of the email addresses, and called for his readers to stop "dunning these people with email, threatening them back, signing them up for spam, or otherwise being a jerk." These pleas fell on deaf ears, while PZ Myers continued to avoid doing the obvious thing in simply removing the email addresses from his blog.<ref>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/stop_it_now_please.php</ref><ref>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/mail_dump.php</ref>

===Creation Museum buffoonery===
In August 2009, Myers led a group of over 300 atheist and agnostic students on a tour of the [[Creation Museum]]. During the visit, the 52-year-old Myers eagerly climbed onto a dinosaur model which was clearly identified as being for children to sit on for photographs.<ref>http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/2009/08/16/children-and-the-creation-museum/</ref> Myers donned a borrowed cowboy hat and was egged on by the cheers and laughter of the students.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQQl2TMrgbM</ref>

==Myers and Conservapedia==
True to liberal values, Myers has banned all direct references and links to Conservapedia on his blog due to what he claims was "serious problems with spamming" involving Conservapedia members.<ref>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/10/conservapdia_has_a_new_project.php</ref> Of course, no spamming (repeatedly posting the same message) actually occurred, making Myers' accusation a lie. Rather, his banning is an attempt to silence legitimate criticism which he is simply incapable of addressing.

==References ==
{{reflist}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.scienceblogs.com/pharyngula Pharyngula] '''Non-family-friendly content warning.'''

{{DEFAULTSORT:Myers, Paul Zachary}}

[[Category:Evolution]]
[[Category:Biologists]]
[[Category:Atheists]]
[[Category:Evolutionists]]

{{nb_Atheism}}

Athlete's foot

2010-05-20T03:29:56Z

Jinxmchue: Undo revision 779537 by Funkymonky (Talk)

According to the [[U.S. National Library of Medicine]], '''athlete's foot''' is a common [[infection]] caused by the tinea [[fungus]]. It is not serious. Symptoms include itching, burning and cracked, scaly skin between the [[toe]]s. Tinea grows best in damp, dark and warm places, which is why it often develops between the toes. It can spread to the toenails, as well, making them thick and crumbly.

Athlete's foot can be contracted from damp surfaces, such as locker room floors... Treatments include over-the-counter [[antifungal]] creams for most cases and [[prescription]] medicines for more serious infections."<ref>http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/athletesfoot.html</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Medicine]]

Pharyngula (blog)

2010-05-20T03:20:48Z

Jinxmchue:

'''Pharyngula''' is a [[blog]] by [[PZ Myers]], who is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.<ref>Pharyngula[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/]</ref> It is widely acclaimed in the [[liberal media]], and was listed by leading science journal [[Nature_(journal)|Nature]] as the best blog by a scientist. It is known for its sarcastic criticism of [[creationism]] and [[intelligent design]] theory, as well as regular postings of photos of [[cephalopod|cephalopods]] (often with vulgarly sexual connotations both subtle and blatant).

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Liberal Media]][[Category:Evolution]][[Category:Internet]]

PZ Myers

2010-05-20T03:19:40Z

Jinxmchue: in the wrong spot

'''Paul Zachary Myers''', better known as '''PZ Myers''', is a [[liberal]] [[evolutionist]] activist in the [[creation-evolution controversy]], contributing to [[The Panda's Thumb (blog)|The Panda's Thumb]] and [[Pharyngula (blog)|Pharyngula]] blogs. Myers is also an associate [[professor]] of [[biology]] at the [[University of Minnesota Morris]] (UMM)<ref name="citypages">[http://citypages.com/databank/26/1303/article13908.asp?page=1 ''The Mad Scientist''] City Pages, Volume 26 - Issue 1303, November 23, 2005 Cover story</ref>

PZ Myers commented, while listening to [[Michael Behe]] lecture on [[Intelligent design]], that "In science, we scream a lot."<ref name="citypages"/> According to ''Evolution News'', he opposes democratically-elected school boards deciding how evolution should be taught; feeling that it should instead be done by "Scientists with years of training in the subject, and qualified science teachers who understand the fundamentals of the theory." <ref>Egnor, Michael [http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/12/pz_myers_darwinists_know_whats.html ''P.Z. Myers: Darwinists Know What’s Best for Your Children''] Evolution News December 18, 2007</ref>

== PZ Myers and militant atheism ==

PZ Myers is an outspoken [[atheism|atheist]] who has openly advocated the elimination of religion, likening it to illiteracy.<ref>http://www.atheistrev.com/2008/03/pz-myers-on-eliminating-religion.html</ref>
His language is extremely militant at times, and laced with expletives. In a diatribe in which he described those who believe in the Bible as "lunatics" and "bigots," Myers said:

{{QuoteBox|I say, screw the polite words and careful rhetoric. It's time for scientists to break out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles, and get out there and hammer on the lunatics and idiots.<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20070420142719/http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/perspective/</ref>}}

PZ Myers frequently rants against religion, religious people, and religious institutions (e.g. churches) on his blog. Myers has called evangelical Christianity "a blight upon the earth,"<ref>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/03/left_or_right_religion_and_pol.php/</ref> religious people "ignorant, deluded, wicked, foolish, or oppressed victims of obsolete mythologies,"<ref>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/im_surrounded.php</ref> and considers every church to be a "parasitic institution that contributes nothing to the tax base and encourages further ignorance in the population."<ref>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/how_do_you_save_small_town_cha.php</ref>

Unsurprisingly, Myers' radical, hateful views on religion and religious people are [[Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia|whitewashed from the Wikipedia article about him]] by pro-evolution/anti-Creationism/anti-Intelligent Design editors who are his fans. The Wikipedia article on [[Conservapedia]] lists Myers as a critic of Conservapedia founder [[Andy Schlafly]]'s attempts to secure [[Richard Lenski]]'s raw data.

=== Debating ===

In January 2008, Myers participated in a debate with [[Discovery Institute]] fellow Geoffrey Simmons on [[Minneapolis]]/[[St. Paul]] radio station KKMS.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk5Y3VoBeVQ</ref>

=== ''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed'' ===

Myers appeared in the film ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]''. In the film, Myers compared religion to knitting and said it should be nothing more than "something fun that people get together and do on the weekend and really doesn't affect their life as much as it has been so far."<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHiZjOH1NmQ</ref> Up to and after the release of the film, PZ Myers viciously attacked the film and its makers many times and engaged in bizarre behavior. Two of the most notable incidents involved his failed attempt to gate-crash a showing of the film at the [[Mall of America]]<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/science/21expelledw.html</ref> and his crashing and disruption (including plugging himself) of a conference call held by ''Expelled'''s producers after calling in early (likely to eavesdrop) and overhearing and then dishonestly using the phone code that allowed two-way communication.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYAblaZmogA</ref><ref>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/i_always_aim_to_misbehave.php</ref> Most bizarrely, in the latter incident, Myers interruption of the producers' call began with his referring to himself in the third person, probably in an attempt to conceal both his identity and the fact that he used a phone code he was not authorized to use.
=== Communion host ===
On July 8, 2008, PZ Myers posted an entry attacking Roman Catholic beliefs regards Communion. He was reacting to a news story, in which a student at the University of Central Florida described a physical confrontation over his failure to consume a communion wafer.<ref>'Body Of Christ' Snatched From Church, Held Hostage By UCF Student, July 5, 2008[http://www.wftv.com/news/16798008/detail.html]</ref><ref>'Body Of Christ" Returned To Church After Student Receives Email Threats, July 7, 2008[http://www.wftv.com/news/16806050/detail.html]</ref> After ridiculing some people as "petty, hateful, and stupid," and asserting that "nothing makes them stupider than religion," Myers requested that his readers steal consecrated Communion wafers for him, so that he could desecrate them on camera. This rant predictably resulted in a strongly negative response from Catholics and those who support freedom of religious expression <ref>http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1459</ref>; Myers has since complained about the "hate mail" and "death threats" he has received, comparing the defense of Communion to a "witch hunt." To date, the University of Minnesota has not taken official action against Myers for his inflammatory remarks, other than to remove the link to his blog from his faculty page.<ref>http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1460</ref> PZ Myers followed through with his threat, desecrating a eucharist and tearing out pages of a copy of the [[Koran]] and a copy of [[Richard Dawkins]]' ''The God Delusion''.<ref>http://discoverthefaith.com/2008/07/26/update-on-professor-myers-desecration-of-eucharist/</ref>

Meanwhile, Myers posted two vitriolic emails he had received and included the email addresses where they supposedly had come from. Predictably, his readers responded with their own threatening and harassing emails even though at the time it was not clear whether or not the email addresses (one of which was allegedly from someone at 1-800-Flowers had been spoofed. The husband of the user of the the 1-800-Flowers address subsequently owned up to sending the e-mail).<ref>http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/071608-woman-fired-over-death-threat.html</ref>The account owner was fired by the company. Myers commented on the firing, saying, "She apparently did something stupid, which I don't have sympathy for. I would just rather not see people getting fired over an e-mail message." <ref>http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/071608-woman-fired-over-death-threat.html?page=2)</ref>
Myers attempted to save face, claiming that the unsurprising behavior by his readers was not the intent behind his posting of the email addresses, and called for his readers to stop "dunning these people with email, threatening them back, signing them up for spam, or otherwise being a jerk." These pleas fell on deaf ears, while PZ Myers continued to avoid doing the obvious thing in simply removing the email addresses from his blog.<ref>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/stop_it_now_please.php</ref><ref>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/mail_dump.php</ref>On July 8, 2008, PZ Myers posted an entry attacking Roman Catholic beliefs regards Communion. He was reacting to a news story, in which a student at the University of Central Florida described a physical confrontation over his failure to consume a communion wafer.<ref>'Body Of Christ' Snatched From Church, Held Hostage By UCF Student, July 5, 2008[http://www.wftv.com/news/16798008/detail.html]</ref><ref>'Body Of Christ" Returned To Church After Student Receives Email Threats, July 7, 2008[http://www.wftv.com/news/16806050/detail.html]</ref> After ridiculing some people as "petty, hateful, and stupid," and asserting that "nothing makes them stupider than religion," Myers requested that his readers steal consecrated Communion wafers for him, so that he could desecrate them on camera. This rant predictably resulted in a strongly negative response from Catholics and those who support freedom of religious expression <ref>http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1459</ref>; Myers has since complained about the "hate mail" and "death threats" he has received, comparing the defense of Communion to a "witch hunt." To date, the University of Minnesota has not taken official action against Myers for his inflammatory remarks, other than to remove the link to his blog from his faculty page.<ref>http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1460</ref> PZ Myers followed through with his threat, desecrating a eucharist and tearing out pages of a copy of the [[Koran]] and a copy of [[Richard Dawkins]]' ''The God Delusion''.<ref>http://discoverthefaith.com/2008/07/26/update-on-professor-myers-desecration-of-eucharist/</ref>

Meanwhile, Myers posted two vitriolic emails he had received and included the email addresses where they supposedly had come from. Predictably, his readers responded with their own threatening and harassing emails even though at the time it was not clear whether or not the email addresses (one of which was allegedly from someone at 1-800-Flowers had been spoofed. The husband of the user of the the 1-800-Flowers address subsequently owned up to sending the e-mail).<ref>http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/071608-woman-fired-over-death-threat.html</ref>The account owner was fired by the company. Myers commented on the firing, saying, "She apparently did something stupid, which I don't have sympathy for. I would just rather not see people getting fired over an e-mail message." (http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/071608-woman-fired-over-death-threat.html?page=2)</ref>
Myers attempted to save face, claiming that the unsurprising behavior by his readers was not the intent behind his posting of the email addresses, and called for his readers to stop "dunning these people with email, threatening them back, signing them up for spam, or otherwise being a jerk." These pleas fell on deaf ears, while PZ Myers continued to avoid doing the obvious thing in simply removing the email addresses from his blog.<ref>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/stop_it_now_please.php</ref><ref>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/mail_dump.php</ref>

===Creation Museum buffoonery===
In August 2009, Myers led a group of over 300 atheist and agnostic students on a tour of the [[Creation Museum]]. During the visit, the 52-year-old Myers eagerly climbed onto a dinosaur model which was clearly identified as being for children to sit on for photographs.<ref>http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/2009/08/16/children-and-the-creation-museum/</ref> Myers donned a borrowed cowboy hat and was egged on by the cheers and laughter of the students.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQQl2TMrgbM</ref>

==Myers and Conservapedia==
True to liberal values, Myers has banned all direct references and links to Conservapedia on his blog due to what he claims was "serious problems with spamming" involving Conservapedia members.<ref>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/10/conservapdia_has_a_new_project.php</ref> Of course, no spamming (repeatedly posting the same message) actually occurred, making Myers' accusation a lie. Rather, his banning is an attempt to silence legitimate criticism which he is simply incapable of addressing.

==References ==
{{reflist}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.scienceblogs.com/pharyngula Pharyngula] '''Non-family-friendly content warning.'''

{{DEFAULTSORT:Myers, Paul Zachary}}

[[Category:Evolution]]
[[Category:Biologists]]
[[Category:Atheists]]
[[Category:Evolutionists]]

{{nb_Atheism}}

Mortgage

2010-05-19T22:06:56Z

Jinxmchue: /* External links */ - rm bad link and advertising

A '''mortgage''' is granting of a [[lien]] on real property, such as a home, by a [[debtor]] (borrower) to his [[creditor]] (lender), such that the property is security for the repayment on a [[loan]]. Once the loan is paid, the mortgage should be discharged.

Hypothecation refers to the right that a creditor has to liquidate goods, securities, or other [[assets]], if you fail to service a loan.

A '''sub-prime mortgage''' is one where the credit-worthiness of the borrower or his ability to repay the loan is questionable.

== See also ==
*[[Financial Crisis of 2008]]
*[[Recession of 2008]]
*[[Glossary of Budget Terms]]
*[[Accounting]]
*[[Free Enterprise]]

== External links ==

*[http://dictionary.law.com/ Law Dictionary]
*[http://research.lawyers.com/glossary/ Glossary of Legal Terms]

[[Category:Business]]
[[Category:Finance]]
[[Category:Housing]]

Talk:Professor values

2010-05-18T15:57:53Z

Jinxmchue: reformat to remove page error

There are several things about this page that damage its credibility. It says that no professor who opposed abortion can get tenure, which is plainly not true since many have. One example is the famous conservative blogge Glen Reynolds of Instapundit.

Now professors do have faults -- they can be selfish and even commit murder from time to time (especially Professor Faust). For every possible character flaw there is a professor with it. But as a group professors are more opposed to censorship than any other group in the world (except possibly pornographers?).

And "liberal grading" does not mean giving liberals high grades and conservatives low ones. It means giving everyone a high grade without regard to political orientation or work quality level.

As for [[evolution]]: it would be hard for a biologist who doesn't believe in evolution to get tenure because it is impossible to do first rate research in biology without believing in evolution. For example, suppose you're trying to figure out how molecular motors work. If you believe in intelligent design, you consider all kinds of mechanisms that have no evolutionary pathway.

Then there's calling my edit "inappropriate" without saying what about it is inappropriate-- lgm

I think that it is inappropriate to have "crimes by professors" and "immoral, unethical, and bizarre behavior" in this entry. Either have a separate entry, or remove it entirely. Professors have good values too, they are not all completely immoral people who are self-centered and ignorant. -- Aaronp

Why do my edits keep getting reverted? I made factual edits, removing the absolutes that simply aren't true from the article. I have no problem not editing the rest, because obviously removing "Crimes committed by professors" and "Immoral and Unethical Behavior" from an article on professor values is just wrong, but the edits I made about tenure are factually correct. I have helped multiple tenure boards, and I know for a fact that not every single academic institution in the United states, let alone the world, completely dismisses a candidate based on their views on feminism, abortion, and homosexuality. Mind you, tenure confers essentially complete protection from being prosecuted for any sort of indiscretion, so keeping people with strong biases out of tenure is a good thing. I once saw a review board reject a man for tenure because he accidentally blurted out that "all those kids protesting the war should be forced into service" because they "aren't contributing to society". This was an obvious bias he had, and because it was an extreme one he was rejected for tenure. At the same time, however, I've seen a woman who was criticizing feminist values receive tenure, because she presented her thoughts in a clear, precise, and very educated way. Anyone who criticizes a set of values or an action in a biased or bigoted manner obviously isn't going to receive tenure.

Also, the reason that people who criticize evolution often don't receive tenure is because evolution has almost reached dogma-like acceptance in the scientific community. I don't want to get into a debate about evolution, but because it is so accepted, anyone seen criticizing it without scientific proof is generally regarded as not following scientific method. History may vindicate those people who do criticize evolution now, but until then, people will continue to not receive tenure based on their criticisms.

All I want for this page is to remove the absolutes. Not every institution will outright reject a person for their views on feminism, abortion, or homosexuality. It simply is not true. And because this is supposed to be an educational encyclopedia with conservative values, I believe that the information contained within should be accurate. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]

..does [[Richard Dawkins|Dawkins]] fall into this category as well? For example, ''"Liberal politicians are routinely given high-ranking academic positions despite a lack of a doctorate."'' [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:03, 8 March 2008 (EST)
:No, because he's not a politician, and he does have a doctorate (two, actually, I think). And since you bring it up...Gary Hart also has a doctorate. And, while Dukakis only has a Harvard law degree, his academic work has been in fields where he can most reasonably be considered an expert (public policy). The same can be said of Al Gore (and his have hardly been "high-ranking academic positions"--"visiting" professorships, and non-credit courses). And, finally, Kerrey is an administrator, not an academic.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 20:35, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
::He's not a politician, but he is an [[atheistic]] (and [[liberal]]) figurehead. And I wouldn't be too certain about those doctorates; [[Richard_Dawkins#Position_at_Oxford|it's debatable whether Dawkins is even a real professor]]. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 00:10, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
:I removed Hart and Kerrey as examples of "liberal politicians (who) are routinely given high-ranking academic positions despite a lack of a doctorate", because (as noted above), Hart has a doctorate, and Kerrey is an administrator (not an academic).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:18, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
::I don't know enough about those politicians in particular to confirm your edits, but your reasoning sounds legitimate. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:33, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
:::Alternately, I suppose, one could add Hart/Kerrey back to the list and change the wording of the defining phrase to something like, "...given university positions over better-qualified candidates."--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:46, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
::Actually, yes, I agree with that. These examples certainly shouldn't be removed on a technicality or a meaningless distinction when the point still stands; changing the wording of the phrase is a much better idea. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 20:56, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

== What is this about? ==

'''What?''' Another article based on an '''unheard-of phrase''' plucked out of the air? This certainly does not look like an encyclopedia article - cf. [[Hollywood values]], [[Liberal friendship]], [[Second generation atheist]], [[Liberal grading]], [[Embraced deceit]], etc. None of these belongs in an encyclopedia. Apart from anything else, who on earth is likely to look up a phrase like "professor values"? Shouldn't an encyclopedia consist of articles on topics that users are likely to look for, not on opinion pieces by its editor-in-chief? What point are you trying to make, exactly? Who is the target of this latest attack? This is the sort of thing I would expect from a blog or a hate-based website, not from a family-friendly and '''trustworthy''' encyclopedia. This sort of thing is making Conservapedia look ridiculous. Or would you like articles on [[Doctor values]], [[Taxi-driver values]] and [[Lawyer values]] as well? If so, I'd be happy to draft them for you! There must be lots to be said about the misdemeanors of all sorts of groups. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:15, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

: I agree that this kind of article could bring legitimate criticism against CP. The major premises are not documented. While some contributers to this article, including those who have made those assertions, say that it is a work in progress and welcome others to document the supposed many examples, there are a pitiful few, some old, some from other countries, and some for extremely prevalent crimes of marijuana possession. I took a long time to find the best possible supporting source for educational stats, and my guess is that the more than 1,200,000 professors currently working in colleges and universities are responsible for a disproportionately SMALL number of crimes. Until I find statistical support for that statement, I won't post it in the article.

: For a collaborative resource like this, I believe it is imperative that any contributor making an assertion, especially critical ones (as opposed to trivia, added dates, etc. -- which ideally should be supported, too), document them appropriately. If not, that sends a poor message to other contributors, editors, and sysops -- to say nothing of users, potential users, and CP critics. It is hardly the kind of example to provide for home-schooled kids learning about proper scholarship. I have looked and looked and find no reliable studies that support the argument that professors are more likely than anybody else to do bad things. Also, no evidence that liberal professors are worse than conservative ones. There are news and blog reports that repeat certain cases, but unless one does an exhaustive search, no conclusions can be drawn. If this article remains, then there should be additional coverage for politicians, clergy, other professions, etc. and they should include misdeeds by conservatives and liberals alike, according to the actual data. Leaving out crimes by conservatives does no one a service. I understand that this is a conservative encyclopedia, but some traits of it purportedly include truthfulness (I'd argue that it is dishonest to tell only partial truths), and to avoid misrepresentation and sensationalism. [[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 8:26, 27 March 2008 (CDT)

== Head's up - this isn't as simple as it may seem ==

As I was doing some admittedly "Google-esque" research, I did find that there are well over 4000 colleges and universities and probably many more than 1,250,000 current faculty. If we work backwards a generation or two, the number increases, of course, which makes it difficult to substantiate the claim that professors are disproportionately likely to commit crimes or other misdeeds, especially if all we cite are fewer than 20 examples of such misdeeds. Looking at campus statistics, many more campus crimes (by far) were committed by students, to say nothing about the many thousands of crimes committed by the general public. So I started doing some informal Google searches for crimes committed by different professions, using -- for lack of a more efficient search method -- "professor arrested," "faculty arrested," etc. along with other professional categories. Combining "faculty" or "professor" and "crime" didn't work well (too many useless hits).
The highest, in that combination alone, was "teacher" (over 190,000 hits), but "mayor" still had more hits (over 27,000) than "faculty" or "professor" (about 14,000). Unfortunately, hits for "pastor," "minister," and "priest," added up to an uncomfortably high number, over 100,000, but then again, if we don't know how many pastors, etc. are out there, we have no percentage to compare them with faculty or other groups. My methodology is rudimentary, but I didn't see any demographic or statistical reports that covered this topic. So, unless we can document this so-called high rate of crime among faculty, perhaps the article should remain mute on the number, relative to other professions. After seeing some statistics about the correlation between educational level and prison population, it also seems like the prison population is much more likely to have no or little education. There are very few PhDs in prisons. Likewise, after seeing these figures, I would guess that the more one is educated, the less likely one is to get felonies or misdemeanors.

So, my question is: do any other contributors to this article have any data at all on this? Is it only anecdotal? If facts can't be documented, then they don't belong in these articles. Especially if the article is questioning the integrity of professors, including their intellectual integrity (like the Korean scientist who established his reputation on cooked data - about which I can find documentation), this article's information should be sound. It is still full of undocumented assertions and sensationalism. [[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 8:01, 27 March 2008 (CDT)

== Tony Blair ==

Huh? How is this not relevant to the article? He has no doctorate, he has been appointed to teach at Yale and he is a liberal politician. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:19, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

: That appears simply to be a guest lecture appointment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:42, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:: You mean just like Al Gore?--[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:54, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::: Since you don't seem to mind guest lecturers being added to this list, I will put Tony Blair back.

:::Maybe it was Blair's suppoort for the Iraq War that got him his lecturing position. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 19:46, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Really? ==

I just did a google search, and the first few pages of the 735 results don't have any signinifigance to subject at hand. So, here's my question: Did you just make this term up Andy? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 12:07, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

: There's a great deal of bias out there, DLerner. That's a reason why we're here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:10, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:: Yes, Andy. But the problem is, there's a great deal of bias here too. Are there any articles critical of conservatives on this site? Believe me conservatives aren't perfect. You didn't answer my question, where is the term "Professor values" from? I know there are a lot of stupid people/policies on colleges (just watch the Penn & Teller episode on [[censorship]]) but that isn't the point. Where is the term from? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 12:16, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Why are you critical of a neologism which points out a legitimate area of concern, DLerner? Examine the case studies, and perhaps you will appreciate why this article is a necessary one. [[User:Koba|Koba]] 12:34, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

::::Koba, the problem with making up a phrase like this is that it's really not meaningful, unless backed up by statistically valid evidence to justify it. Do Charlton Heston and John Wayne fit the profile of "Hollywood Values" as defined here? The examples mentioned in this article are as representative of professors as a category (i.e. a few out of thousands around the world), as they are of males. If this is the encyclopedic standard CP holds to, then I can create a page called "Right-handed values", describing the bad traits of right-handed people and backed by examples of the criminal behavior of some cherry-picked right-handed people, and it would pass muster based on examples like this page that ASchafly endorses.--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:31, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

''The phrase Professor values refers to the lack of morals and values in the culture of college faculties, which is characterized by atheism, censorship, socialism, unjustified claims of expertise and knowledge, advocacy of liberal beliefs, liberal grading, liberal bias, anti-patriotism, plagiarism, false claims of credentials, lack of productivity, and promotion of sexual immorality.''

Has anyone else seen this "phrase" before? I looked for it. If it's a study, it belongs in an essay not in a article. Personally, I think Andy made it up. (It's a nice slogan though...)

If anyone can make up a term then write an article about it, how's this? "The phrase '''Criminal values''' refers to the lack of respect for the law..." [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 12:59, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:Indeed - see my comment under "What is this about?", above - which nobody has seen fit to reply to. The proliferation of these flimsy articles is making a mockery of Conservapedia. The latest such nonsense is [[Liberal drivel]], which I assume is a parody - but it's getting harder and harder to distinguish parody from real content. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:17, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

== Um... ==
This article serves no purpose... It should be an essay or opinion at the very most --[[User:Helps|Helps]] 11:14, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

What '''statistical''' evidence is there in this article of atheism, plagiarism, socialism
, censorship etc. This article makes unfounded claims. [[User:Angband|Angband]] 13:18, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

: Help find the support for those observations. It's not difficult to find. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:47, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
:: That is the wrong way to answer a legitimate question, and does a disservice to the students you want using Conservapedia as a legitimate reference source. When a so-called encyclopedic article makes irrational assertions and offers no cited evidence to support them, people are going to question its validity. Your response, "The supporting evidence is out there, help us to find it.", is basically an endorsement of unacademic postings by biased individuals as long as the bias is conservative, and an insult to the moderates who want a Conservative Encyclopedia to be, well, encyclopedic. My suggestion is that if it's not that hard to find the supporting evidence, then the page should be removed until the author can find it him/herself and post it. I'm sure I'll be accused of "Liberal Denial" or "Liberal Apology", or some other "Liberal ---" behavior that's used in place of an academic response, but fair-minded people need to speak up about this.--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:31, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:I've never been to College in my long life but I must agree. This article is sensationalist tabloidism at its very best. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 13:49, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

== First paragraph of article is not adequately supported ==

I do think the listing of the growing problem of professors misdeeds section in the latter part of the article was very informative.

However, I don't think the footnote in the first paragraph adequately supports the first paragraphs contentions. Is plagiarism truly a professor value? If it is, there is absolutely no support for the contention. I don't think that plagiarism is a common value of professor although there may be certainly instances of it. I have read the scientific fraud in the way of fudging experimental results is a significant problem but I have not heard the same regarding plagiarism. I do know that puffing up ones resume is a significant problem in the USA, however, the contention that professors often do it was not supported.

In short, I think the initial paragraph does not follow the conservapedia commandments in regards to proper citation and support. I don't think it is reasonable to ask the reader to do the research for that is getting the cart before the horse. It is the writers job to support the material.

I do recommend the following conservative website in order to help provide adequate support for the article: Accuracy in Academia at http://www.academia.org/

In the meantime, I suggest the article to be pulled from the popular articles at Conservapedia until adequate support is given and that the article have a citation template put on it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:16, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

: This is a work-in-progress with 24 references already. There have been numerous instances of plagiarism by professors without any punishment, and those citations will be easy to fill in, and I welcome assistance. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:57, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:::It does appear as if liberals are over represented in academia with 90% of professors describing themselves as being liberals or moderates. [http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=s1153nnhjkhr407r6ng6gjg8pvc8g2s8] Therefore, there does appear to be less conservatives in academia. So one would expect there to be more atheist in academia. At the same time , atheism is not a professor value as about 25% of philosophy professors are theist. [http://www.rzim.org/slice/slicetran.php?sliceid=880] In the business and engineering departments the percentage of professors being theist is probably higher given that they are more conservative. In regards to plagiarism being a professor value, many instances of professors committing this act does not necessarily constitute it being a professor value. There are a lot of professors in the USA and abroad so the real question what percentage of professors have engaged in plagiarism. In other words, you can can find many instances of men beating their wives in the United States but is wife beating a "male value"? I don't think it is. Again, it comes down to the percentage issue. So to sum up, I think the opening paragraph needs to be less expansive in its claims or provide additional support. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:47, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:Even if 25% of philosophy professors were theists, wouldn't this still be lower than the rate of theism in the population as a whole? I do agree with your post in that it should be examined by specific departments. At least at my school, some departments, such as Economics and Geography, do not seem particularly liberal, while a number of others clearly are. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:03, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
:::DanH, thank you for your polite and kind reply. I do think that liberal ideology and liberals are over represented in academia. However, to call something a "professor value" or "male value" while a significant portion of the population in question does not share a particular value would be over reaching in my estimation. And I do think, for example, that 25% of a given population not sharing a value would be a significant amount of people and be justification for saying a given characteristic was not a value of the population as a whole. However, you can fairly say that a certain value is over represented in a population as a whole if in fact it is. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:14, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Good cites, Conservative. I've added them. This entry is ranked #1 on Google and is emerging as a significant insight. Professors share a common value system, not unanimously, but in higher percentages of agreement than even some churches. It's enlightening to described the [[professor value]]s and note the harm caused by them. Ideas obviously do have consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
::::: I have a feeling that the majority of the professors at Liberty University might take exception to this article, since by definition these descriptors apply to them. Also, being ranked #1 in this case has more to do with the topic not being recognized as a commonly-used term. If I wrote an article titled "Liberal Klingon Values" it would rank #1 for that search in no time, without being any more relevant.--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:29, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

What constitutes "a relatively high" number of instances of crimes or other misdeeds? Compared to other professions? If so, then we'd need to document those comparisons. If there are over 1,200,000 professors currently active in the US alone, then the total cited cases here is an extremely small 0.00125% of that population, about 1.25 evildoers per 100,000 faculty -- and some cited were from former generations or from other countries. Given stats from the National Center for Educational Statistics, the total population of professors would easily be in the multiple millions (depending how far back we'd want to go), making the percentage of the population amazingly miniscule. Some of the crimes or other behavior in the list refers to things that the general public is probably even more likely to do, including stalking family, drug possession, etc. -- in other words, not things that are unique to professors at all. I'd say the % of pastors and other religious leaders who have gotten themselves into hot water is embarrassingly high (sexual immorality, misuse of church funds, etc.) and perhaps higher than that of the professoriate. Maybe comparing the professors to the general population would show that professors are more or less likely than the general population to commit crimes. Also, to be fair and honest according to the Commandments, this article should report the academic/moral/financial misdeeds -- some very high profile -- of conservative academics, including events at several Christian colleges and universities, indluding former faculty and university presidents. Making unfounded statements in an encyclopedia article, especially if the statements are inflammatory, is antithetical to the whole idea of honest scholarship -- which is ironic, considering the topic of this article! [[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 09:25, 26 March 2008 (CDT)

== Title of the article should be "liberals and academia" and not "professor values" ==

I do believe upon sound research that people are not going to find this article based on a search of "professor values".

Here are the Google results of "professor values" and you will notice that all 715 results have nothing to do with the article we have: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Professor+Values%22&hl=en&start=10&sa=N

On the other hand if you do a search on "liberals in academia" you will get 8,450 results and all are related to our article: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22liberals+in+academia%22&btnG=Search

While I do think it is great to have a #1 Google entry in terms of getting exposure to Conservapedia I do think you have to begin with the end in mind and bring people to Conservapedia who are interested in a particular issue. I do realize that it is sometimes beneficial to pursue long tail marketing and dominate less competitive search queries over a long period of time, however, it does not appear as if anyone is typing in "professor values" to find the subject material of our article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:33, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

I hesitate to point this out again (I mentioned it above), but what of crimes and other misdeeds committed by conservative academics? A number of leaders of Christian colleges and universities have, for example, abused authority, horribly misused funds for private -- and sometimes extravagant -- entertainment, travel, or shopping, or have had immoral sexual affairs. Not including information about these instances, or even acknowleding their existence, is a serious and dishonest error of omission. [[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 09:28, 25 March 2008 (CDT)

==Professor Values on Wikipedia==

Seems the article was put up on Wikipedia and is now up for deletion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor_Values

This thing really doesn't belong on an encyclopedia. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 07:18, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

:Not on wikipedia, maybe (not least, because it was ''plagiarized'' from here!) - but it seems perfectly at home in this encyclopedia. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:21, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

:: I bet you think [[Hollywood values]] should be censored also!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:12, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Actually, yeah, that's a dumb article too. --[[User:DJBlair|DJBlair]] 14:20, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

:Yes, I think any article that is just 'made up' is neither trustworthy or encyclopedic. I wouldn't let my kids near this site (or Wikipedia for that matter, but thats a story for another day) [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 20:20, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

::In a strange bout of irony the WP ''Professor Values'' article now ranks higher than the CP version. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 08:24, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

::: It didn't take long for the [[liberals]] on Wikipedia to delete its entry! It's gone.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:03, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

==Catholic schools==

Should abuse by priests in catholic schools deserve its own article entitles, [[Priest Values]]? Of course not, because the abuse committed by some priests is not indicative of the entire group. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 20:42, 25 March 2008 (EDT)
:You're making a big mistake, you think this "encyclopedia"  is governed by logic and reason, it isn't. -- '''[[user:DLerner|D L e r n e r]]''' [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DLerner Articulate] 20:48, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

:: DLerner was blocked for his repeated derogatory comments, and "LeaningRight" you should be blocked for your 90/10 [[rule]] violation against talk, talk, talk.

:: This [[professor values]] lists the commonly held values and consequences of those values. Your suggestion does not fit that model, and your suggestion is ludicrous.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:17, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

:Whatever. By the way, check my contributions, specifically to the India article. I have not broken any rules that I know of. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 13:31, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
:This is a link to my mainspace contributions: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?offset=&limit=50&target=LeaningRight&title=Special%3AContributions&namespace=0 [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 13:33, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

:: LeaningRight, you wrote, "I have not broken any rules that I know of." That is known as [[deliberate ignorance]], and it's not an excuse. Your last ten contributions have been all talk, and that violates the 90/10 [[rule]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:32, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

:Please have a little respect and don't talk to me like a child. I'm a middle aged man with children and I find that highly disrespectful. Have a glance at my contributions. I wasn't even aware of this 90/10 rule until you brought it up so its ignorance, but not 'deliberate'. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 15:26, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

:: You responded to my citation to our very simple set of [[rules]] with "Whatever" and "I have not broken any rules that I know of." Your response was ''after'' I directed you to the very simple set of rules.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:10, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

:Go and meet someone who doesn't agree with what you believe. I can guarantee you it will be quite refreshing. I'm taking a week off before I lose any faith I have ever had in the American people. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 16:15, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

::You really ought to watch how you talk to good editors, Andy. Your attitude isn't helping Conservapedia one bit. [[User:ShaggerNorris|ShaggerNorris]] 18:30, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Andy, if you hope to gain the respect of the mainstream, and avoid being an object of ridicule at RW and everywhere else, provide a solid case instead of anecdotes [[User:Innsmouth1|Innsmouth1]] 19:09, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
: What's RW? [[User:Alberti|Alberti]] 10:19, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

== Removal of bias ==
The bias that was removed should have been kept in. It was a fair point and was correct.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 17:55, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

:But it wasn't conservative. This isn't liberalpedia. Why is that so hard for you to understand? --[[User:FrankRingo|FrankRingo]] 17:59, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Are you kidding? A fact is a fact. A fair and correct point is not aligned with politcal leanings. Why is that so hard to understand?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 18:01, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

: What specifically do you think was fair? The stuff I removed was unjustified liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:02, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

"However, because the professoriate is so large and varied (more than 1,200,000 in the United States alone, in public and private institutions) it would not be valid to conclude that this group of professionals is disproportionately more likely than others groups or the general public to commit crimes or other misdeed"
Its not bias, it is fact. It is not valid that professors are more likely to commit crimes (at least the validity has not been proven here) and by removing this section it sounds more and more like opinion as opposed to an encyclopedia entry. I know you wont budge on this though and any attempt in me to argue or revert will be meet with an arbitary block so I'll turn my attention to less volitile entries.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 18:09, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

:Aden, something is not a fact just because it is written down somewhere. Liberal journalists that quote liberal studies that are furnished by liberal organizations do not produce fact - they produce nonsense. Please keep your gibberish out of this site. Perhaps you would feel more comfortable talking about your "facts" over at [[Wikipedia]]. --[[User:FrankRingo|FrankRingo]] 18:12, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

AdenJ, people sharing common values do tend to act in similar ways. Ideas do matter. Surely you don't think all the problems in Hollywood are purely coincidental with [[Hollywood values]]!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

My quibble was not whether ideas or shared values matter, it was that factual and relevant material was removed as bias.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 18:45, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

:Aden, your "facts" were discussed already. We know you can read, so quit playing stupid. --[[User:FrankRingo|FrankRingo]] 18:50, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks Frank.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 18:52, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

: AdenJ, people who disrespect the law are more likely to commit crimes. That's logic, and does not require a citation. [[Professor values]] include a disrespect for rule of law, among other things.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:02, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Again, and for the last time before I slam my head on the table, I was querying why good stats were removed from this article which show that crime amoung professors is not disproportionate. Apparently its not factual, according to you and Frank. End of discussion.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 20:08, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

: What statistics are you describing? Merely an estimate of the total number of professors? That doesn't demonstrate anything about proportionate crime.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:14, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
:: The stats I cited, which were removed by you, were from a standard statistical source (see the original citation) and the very high number of professors that exist make the isolated examples provided in the article statistically insignificant. It would be interesting to compare relative crime rates for various professions -- then we'd be able to say that professors are more likely or less likely to commit crimes. I spent a lot of time tracking down those stats and was surprised that you removed them because of "liberal" bias. As my contributions to this Talk page show, I felt uncomfortable seeing ungrounded assertions about professors being disproportionately likely to commit crimes. The few examples are incidental and anecdotal -- they are not statistically significant and one cannot use them to justify the conclusion that professors are more likely to commit crimes than others. Plenty of crimes are committed by teachers, pastors, politicians, business people, and so on -- but no evidence has been supplied to show that they commit crimes less often than professors. I believe my statement was taken away not because it is inherently liberal -- it is attitude neutral -- but rather because the data seriously challenged the validity of the premise of the whole article. After a lot of reading on this in support of my since-removed contributions, I would imagine that, taken as a group, professors are much less likely to commit crimes than many other professions. To prove that, I'd have to do more research and document it well, which I don't have the time to do. The same should be done if one wanted to document that they are MORE likely to commit crimes, but for now those assertions in the article remain unsupported except by isolated examples. That is a very bad example to set for any students, home-schooled or not. My contributions attempted to raise the research standard of the article and I believe the data I supplied were inappropriately removed. [[User:CPlantin|Cplantin] 20:48, 21 April 2008 (CDT)

: I looked for, but could not find, the edit you're describing above. But note that the frequency of crime is not the only issue; the nature of the crimes also matters. Also, it's meaningless to compare wealthy, pampered, highly educated professors to the general population in terms of crime. Any comparison would have to factor in demographic, privilege, and background info.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:56, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:: If it is, as you say, "meaningless to compare wealthy... professors to the general population in terms of crime," then we should remove the entire block of "Crimes by Professors." The number cited is incredibly small, compared with the total number of professors out there, and unless you are positing that they commit crimes with disproportionate frequency (which the article seems to be implying), then it really doesn't have a purpose. We might as well start sections with anecdotal evidence about crimes for several professions. Actually, crime would be the easiest of the categories mentioned in the article to prove. Bullying, etc. may well take place, and some professors are true jerks, but there is not official documentation about instances of promoting immorality, bias against conservatives in classrooms, etc. Anyway, the problem I see with this article is that readers may notice that there is no support of the major assertions except for a handful of examples, some from other countries, one more than 25 years old, and one about a professor being fined $50 for mooning a child. I would suggest that we find documentation to support this article's assertions, call the article an editorial, or delete it entirely. If we look at the nature of the crimes, as you suggest, there are some murders, but also marijuana possession, mooning, attempting to defraud a hospital trust, stalking, possession of child porn, and others -- but not even close to what happens in one major city in one day. Attempting to smear an entire profession based on these examples and no real data is not scholarship. Conservapedia can do better and it should, if it is to be taken seriously. [[User:CPlantin|Cplantin] 1:48, 22 April 2008 (CDT).

::: You didn't respond to my points. The nature of the crimes is as important as their volume, perhaps more so. And, no, we're not going to limit ourselves here to what is recognized by [[liberal]] newspapers and censored journals. Conservapedia reaches beyond what is already widely available, and we're not going to fall for the [[deliberate ignorance]] that plagues less useful resources.

::: Finally, your statement that "some professors are true jerks" obviously misses the point. The problem is not the "jerks", but the "values".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:56, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: I thought I'd addressed the main points you'd asked about, but I'll try again. Frequency of crime is indeed an issue if this article is trying to assert that professors commit crimes proportionally more than those in other specific professions, other professions in general, the general public -- you name it. To prove that they commit more crimes than other groups based on the tiny number of examples is ridiculous. Yes, frequency is not the only issue and the nature of the crimes also matters. But as my comment above shows, the crimes cited in the article, as bad as they are, are not all as bad as, say, murder. Besides murder, there is pot possession, the mooning of a child, stalking, possession of child porn, attempting to defraud a hospital trust. So, to the extent that all crime is bad, then all of those are bad things and I trust that the perps got their just desserts. But are those crimes any more heinous than those committed by any number of people of all kinds of professions, by the rich, by the poor, by politicians, etc. If we do factor in "demographic... and other background info," how would the picture look? Well, we don't really know, do we, because we know of no such studies, if there are any out there. So until we have some kind of actual data to go on, this article should remain silent on the issue (or not exist) or else it will look to readers more like an editorial rather than an encyclopedia article based on factual sources. You'd also asked about the source for my stats. I searched for a long time to find good, reliable numbers regarding professors and other employees in colleges and universities in the United States. Here is the quote you removed, along with the citation:
::::: "However, because the professoriate is so large and varied (more than 1,200,000 in the United States alone, in public and private institutions) it would not be valid to conclude that this group of professionals is disproportionately more likely than others groups or the general public to commit crimes or other misdeeds.[http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/tables/dt07_178.asp?referrer=list]
:::: Looking at it again, I should have been clearer by adding something to the effect that "because the professoriate is so large, it would not be valid to conclude that this group of professionals is disproportionately more likely than other groups or the general public to commit crimes or other misdeeds based on a small sample of reported crimes unless the group and its crime rates are compared with those of other professionals or the general public." I also should have place the stats citation right after I mentioned the number of professors. The source supports that information and not the rest of the sentence. While I could have been clearer, the statement should not have been removed because you were "cleaning out liberal bias." What is liberal about that statement? I was trying to make the article more substantial and accurate. There are clearly claims in the article that are unsupported and therefore in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments, and I was doing research to find accurate data about the population under discussion. It was only a start and I was enjoying the research, but having my contribution yanked was like getting an unwarranted suckerpunch. In a sense, you did what you accuse professors of doing: you bullied someone you thought had an opposing point of view. Trying to verify facts and add documentation is neither liberal nor conservative - it is research. [[User:CPlantin|Cplantin] 22:51:48, 23 April 2008 (CDT)

== [[Debate:Are Liberals fundamentally evil?|Liberal]] professor [[PZ Myers]] just linked to this article ==

[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/a_temporary_palliative.php Here]. Be on the watch for vandals. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:20, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

== this article is ridiculous ==

it's kind of funny actually [[User:NRupert|NRupert]] 13:59, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

== Liberal fluff ==

The statement that "it appears that intelligent people sometimes hold these values" is [[liberal fluff]]. It's meaningless. Intelligent people "sometimes" hold almost any value, no matter how wanton or absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:57, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

==Recent edit==
As much as I dislike this entire article, I restrained myself and only removed a section lacking a citation. The citations are generally well groomed in this article, so let's keep up the same standards on the whole thing. IMHO, this is and should remain a highly opinionated essay ONLY, though, not an article. What will the liberals say to us next if they see this? I'm an ashamed conservative to have to read this.[[User:Bender2982|Bender2982]] 18:13, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

: Invoking "shame" is trademark [[liberal style]], Bender. I doubt you're fooling anyone here by claiming you're a conservative. By the way, I added a reference for the material you removed, a reference that took me less than one minute to find. You could have done likewise. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:16, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Actually, you added only One reference to One of the points. But in doing so you went from saying, "Some" boards "have been known to", to the more unequivocal, "Faculty boards block the granting of a tenured professorship to candidates for tenure who:" Unless you are going to once again provide the word, "Some", as a moderate you are going to need to provide more than one reference to make a blanket and unqualified statement. Oh, and the reference you used said that they took his position into consideration for their decision. A far cry from stating that faculty boards block the granting, etc. as if it was a written policy. A phrase more in line with your example would be, "Some faculty boards have used the following criteria in blocking the granting of a tenured professorship..." --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 18:24, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

== Blatant factual error ==

In the article, Alexander Downer is quoted as being a 'liberal' politician who received an academic position. Unfortunately, despite being a previously prominent member of the Liberal Party of Australia, in Australia this means something quite different. Alexander Downer was one of the most conservative politicians in Australia in the last decade. As a matter of personal opinion, I'd say he'd be the 5th-most conservative mainstream politican in Australia.

: What are his positions on abortion, gay rights and gun control? The way you phrase your comment, I'd guess he is a [[liberal]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:32, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Aschlafly, the Liberal Party in Australia is actually a conservative party. Liberal in this case means free-market liberal. [[User:HSpalding|HSpalding]] 20:15, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::: If someone is for government funding of abortion, then he's a liberal. The entry makes no assertion about a particular party name.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:17, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::::The problem is, Aschlafly, that ''conservative'' in the USA doesn't mean the same as ''conservative'' elsewhere, not least other English-speaking countries. In the USA, largely the same set of people are conservative in both social and economic views. In the UK, Australia and New Zealand, however, the two things are pretty much independent. Taking your anti-abortion example, there are MPs opposed to abortion in all three main parties in the UK - their views on that subject are completely unconnected to their economic views. Likewise, civil partnerships and other social issues.
::::As far as the text in the article goes, the sensible thing is just to delete the word liberal. You can't call someone like Alexander Downer or Tony Blair liberal. Downer was very much a conservative in economic policy and Blair was socially conservative, bringing in a great many laws to restrict perfectly harmless activities. [[User:HSpalding|HSpalding]] 16:53, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:::::HSpalding, your assumptions are both offensive and based on the untruth that Mr Schlafly is unaware of conditions in the UK. He is very much aware of differences between our two countries, and his insights on these are extremely instructive. You would be well advised not to jump to conclusions, on this and other matters. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:25, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== Doctor values? ==

Please could someone explain in what way the long list of crimes committed by people who happen to be professors has any connection at all to the values of the huge majority of professors who are decent people?

If you want to be consistent, why not start a page called Doctor Values, headed by Harold Shipman. [[User:HSpalding|HSpalding]] 19:49, 16 November 2008 (EST)

: see my page [Value Systems] for similar articles , add Doctor Values by all means [[User:Markr|Markr]] 17:04, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== David Ross liberal parody/hoax? ==
The most recent addition about some Dr. David Ross might be a hoax. Since he supposedly has appeared on BBC several times I should be able to find something about him. I have not. Unless someone can verify it, I think it should be removed as liberal parody/hoax. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 07:05, 23 December 2008 (EST)
:Very well spotted, Rick. Also 'Dav Ross' (no-one called David is nicknamed 'Dav') - there is a character in the BBC sci-fio series 'Dr Who' called Davros. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:07, 23 December 2008 (EST)

== 100 German Professors Accused of Accepting Bribes For Degrees ==

[http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1918153,00.html]

An appropriate inclusion for the article? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:47, 23 August 2009 (EDT)

: Absolutely. What a story that is!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:06, 23 August 2009 (EDT)

::It is shocking, isn't it? Added. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:14, 23 August 2009 (EDT)

== Lenski ==

The entries on Lenski are basically the author's opinions.--[[User:SBosell|SBosell]] 21:39, 17 May 2010 (EDT)

Pop culture

2010-05-17T18:01:50Z

Jinxmchue: fmt

'''Pop culture''' is the short form of the term 'popular culture'. As with any kind of cultural category it is only loosely defined. It is understood as an umbrella term which includes all types of [[entertainment]] which are spread by [[mass media]] and enjoy wide appeal.

== Sources ==

The Earth and Its Peoples A Global History, Bulliet et al, 2005.

[[Category: Culture]]

Dungeons and Dragons

2010-05-15T01:17:10Z

Jinxmchue: start of a much-needed clean-up

'''Dungeons & Dragons''' (D&D or DnD) is a [[role-playing]] game with a medieval theme featuring [[myth]]ical creatures such as [[elf|elves]], [[dwarf (mythology)|dwarves]], [[orc]]s, and [[dragon]]s, but also semi-fictionalized [[demons]]. Players take the role of characters who solve a series of heroic adventures or quests. Though argued to be a harmless game, it has attracted a variety of criticism.

Players typically do not compete against one another; rather, the players cooperate to achieve goals and objectives while a referee, in this case called the ''dungeon master'' (DM) or ''game master'' (GM), interprets rules and adjudicates the success or failure of the players' efforts.

The game was first published in 1974 by Tactical Studies Rules (TSR). Most of those rules and many of the subsequent rules were authored by [[Gary Gygax]]. There are some who claim that [[Dave Arneson]] was the actual "inventor" of D&D, but this claim is disputed, not least by the fact that many references were authored by Gygax. After its original publisher TSR, Inc., went bankrupt, the game was sold to [[Wizards of the Coast]], a division of Hasbro.<ref>Wizards of the Coast's [http://www.wizards.com/dnd D&D site]</ref>

In the late 1970s, the game's popularity exploded, particularly on college campuses. ''Dungeons & Dragons'' spawned countless variations and permutations, but during the earliest days of the game's growth, there were accusations that the game contributed to Satanic worship, teen suicide and general moral depravity. These criticisms have been repeatedly addressed by the game's creators and defenders.

The 4th Edition of the game is the most recent, released in 2008.

==Game play==
''Dungeons & Dragons'' is a free-form game in which a referee (the Dungeon Master) describes a situational problem to the players and then the players reply with any imaginable response. The exploits of players can occur in any fantasy setting but at some point the adventure often occurs in a ''dungeon'' or subterranean locale not unlike ''[[Khazad-dûm|Moria]]'' in [[Tolkien]]'s ''[[The Lord of the Rings]]''.

At the end of each gaming sessions, the DM grants all players a number of Experience Points (XP's) to represent the player accomplishments. When the character has acquired enough Experience Points, the character can gain more powers and abilities.

===Alignment System===
Because D&D players can basically do "anything" there are moral implications to the choices players make. To provide a frame of reference and to help the game make sense Gygax devised an alignment system. All characters are required to choose an ''alignment'' and the character must adhere to the beliefs of that alignment. Similarly, all monsters have alignments and thus their actions can be predictable and make sense.

"Good" characters strive to do acts of goodness and while avoiding actions which are hurtful to others. "Evil" characters think only of their own needs. Animals and certain other creatures don't care much about good or evil. At the same time "Lawful" characters believe that it is important to adhere to the rule of law, while "Chaotic" characters are more concerned with personal freedoms than with laws. Some characters do not care whether an action is lawful or chaotic, but only whether it is good or evil. By combining these two frameworks, we arrive at the nine alignments: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, true neutral ("neutral neutral"), chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil.

These alignments help a player separate what the player or referee would do in a given situation from how the character or monster might react in the same situation. Some DMs forbid evil characters as they are often disruptive to the game, though the rules do not expressly require that players choose good characters. The ability to play evil characters has been among the criticisms against the game.

In the original versions of the game, only the "ethical" (Law/Chaos) axis of morality was present. The "moral" (good/evil) axis was added in later editions. 4th Edition removes the axis concept, resulting in the alignments lawful good, good, unaligned, evil, and chaotic evil.

===Components of a Character===
A character is described in detail on a "character sheet" where the player records important facts about the character. This includes the character's "race", vocation, unique skills, and numerical ratings of the character's attributes.

In this case, "race" refers to a race from fantasy such as an elf, dwarf, gnome or halfling--effectively used as an archaic term for "species". The races which are allowed in the game vary from DM to DM according to the tastes of players and the setting that the DM has devised. The vocation or "class" of the character refers to the fantasy archetype the player wishes to play, e.g. wizard, barbarian, rogue, cleric, etc. The selection of race and class will impact skills and attributes which are available to the character as well as the strengths and weaknesses the character.

===The Magic System ===
The magic system used in Dungeons & Dragons was originally adopted very roughly from the writing of fantasy and science fiction author [[Jack Vance]]. In the Vancian system, magic-users such as wizards must prepare all of their spells in advance for that day by memorizing them and a spell leaves the wizard's memory upon being cast. To cast the spell again, the magic-user must once again memorize the spell. The Vancian system was chosen for a variety of reasons such as its originality compared to pre-existing magical systems, its avoidance any connection with systems of magic described in any religion or occult theory, and it being the creation one of Gygax's favorite authors.<ref>Forum discussion: [http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/printthread.php?t=182603 "Is D&D magic purely Vancian?"]</ref><ref>RPGnet: [http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/10/10222.phtml Review of "The Primer of Practical Magic"]</ref> Novices and those who have never played the game should note that in this case, the player doesn't actually memorize anything. The character "memorization" is really just a mechanic to help limit the number of spells a player can use per gaming episode. The 4th Edition makes significant changes to the system, basing most abilities on "per encounter" uses (as in, how many times per battle or event an ability can be used).

===The Combat System ===
To determine the outcome of combat, players roll dice to determine if an attack "hits" and then if the attack hits how much damage the attack does. Damage reduces the defender's "hit points". When a combatant's hit points are depleted that combatant is "dead" or incapacitated. This combat system was developed from a ship-to-ship naval combat game that Gygax adapted to describe medieval man-to-man combat.

==History and Development==
To many Americans ''Dungeons & Dragons'' seemed to appear from nothingness as a wholly born concoction of occult elements and hypnotic game play. The truth is that the game evolved from mundane roots in a quite corner of Wisconsin outside Milwaukee. The origins of D&D are found in a prior generation of [[miniatures games]] such as [[H.G. Wells]]' [[Little Wars]]. ''Little Wars'' is a set of rules which describe how to play a game with toy soldiers.

Wells' rules were themselves were based upon a earlier games which were primarily played by nobility and royals to teach warfare strategy. <ref>http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=6040&pageno=2 Foreword to Little Wars by ''H.G. Wells''</ref>. With the publication of ''Little Wars'', H.G. Wells hoped to bring a game previously known only to kings to the common man. Because tin soldiers do not bleed and do not leave widows, it was Wells hope that men could settle differences by little wars rather than real wars.

Miniature gaming such as ''Little Wars'' was nearly unknown in America, although there were pockets of hobbyists such as "International Federation of Gamers", a tiny group near Milwaukee Wisconsin.<ref>http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnDArchives_History.asp</ref> [[Gary Gygax]] and [[Dave Arneson]] were members of that gaming group. It can rightly be said that Gygax and Arneson are the fathers of modern role-playing games, but the contributions of other local gamers are muddied into this mix as well.

===Gygax & Arneson===
In the earliest days, the International Federation of Gamers was possessed of a grand name, but little more. Of course few records were kept at that time. Thus, there is some dispute about who exactly invented what aspects of the game. In 1969, Gary Gygax adapted rules meant to govern wooden ship combat into a medieval combat game which was published by Guidon Games under the name ''Chainmail''. The game was very popular locally and grew organically over the next few years. At the same time, ''[[The Lord of the Rings]]'' was gaining mass appeal in the United States. This inspired players to incorporate elements of fantasy into their wargames.

By 1970, Dave Arneson adapted these and other club rules into something generally referred to as ''the fantasy game'' <ref>http://jovianclouds.com/blackmoor/</ref>. ''The fantasy game'' had several key innovations --- many of which were of Arneson's devising. In previous wargames, players generally led an army of toy soldiers. But in ''the fantasy game'', each player had only one soldier, described as a ''character'' or ''player character''.

Further the game evolved to include the concept that at the next game session would pick up where the last game session ended. Another evolutionary concept was the idea of a referee or game master. The referee, often played by Arneson or Gygax, had the job of making final judgments and augmenting the rules as necessary to keep the game going. <ref>http://jovianclouds.com/blackmoor/rpg2.html</ref>

There is some question as to who exactly designed what in ''the fantasy game'' with at times Gygax and Arneson jointly and severably claiming to have "invented the game". There is no doubt that both many, and many gamers, where involved in the evolution of the game. Arneson's chief claims rest on his evolution of certain key concepts that would constitute all role-playing games to follow. Gygax's claim rests upon the fact that most of the early reference works were authored by Gygax.

===OD&D===
In 1972, Gary Gygax and others formed a partnership called Tactical Studies Rules and in 1974 Tactical Studies Rules published Gary Gygax' version of "the Fantasy Game", later named ''Dungeons & Dragons''. <ref>http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnDArchives_History.asp#</ref> This version of the game --- often called ''Original Dungeons & Dragons'', ''Old Dungeons & Dragons'' or ''OD&D'' --- was printed in staple-bound paperback form from folded sheets of 8.5 x 11 paper and sold as a boxed set.

By many accounts, ''OD&D'' was a clunky game, sparse on rules, but in this game one would find all the elements of a modern role-playing game: player characters, a game master, serial adventures, and the opportunity for character growth. Several print runs of this version sold out quickly and went on to exceed the expectations of everyone involved.

After the tremendous success of the D&D paperbacks, Tactical Studies Rules reorganized with partners Gary Gygax, Don Kaye and Brian Blume under the name TSR Hobbies Inc. In 1975, TSR Hobbies published OD&D supplements, Gygax's ''[[Greyhawk]]'' and Arneson's ''[[Blackmoor]]''. <ref>http://www.dadsdnd.com/greyhawk.html</ref> <ref>http://www.dadsdnd.com/blackmoor.html</ref>

''Dungeons & Dragons'' began to be noticed by American culture at about the same time the company released ''Eldritch Wizardry'' and ''God, Demigods & Heroes''. The cover of ''Eldritch Wizardry'' featured an nude dress female strewn over an altar. <ref>http://www.deigames.com/eldwiz2.JPG</ref> ''Gods, Demigods & Heroes'' was a mythological reference with gods and heroes from the legends and lore of Greeks, Egyptians, Indians, Norse and more. Many of these mythological gods are considered creatures of human invention, but some are now considered demons by the Christian Church.

Although the game was gaining popularity, the works served as a lightning rod for criticism. Although some of the art in these and later editions would violate the [[Comics Code]], the publishers at TSR failed to appreciate the danger of ignoring these rules. Some of TSR's management believed that D&D was marketed toward adult males, not teens and preteens, and thus the Comics Code did not apply. It soon became evident that D&D's popularity reached beyond college-age males.

===First Edition===
In 1977, TSR Hobbies published the Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set, a boxed set containing revised and abbreviated rules for easier introduction to the game. This was followed in 1978 by the publication of the "core rule books" of D&D: the ''Players Handbook'', the ''Dungeon Masters Guide'' and the ''Monster Manual''. (Later editions of this game would follow this pattern.) Taken as a whole with several other reference books this version of the game is alternatively referred to as Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, AD&D, 1E, 1ED&D. This version of the game revised and organized the notes from OD&D into a single playable whole in hardback books.

Although the art found in the books is hardly obscene and does not approach what is found regularly in American culture today, there were a handful of depictions that did not meet the Comics Code. For example, a harpy, a creature from Greek mythology, that is half-woman half-vulture was depicted with nipples revealed. <ref>''Monster Manual'' by Gary Gygax published by TSR Hobbies 1978</ref> And a mermaid was depicted topless with her hair covering parts of the chest. <ref>''Dungeon Masters Guide'' by Gary Gygax published by TSR Hobbies 1979</ref>

Additionally the game had references to many demons and devils (intended as adversaries). Also the game had a polytheist mythos with some players playing the part of clerics, or priests, of these imaginary or mythical gods. (See backlash below.)

===Second Edition===
In 1983, TSR Hobbies changed its name to TSR, Inc. For the next several years, TSR, Inc. released supplements and adventures for AD&D, along with reprints of the AD&D core books. Typical adventure supplements sold 10,000 to 100,000 units, while each print run of the AD&D core rules sold 40,000 copies. <ref>http://www.acaeum.com/library/printrun.html</ref> While the company continue to sell respectable amounts of product, internal disorganization, in-fighting and corporate inefficiencies limited profitability. After a bitter fight with partners, Gygax was forced from the board of directors and eventually left the company. With Arneson gone since First Edition, the game was now in the hands of a second generation.

In 1989, TSR Inc. released Second Edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. This version of the game was largely a rewrite of the previous edition that was nearly fully compatible with First Edition AD&D. The game was largely sanitized and edited, but not so much reborne. For example, the art of Second Edition achieved a more professional standard. The art did not violate the Comics Code. Second Edition removed all references to "real" gods, devils and demons and inserted divas and angelic creatures.

Under the umbrella of Second Edition D&D, TSR, Inc. released some of its most enduring and popular titles. Ravenloft, Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance were all second edition products.

===Third Edition===
In 1997, TSR, Inc. was purchased by [[Wizards of the Coast]]. (Wizards is often called WotC, and this acronym is pronounced ''what-see''.) Wizards (eventually acquired by Hasbro) continued to improve the art and graphics of D&D and in 2000 released ''Third Edition Dungeons & Dragons'' to supplant second edition. While preserving the concepts of RPGing and many of the archetypes of AD&D, Third Edition (3E) would do what Second Edition had not.

Third Edition rewrote many of the basic constructs of the game in an effort to "modernize" the game and streamline some of D&D's clumsiest and clunkiest mechanics. Third Edition rules and supplements broke from the tradition of improving an existing system. Rather third edition replaced the previous system with "new and better" mechanics.

By the time of the release of Third Edition, most of the controversy associated with D&D had dissipated as secular culture had digressed far beyond anything found in previous D&D. With little controversy or fanfare, D&D reintroduced demons and many of the darker concepts of ''Dungeons & Dragons''.

Now based in Seattle Washington, rather than Lake Geneva Wisconsin, the editors at WotC seem to exhibit the cultural norms found in Seattle rather than the heartlands. For example, rather than using the pronoun ''he'' in non-gender specific rules, Third Edition D&D bypasses the clumsy but [[political_correctness | politically correct]] construct ''he/she'', and describes rules based on hypothetical characters. For example, the 3rd Edition "iconic" paladin was a woman named Alhandra, so the rules text describing the paladin's abilities used "she"; 3rd Edition's "iconic" cleric was a man named Jozan, so the rules text describing the cleric's abilities used "he".

The D&D ethos traditionally favored ''good'' characters, but Third Edition seems to subscribe to a "balanced" view as the idea. For example, many of the more evil creatures in Dungeons and Dragons prey on each other as much as on good people (the iconic example being lawful evil devils and chaotic evil demons); some of the text in the game indicates that they should be left to do this, rather than someone trying to destroy one or the other and uniting them, however briefly, in a struggle against the interloper. This is a troubling symptom of our cultural drift from conservative values but not the cause of that drift.

===Fourth Edition===
With much fanfare, the Fourth Edition of the game was recently announced. Coveting the tremendous revenue of miniatures games like [[Games Workshop]]'s ''[[Warhammer]]'', Fourth Edition is compatible with the new D&D Miniatures game. Fourth Edition also uses many of the conventions wildly accepted in online computer games following widely successful games like Blizzard's [[World_of_Warcraft | World of Warcraft]] and [[Diablo]]. The game makes several other adjustments; see above for some such changes.

====D&D Online====
There is now a Dungeons & Dragons Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game (MMORPG) known as ''Dungeons & Dragons Online: Stormreach'' which takes place in the ''Eberron'' campaign setting. Online and computer games are similar to D&D in many respects, but the play of these games is entirely different. D&D is characterized by a human referee and complete freedom of action. Without these key components, the game is a mere shadow of D&D.

===Summary===

''Dungeons & Dragons'' is nothing more or less than a formalized game of pretend, similar to imaginary adventures that children everywhere play. But, the simplicity of this concept was not immediately evident to players of ''Dungeons & Dragons'' or the public at large. Although D&D has a fantasy theme and many rules for resolving actions, ''Dungeons & Dragons'' is at its core a game of pretend like "cops and robbers" or "cowboys and Indians".

==Concerns and Criticisms==
In the late seventies and early eighties, the sudden popularity of ''Dungeons & Dragons'' resulted in a cultural and religious backlash against perceived dangers from the game. ''Dungeons & Dragons'' was linked to the occult, witchcraft & demonology. Additionally there was some criticism about the art depicted in the earliest versions of the game. Much of this criticism came from the natural tendency of people to fear the unknown and to fear new ideas, but some of this criticism was valid and affected later versions of what was published under the name ''Dungeons & Dragons''.

===Demons and Devils===
In D&D, player characters (the player's in game persona) are constantly gaining strength and power. Therefore, they are forever seeking more powerful adversaries and more difficult challenges. For example, at the start of a campaign player characters may be doing battle with creatures short of stature with few may limitations (low intelligence, fear of sunlight) such as [[goblin]]s or [[kobold]]s. But as the player character's power increases, so to increases the deadliness of their opponents. In the search for ever more powerful opponents game designers eventually developed attributes for demons and devils.

The publishers of the game had imagined that they would sell a few hundred copies to college-aged males and never imagined that the game would experience explosive popularity, especially among teens as young as thirteen. Therefore, no thought or planning was invested into the potential impact of defining the powers and abilities of demons and devils. To the game's designers and players, killing a demon (in game) was no more controversial than killing a bishop in a game of chess.

But to bystanders the very inclusion of demons and devils was enough to cast suspicion upon the entire game--particularly since the game's much-touted freedom might allow a character to side with them. Additionally, the inclusions of demons and devils in the game raised other questions, such as why there are no angels in the game. There were no angels in the earliest editions of the game, because there was no reason to have an angel in the role of a ''monster''. (See terminology above.) By late First Edition and early Second Edition, the game included and defined [[angels]], [[devas]] and other highly powerful creatures of good; sometimes these were presented as allies for good characters, sometimes enemies for evil ones. This led to the criticism that religious icons were being disrespected by inclusion in the reference works.

In the Second Edition, the publishers tried to sanitize D&D by removing demons and devils, but many players (who enjoyed the challenge of destroying demons) resisted this effort. Later editions removed many references to "real" demons. Additionally, the terms "devil" and "demon" were replaced with the terms "baatezu" and "tanar'ri", respectively, and "the Nine Hells" (the outer planar home of devils/baatezu) was renamed "Baator".

However, in Third Edition, the game's original terms were readopted and blended--colloquially, for example, creatures from the Nine Hells (also called Baator) were called devils, but the most dominant species of the devils called themselves baatezu. An entire "mature" supplement (though there is no legal restriction on who may buy it, a large sticker is on the cover of most copies, stating it is for mature gamers only), known as the Book of Vile Darkness<ref>[http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/881610000 "Book of Vile Darkness"]</ref> was produced to introduce more overtly evil concepts into the game, ostensibly in ways for the DM to make the most horrific enemies possible for their players. A follow-up, the Book of Exalted Deeds<ref>[http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/880260000 "Book of Exalted Deeds"]</ref>, was created as a way for players to explore the philosophy and morality of good, and to make a good alignment more than a line on their character sheet. (The titles of both books are based on magic items in the game, both of which are extremely useful to a person of the proper alignment.)

The Fourth Edition Player's Handbook contains a "Warlock" class, which allows the player to make a pact with a certain creature to gain power. One option is the "Infernal Pact", allowing the player to literally make a deal with the devil.

===D&D and the Occult===
The game includes fictional depictions of supernatural abilities called magic, evil monsters called demons and devils, and fictional deities along with their followers. Christians are divided on how this interacts with their faith. A minority of Christians believe that fictional depictions of fantasy elements such as those found in ''[[The Chronicles of Narnia]]'', ''[[The Lord of the Rings]]'', ''[[Harry Potter]]'', or ''Dungeons & Dragons'' are blasphemous, but most Christians see no problem with such fictional works.

Starting in the late 1970s the game and others like it came under attack mainly from some fundamentalist Christians as promoting occult and criminal activity. The game's dangers were alleged in the ''Dark Dungeons'' tract by [[Jack Chick]]<ref>Jack Chick: [http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.asp "Dark Dungeons"]</ref>, which portrays D&D players committing suicide when their characters are killed or joining secret witches' covens and learning to cast real magic spells when their characters reach a high enough level.

The fact is that ''Dungeons & Dragons'' designers and players had nothing to do with occult or criminal activity and thirty years later it may be hard to understand how people could confuse D&D with occult activities. In the earliest days of D&D it was easy for an uninformed bystander to draw faulty conclusions based upon a limited knowledge of the game. In its earliest days, OD&D often sold out due to low print runs, leaving bystanders with little access to the rules and little direct knowledge of the game.

For example, bystanders knew the game was developing a devoted cult-following. There is an important distinction between a cult-following and a cult itself, but this was lost on some bystanders. As a cult-following, D&D developed an insular fraternity of fans who were plugged into something exciting and new. Each day the world of D&D expanded and every player everywhere had a hand in the growth of the game. The players were developing their own lexicon and making new and ever expanding rules. This close bond and strange lexicon was easily misunderstood by those with limited exposure to the game.

In the late seventies the game's popularity was preceded by rumors that players were involved in some strange occult activities. Bystanders knew that D&D players were talking about fantastic creatures, magical spells and even demons because the game often includes descriptions of [[occult]] elements like [[magic]], [[ghost]]s, [[spirit]]s, [[demon]]s and [[devil]]s. To an uninformed bystander this may be pretty scary stuff. But, the truth was significantly less mysterious and sensational.

These misperceptions have largely evaporated, both because of the game's popularity and better information about the product. Critics became aware that players were not involved in anything occult but were gaming in a fantasy setting. Most everyone in America knows someone who has played ''Dungeons & Dragons'', so these days it's all but impossible to blur the line between occult activity and role-playing games.

===God and gods===
One item of concern for conservative Christians is that players' characters do not usually worship [[God]], but instead choose a [[patron]] deity from a fictional [[polytheistic]] pantheon. The game settings manufactured by [[Wizards of the Coast]] (''Greyhawk'', ''Faerun'', ''Eberron'', etc.) expressly adopt a polytheistic [[pantheon]] of fictional deities and reject real-world [[religion]]s as a part of the game. (The Deities and Demigods<ref>[http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/881650000 "Deities and Demigods"]</ref> supplement offers several different takes on religion, including rules for a monotheistic game world, but deliberately sidesteps the question of any modern religion--Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.--even as it brings up pantheons of old myths, such as the Greek or Norse gods. It's likely they used only "dead" religions in order to avoid controversy.) The question of what extent and form of religion should be depicted in the game has been a question since the earliest days of the game. In an in depth look at monotheism in fantasy games, Joseph R.Ravitts raised some of the problems and benefits for a born-again Christian's point of view.<ref>"Monotheism in Gaming" by Joseph R. Ravitts, Pegasus Magazine Issue #4 published in 1981 by Judges' Guild</ref>

Ravitts already understood the power of role-playing, which is now well known. Namely, role-playing is a powerful behavior modification tool. If you pretend that you believe something, eventually you will believe that something. For this reason, he posited that it was important to avoid role-playing in a polytheistic world. Referencing the classic argument from ''[[Mere Christianity]]'' by [[C.S._Lewis | C.S. Lewis]], Ravitts explained how polytheism is really just [[atheism]] or [[monotheism]] in disguise. He believed that if players and DM's actively played in an atheistic world, they would eventually become atheists.

He then pointed out the difficulties of importing Christianity or other religions into D&D. Ravitts pointed out it is a simple matter to import mythological gods like [[Zeus]] or [[Thor]] into a fantasy setting. One simply imagines these gods are in the fantasy world and begins playing. But this is much more difficult with religious figures like [[Jesus]], [[Muhammad]] or [[Buddha]]. Each of these three men were real historic personages. For example, Jesus lived, died and rose again in the Middle East at a specific time and place.

Ravitts proposed two simple work-arounds, for those who care about their spiritual well-being. Firstly, one could assume that all humans are teleported from Earth or descended from folks who were teleported from Earth. These humans have preserved their religious identities and thus Christianity is an option for players without tampering with the historical nature of Jesus. Secondly Ravitts proposed altering the game's mythos to allow for an all-powerful detached God reigning over the "gods, demigods and devils". In this way the "gods" are not gods at all, but just ultra-powerful beings who distract souls from worshiping the one true God.

However, it is worth noting that novels and "sourcebooks" make occasional references to a "God of gods".

Of course there are alternatives such as ''[http://www.greenronin.com/catalog/grr1019 Testament]'' a D&D type game set in the Biblical Era. Further, many of the game worlds portray certain gods and religions as being metaphors for modern ones. (Even the incredibly polytheistic Forgotten Realms, where more than a hundred deities exist, features a triad of gods that could be based on the Holy Trinity.) But ultimately, D&D is a game of fantasy and players are encouraged to alter the game world to better suit their tastes, and many Christian players and DMs alter the game world so that it better fits their personal beliefs.

===The art of D&D===
Another criticism is that illustrations in the rule books for ''Dungeons & Dragons'' often contain images of immodestly dressed women. For example, in the First Edition ''Monster Manual'' a number of drawings depicted topless creatures of fantasy such as the harpy (half-vulture half-woman) or the succubus (a demoness). The OD&D reference ''Eldritch Wizardry'' featured the profile of a nude woman. Most of these images are fairly crudely rendered and are not particularly racy by today's standards, but they did exceed the limitations of the [[Comics Code]] of the time<ref>http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8580/cca3.html</ref>.

By the publication of Second Edition, the art and layout of the D&D game was managed by professionals. As a result the quality of the art increased significantly and anything racy was eliminated from the art work. There was some minor controversy with the revised Third Edition ''Monster Manual'''s artwork of the succubus and nymph (a water spirit in the form of a beautiful woman), but aside from these there is nothing particularly shocking in the art for a child or adult of any age.

===Unchristian Activities===
Although Dungeons & Dragons does not present itself as either pro-Christian or anti-Christian, the game features many elements which can be considered to agree with or go against the teachings of Christ. The game has drawn criticism for allowing players to undertake the roleplaying of un-Christian activities: the rules allow a player to have their character perform evil acts, including the summoning or worshiping of demons and devils. Certain fundamentalists disagree with the very format of the game in that player characters can pretend to cast imaginary spells while playing the game.

Some feel that the primary action of the game involves the fictional slaying of monsters and the fictional accumulation of wealth, some Christians feel that this goes against the teachings of Christ regarding [[pacifism]] ([[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]] 5:38-42) and the accumulation of [[wealth]] (Matthew 19:24). Others see these actions as heroic endeavors and wealth is a byproduct of doing good things. Either way, the game and it's choices are a matter of free will.

Former [[United Methodist Church]] minister James Wyatt wrote an essay comparing the freedom of a Dungeons & Dragons player to choose his own actions, to the Christian concept of Free Will. As in real life, a player may, when presented with a moral choice, decide for himself whether to do good or evil. If the player was not able to do evil, he would be forced to do good, removing his freedom. Similarly, God allows human beings to choose between good and evil in real life, and people must accept the consequences of their choice. The supplements that deal specifically with demons and devils make it quite clear that the afterlife for characters who are condemned to the Abyss or the Nine Heels is in no way pleasant, and may even be short.

Tracy Hickman, one of the main authors of the Dungeons & Dragons Dragonlance book series, and a Christian with conservative politics and theology, has written a number of articles defending and discussing D&D from a Christian perspective. <ref name="Waldron">The Journal of Religion and Popular Culture: [http://www.usask.ca/relst/jrpc/art9-roleplaying.html "Role-Playing Games and the Christian Right"]</ref> Others within the Dungeons & Dragons community responded by writing other defenses from rationalist perspectives or other perspectives or by writing parodies such as "Chess: The Subtle Sin: Should Christians play chess?". Some argue that in response to the perceived Christian persecution of the Dungeons & Dragons, darker themed, deliberately counter-cultural games appeared in reaction such as [[Call of Cthulhu]] which is based on the horror writing of [[H.P. Lovecraft]] and set in the [[Cthulhu|Cthulhu Mythos]]<ref name="Waldron"/>, or [[Vampire: the Masquerade]], where players act the roles of undead vampires.

====Possible Areas of Concern for Christians====
D&D is a "game of pretend" whereby players pretend to take certain actions and the DM adjudicates the results of those actions. By its very nature, this leaves players open to experiment with various moral quandaries and social dilemmas. This is a valuable tool for players to learn the implications and results of playing both good and evil characters. However, the possibility exists that such an experience may not be beneficial or appropriate for everyone--in particular, persons who already have difficulty separating fantasy with reality might be able to be helped by the game, but it could also make things worse. Due to the nature of roleplaying games, a great deal depends upon the individual group in question; a given game of Dungeons and Dragons might be benign from a Christian standpoint, or it might involve activities and ideas that a Christian would find profoundly distasteful.

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
* [http://aquela.com/roleplaying/r&r/index.html Religion and Roleplaying]
* [http://www.fansforchrist.org/new/articles/article03a.htm Christians Playing Dungeons and Dragons] - An informed Christian's perspective on Dungeons & Dragons.
* [http://www.trhickman.com/Intel/Essays/Ethic2.html Ethics in Fantasy: Morality and D&D] - Tracey Hickman's essay concerning Christian perspectives and common misunderstandings about Role-Playing Games
* [http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/3691 Full text of H.G. Wells ''Little Wars; a game for boys from twelve years of age to one hundred and fifty']

[[Category:Games]]

Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies

2010-05-14T23:51:44Z

Jinxmchue:

{{Essay}}
 
'''Conservative movies exist, and some are immensely popular. Here is our growing list (in no particular order):'''

#''[[Invasion of the Body Snatchers]]'' (1956), a science fiction condemnation of [[communism]]
#''[[The Exorcist]]'' (1973) (not for children), a portrayal of evil with sympathy to Christianity. In its time it was the top-grossing film ever.
# ''Dark Matter'' (2008), a brutally candid portrayal of [[professor values]] along with problems associated with lack of assimilation; liberals first praised the movie, but after realizing its conservative message then panned it
#''[[Iron Eagle]]'' (1986)
#The first ''[[Spider-Man]]'' (2002), which praises moral virtue (hard-working teenager, devout aunt and well-meaning uncle) and pokes fun at assumed [[liberals]] (entertainers and journalist). Hero chooses [[abstinence]]. This was one of the most profitable films ever made.
#''[[Gone With the Wind]]'' (1939), which celebrates a strongly ''feminine'' heroine who is the antithesis of a modern [[feminist]]
#''[[Ben-Hur (film, 1959)|Ben-Hur]]'' (1959), celebrates honor and duty to family and country, with a pro-Christian ending
#''[[The Sound of Music]]'' (1965), solid family entertainment
#''[[The Ten Commandments]]'' (1956)
#''[[Mr. Smith Goes To Washington]]'' (1939)
#''[[Star Wars]]'' series (1977-2005) - simple truths about the triumph of good over evil
#''The Winning Team'' (1952), starring [[Ronald Reagan]] as a pitcher who overcomes his problems to help his team win. This was one of Reagan's own favorites.
#''[[King of Kings]]'' (1961)
#''[[On The Waterfront]]'' (1954) [[Marlon Brando]] plays Terry Malloy, who under the inspiration of a Catholic priest (Father Barry, played by [[Karl Malden]]), becomes a Christ-like figure. Betrayed by his brother and almost killed by the gang, he finds the strength to overcome and redeem his people from the slavery to the mobsters who run the waterfront. In stunning contrast to the liberals who kept silent about the Communist subversion in Hollywood, the film portrays the informer as the hero; liberal Hollywood never forgave director [[Elia Kazan]] for his stunning film. In real life, Kazan, Malden and screenwriter Budd Schulberg all testified before Congress, along with [[Ronald Reagan]]. Together they broke the power of the Reds in Hollywood.
#''[[Sergeant York]]'' (1941)
#''[[Knute Rockne: All-American]]'' (1940)
#''[[Ninotchka]]'' (1939)
#''[[Forbidden Planet]]'' (1956)
#''[[Rudy]]'' (1993)
#''[[The Prince of Egypt]]'' (1998)
#''[[Strategic Air Command (film)|Strategic Air Command]]'' (1955). Actor (and Brigadier [[General]]) [[James Stewart]]'s story of the real [[Strategic Air Command]] and its transition from prop planes to jet planes.
#''[[A Gathering of Eagles]]'' (1963). Illustrates duty, honor, and the burden of command.
#''[[Red Dawn]]'' (1984)
#''[[Harry's War]]'' (1981)
#''[[The Patriot]]'' (2000) (the one starring Mel Gibson, there are several other movies with this name)
#''[[Ladder 49]]'' (2004)
#''[[Rocky]]'' (1976) (perseverance and talent can overcome all odds)
#''[[October Sky]]'' (1999)
#''[[Amazing Grace (film)|Amazing Grace]]''
#''[[Bruce Almighty]]'' (2003)
#''[[World Trade Center]]'' (2006) (highlights the bravery of the firemen and police in [[9/11]])
#''[[Flight 93]]'' (2006)
#''[[A Man For All Seasons]]'' (1966)
#''[[Chariots of Fire]]'' (1981)
#''[[One Foot In Heaven]]'' (1941)
#''[[Quo Vadis?]]''
#''[[The Lost Weekend]]'' (1945) (dangers of alcohol)
#''[[The Manchurian Candidate]]'' (1962, 2004 remake) (anti-communist in general, but with a swipe at [[Joseph McCarthy]])
#''[[The Green Berets]]'' (1968)Vivid defense of our troops' conduct in the Vietnam War.
#''[[My Son John]]'' (1952). A small-town couple's world is turned upside-down by the discovery that their adult son is a Communist.
#''[[True Lies]]'' (1994), starring the future Republican governor of California, [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]]. Teaches conservative values like marital loyalty, and political incorrect facts such as the fact that most terrorists are Middle Eastern Arabic speakers who don't value human life.
#''[[The Island]]'' (2005) Pro-life statement against cloning to harvest organs.
#''[[Evelyn]]'' (2002) True story of Irish father's legal struggle to recover his kids from an orphanage.
#''[[Shane]]'' (1953) Western about defending a homesteading family.
#''[[Hero]]'' (1992) Even those with character flaws can do good.
#''[[The Day of the Jackal]]'' (1973) celebrates conservative values like honor and duty.
#''[[The 6th Day]]'' (2000) Pro-Life, Anti-Cloning movie Featuring Republican Governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]]
#''Ghostbusters'' (1984). Fitting satire of an environmental regulator.
#[[Facing the Giants]] 2006. Trust in [[God]], let him take over, and good things will happen.
#''Flash of Genius'' (2008) - the intellectual property of a hard-working, solitary inventor is promoted, and his children stuck by his side through enormous difficulties.
#''Oh, God!'' (1977) - Acceptance of God's calling is rewarded, the faithful are vindicated, and naysayers are proven wrong.
#''[[Expelled | Expelled:No Intelligence Allowed]] (2008) - Ben Stein exposes scientific and education system deceit.
#''Coach Carter'' (2005) - Promotes the theme that graduating from high school and having proper moral values are more important than becoming famous athletes.
#''[[Hillary: The Movie]]'' (2008) - Citizens United film exposing Hillary Clinton. The movie led to the overturning of McCain-Feingold legislation by the Supreme Court of the United States.
#''[[Indoctrinate U]]'' (2007) - The film exposed political correctness, racial and ethnic politics in the academic setting. <ref>[http://video.yahoo.com/watch/3624795/9994231 Indoctrinate U -Part 1/3, Yahoo]</ref>
#''[[Fireproof (film)|Fireproof]]'' (2008) - Highly successful pro-Christian, pro-marriage film created by [[Sherwood Pictures]].
#''[[Courageous]]'' (2011) - Upcoming [[Sherwood Pictures]] film focusing on the role of fathers.
#''[[Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World]]'' (2003) - Promotes many positive conservative values including faith in God, patriotism, duty, honor, respect for authority, discipline, bravery, sacrifice, and friendship.
#''[[Air Force One (film)|Air Force One]]'' (1997) - Positively portrays a strong U.S. president who takes an uncompromising stance against terrorism. Includes positive material about family, authority, the military and sacrifice.
#''[[The Fellowship of the Ring (film, 2001)|The Lord of the Rings: the Fellowship of the Ring]]'' (2001) - Clear distinction between good and evil with positive themes of friendship, bravery, honor, sacrifice and overcoming temptation.
#''[[The Two Towers (film, 2002)|The Lord of the Rings: the Two Towers]]'' (2002) - Strong portrayals of redemption and good over evil.
#''[[The Return of the King (2003 film)|The Lord of the Rings: the Fellowship of the Ring]]'' (2003) - Bravery, heroism, sacrifice and good ultimately triumphing over evil.
#''[[The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe]]'' (2005) - Based upon the Christian allegory written by C.S. Lewis.
#''[[The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian]]'' (2008)
#''[[The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader]]'' (2010)

== Debatable Whether Conservative ==

#''[[The Passion of the Christ]]'' (2004) (downplays the [[Resurrection]]<ref>The original version of the film had no references at all to the Resurrection.</ref> and strength of Christianity and omits powerful angels; instead exaggerates triumph of evil; film had little lasting effect on public or its producer)
#''[[It's a Wonderful Life]]'' (1946) (falsely teaches that humanism is what makes life worthwhile; marginalizes faith with a cartoonish depiction and demonizes capitalism as sadistic and greedy)
#''[[High Noon]]'' (1952) (Bill Clinton saw this movie 20 times, and John Wayne said it was the most un-American movie ever;<ref>http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/47/highnoon.php</ref> though susceptible of various interpretations, most of all it seems to scare people into wanting more government)
#''[[P.C.U.]]'' (1994) - college students fight back against a campus where the administration promotes official [[diversity]] awareness weekends and radical [[feminism]], [[vegan]]ism, and [[political correctness]] run amok, but a conservative group on campus is also portrayed just as negatively as the P.C. groups.
#''Pillow Talk'' (1959) - a classic starring Rock Hudson and Doris Day in which conservative values triumph over liberal ones. There are no distortions by feminist ideology. Indeed, in one scene a leading man slaps the leading woman, but then is beaten up by dimwitted bystanders for it!

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Essays about Conservatism]]
[[Category:Hollywood]]

The Return of the King (2003 film)

2010-05-14T23:42:53Z

Jinxmchue:

{{Infobox Film
| name=The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
| image=
| caption=
| director=[[Peter Jackson]]
| producer=Peter Jackson Michael Lynne Mark Ordesky Barrie M. Osborne Robert Shaye Fran Walsh Bob Weinstein Harvey Weinstein
| writer=[[J.R.R. Tolkien]] (original) Fran Walsh Philippa Boyens Peter Jackson
| narrator=
| starring=Elijah Wood [[Ian McKellen]] Sean Astin Viggo Mortensen
| music=Howard Shore
| cinematography=Andrew Lesnie
| editing=Jamie Selkirk
| distributor=New Line Cinema
| released=December 17, 2003
| runtime=201 min
| country=New Zealand
| language=English
| budget=
| gross=
| preceded_by=[[The Two Towers (film, 2002)|The Two Towers]]
| followed_by=
| website=
| amg_id=
| imdb_id=0167260
}}

'''The Return of the King''' is a film made by Peter Jackson adapting the last book in J.R.R. Tolkien's classic trilogy, [[The Lord of the Rings]]. The film made significant omissions, such as the omission of the battle in the shire (which was alluded to in the first film through Galadriel's mirror) and death of Saruman (Saruman's death is shown in the extended edition, though it happens at Isengard instead of the Shire.) The film won eleven Oscars for Best Art Direction/Set Direction, Best Costume Design, Best Director, Best Editing, Best Makeup, Best Music/Original Score, Best Music/Original Song, Best Picture, Best Sound Mixing, Best Visual Effects and Best Writing/Adapted Screenplay. The film remains one of the joint-record holders for Academy Awards, along with [[Ben-Hur (film, 1959)|Ben-Hur]] and [[Titanic (1997 film)|Titanic]].

{{DEFAULTSORT: Return of the King (2003 film), The}}
[[Category: Movies]]