Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?

2010-01-18T15:30:35Z

Jordanball: /* The Constitution DOES allow the public display of the 10 Commandments */

{{debate-politics}}

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." - United States Constitution

-----------------------

:"... or abridging the freedom of speech ..." Nuff said. [[User:Qwestor|Qwestor]] 10:10, 02 January 2008 (EST)

----------------------
Amendments can be amended. The fact that we can all legally enjoy a beer is proof (except for you college freshmen and sophomores in New York State)
:::<s>Spoken like a true person-who-has-recently-attained-the-age-of-majority! Me, I can legally ''consume'' a beer. But enjoy? After years of bracing myself, swallowing the stuff, trying hard not to wince, and learning to say "Ahhh! That hit the spot" as if I meant it, I finally concluded that I don't actually ''like'' the taste of spoiled yeast dying in its own waste products. (Now, milk overgrown with lactobacillus acidophilus bacteria? Mmmm, good. A burned slab of mangled muscle tissue from an immature castrated cow? Yes, and give me fries with that.) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:36, 24 March 2007 (EDT)</s>
:::Yikes! I just found out that Andrew Schlafly's mother's nephew—would that be a second cousin?—Tom Schlafly, runs [http://www.schlafly.com/faq.shtml Schlafly Beer], a craft brewery in St. Louis, that even brews [http://www.schlafly.com/beers.shtml beer made from sorghum]. I guess I'd better stop making negative comments about beer, huh? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:50, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:Well actually the example here is misleading. Prohibition wasn't amended, it was repealed. Amendments aren't amended, the constitution is. The bill of rights is not going to change. It is the moral fabric of our constitution. Separation of church and state was made as a result of the religious persecution of christian sects in England. There is no need for a secular government to display any religious paraphernalia of any kind.
:By the way, by "public" I assume this article means government buildings and property as "public", and not public demonstrations by private citizens.
:Furthermore, the role of the 10 commandments for christians is clear: Jesus fulfilled the law. He also gave us the sum-total of the commandments, love your God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as you love yourself. The whole idea of erecting stone monuments of a book is a bit cultish anyway, bordering on a violation of the commandment prohibiting engraven images. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 00:37, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
-----------------------

Separation of church and state is not in the constitution; it perfectly constitutional to allow a public display of the ten commandments. In fact, if one takes the constitution at its word rather than twisting it (probably by calling it an "evolving document"), it is '''''UN'''''constitutional for congress to prohibit any public display of religion.
--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 21:19, 16 January 2007 (EST)

Nobody is suggesting that displays of the 10 Commandments by private individuals should not be allowed. The issue is whether any branch of the Government should allow the public display of religious documents for the express purpose of encouraging their acceptance. Specifically, allowing a judge to display the protestant version of the 10 commandments (there are differences between different Christian sects) and to imply he is using them to superceede the actual laws of the country.

:Surely it depends on the context: what message the people who placed the display meant to send, what message is perceived by those who view it.

:Do you think it would be constitutionally protected free speech for a judge to have a huge swastika in his courtroom, with the explanation that it is a Hindu religious symbol? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:19, 17 January 2007 (EST)

::This is silly because you are conflating the judge in his roles as a private citizen and public servant. In a courtroom, which is a public building, there is separation of church and state, no religious paraphernalia allowed. But in his private life, he can practice any religion he wants.

'''Reply:''' Despite your straw man, I will answer that, yes, it would be protected. Perhaps the judge who has the swastika should never have been approved as judge, or perhaps there may even be good grounds to impeach him, yet his swastika should not be removed under the excuse that it is religious symbol; that would be unconstitutional. Fortunately I think that there is little chance of this ever being a problem.

:Well, I think that the legal situation here, and I'm certainly not a lawyer, let alone a constitutional scholar, '''must surely depend''' on what is in the judge's heart. If the judge is, in his heart, a Hindu, and has put the swastika up for the purpose of expressing his Hinduism, then it is sending a ''religious'' message. But what if the judge is not really a Hindu at all, but is actually a Nazi, and has put it up to send a ''political'' message and is just pretending that it is a religious message? Is it the same situation?

:Although I used the phrase "free speech" and you might be right: it might be protected regardless of whether it is "really" a Hindu or Nazi symbol, and in both cases the ''speech'' might be protected, but that would not necessarily make the judge immune from consequences. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:59, 18 January 2007 (EST)

::Guys, the question is a trick. The judge does not have control over his courtroom above the constitution. Suppose he also wanted to put a French flag in the courtroom, can he do that? Of course not. The courtroom is not his private property; he is a public servant working in a public building under the regulation of a government that is separate from the church.

What message do you think that the ten commandments send, and what message would be perceived by the viewers?

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 20:36, 17 January 2007 (EST)

:'''It depends.''' In the case of the monuments funded by Cecil B. DeMille, for example, it was at least partially a commercial message.

:Even in the case of something like the Ten Commandments, which are part of the religious heritage of the vast majority of American citizens, there are opportunities for sectarian friction, since Protestants, Catholics, and Jews number the commandments differently. Incredible as it may seem, this was a real issue when the Eagles began placing these monuments in the 1950s. "It wasn’t until after a few of the monoliths were placed that some criticism surfaced because of the different versions of the Ten Commandments and their numbering. Changes were made after the first series of distributions regarding the numbering and the wording of the Ten Commandments based on the Interdenominational Public School Format of 1958. Some aeries still chose to keep the numbering system even after the change was offered."[http://www.religioustolerance.org/hoffman01.htm] [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:38, 17 January 2007 (EST)

*'''Comment''' Some resources for exploring this question include:
**[http://morallaw.org/ Foundation for Moral Law], Judge Roy Moore's organization and website, "Defending our Inalienable Right to Publicly Acknowledge God."
**[http://www.judicial.state.al.us/documents/final.pdf Court decision] removing Moore from office (which states "Indeed, we recognize that the acknowledgment of God is very much a vital part of the public and private fabric of our country")
**[http://www.religioustolerance.org/hoffman01.htm The real history of the Ten Commandments project] Website about the partnership between Cecil B. DeMille and the Fraternal Order of Eagles, which placed many Ten Commandments monuments in public places
**[http://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/index.html ACLU's website] explaining their viewpoint on Ten Commandments cases: "A Christian cross that is fully visible from a public sidewalk is constitutionally protected when placed in front of a church. But if that same cross were moved across the street and placed in front of city hall, it would violate the Constitution." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:42, 18 January 2007 (EST)

*The ACLU is clearly wrong on this one. The first Amendment to the Constitution states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" regulation of the display of the 10 commandments is unconstitutional because it is a prohibition of the free exercise of religion. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 18:28, 18 January 2007 (EST)
**Perhaps the ACLU is wrong, but I doubt that they are "''clearly''" wrong. If the issue were clear, it would not be controversial. Since the ACLU has won some of these cases, some judges must have thought some cases of this kind were not "clear." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 07:32, 21 January 2007 (EST)

'''Reply:''' I don't quite agree with your argument. The ACLU has an agenga; they are trying to remove religious symbols from public display. Despite the fact that allowing a public display of the 10 commandments '''''is''''' clearly protected by the constitution, the ACLU ''still'' fights it because it is against their agenda. This is why (I believe at any rate) that people call the constitution an "evolving document" and why the 1st ammendment is re-interpreted "eperation of church and state"; The only hope for the ACLU is to '''''reduce''''' clarity.

::: Tim, I'm a bit confused by your logic. You state that "regulation of the display of the 10 commandments is unconstitutional because it is a prohibition of the free exercise of religion." This isn't an issue of congress passing a law prohibiting the display but an issue of whether government officials can have such displays and if so under what circumstances. It isn't at all clear to me what that has to do with congress passing regulations. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:03, 7 February 2007 (EST)

::: The only way to prohibit displays of the 10 commandments would be for congress to make a law against them. This is prohibited by the free exercise clause: "Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise [Of Religion.]" The only reason ever given for prohibiting government officials from having displays of the 10 commandments is that it violates the establishment clause of the first ammendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." There is nothing in the establishment clause that prohibits officials from having displays. People say that there is a "Separation of Church and State," in the first ammendment, but that is not true. The establishment clause was put in to prevent the government from establishing a state religion. (like the Church of England) --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 15:28, 7 February 2007 (EST)

REPLY: We need to be clear, that although the Constitution does not use the PHRASE "Separation of Church and State," it may contain the IDEA. The writings of Thomas Jefferson (Letter to the Danbury Baptists) and of James Madison, in particular, indicate that a separation of Church and State is EXACTLY what was intended by the 1st Amendment.

::::::People also say there's "separation of powers" and "checks and balances" in the Constitution, but gosh darn it, I can't seem to find those words anywhere! Does that mean that those, too, are invalid? A public display of the 10 Commandments, on public/government property, is a violation of the 1st Amendment in that it implies that one religion (in this case any one of a number of Christian denominations) is endorsed and valued more highly than any other by government. Government should remain neutral to religion, and the 10 Commandments are certainly not a religiously neutral document.

:::: Ok, so let me see if I understand your argument. You are dismissing out of hand the actual logic used in all cases by the courts where they have struck down such displays and therefore think that the only relevant case is if congress prohibited it? Am I following you correctly? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:47, 7 February 2007 (EST)

::::'''Reply''' I am saying that the "Separation of Church and State" is not Found in the Constitution, therefore 10 commandments displays cannot be banned based on it, and any court ruling contrary to that is not following the constitution. And the only way to properly ban it (that I can think of)would be an act of congress, and that is prohibited by the free exercise clause. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 16:58, 7 February 2007 (EST)
::::: Point- since the entire argument revolves around whether or not there is an establishment clause problem, it might be best to focus on that issue. Also note that one doesn't need a "Separation of Church and State" to consider the placement of a 10 commandments to be an establishment of religion (note that not even everyone agrees how to split them up. As far as I can tell there are three major divisions, Catholic, Protestant and Jewish (although some Protestants use the Jewish division, and some Protestants(Anglicans?) use the Catholic division). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:37, 7 February 2007 (EST)

The Establishment clause is very clear, and it does not prohibit government officials free exercise of religion. The division of the commandments is irrelevant to this debate. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 19:26, 7 February 2007 (EST)
::You're right, it doesn't prohibit government officials the free exercise of their religion. It does, however, prohibit governmental endorsement of any religion, which would be implicit in the placement of such a monument on public/government property.

:It's not quite irrelevant, because it means that even though the Ten Commandments are common to Catholics, Protestants, and Jews, any particular public display of them ''in which they are numbered one through ten'' is identifiable as being the Catholic, Protestant, or Jewish "version." How many people are aware of this, or how important it is, I don't really know. But I'll bet a nickel that Judge Roy Moore ''is'' aware of this, and that his monument uses the Protestant numbering. (I haven't checked yet...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:40, 7 February 2007 (EST)

:I finally found a largish image of Moore's monument[http://www.retakingamerica.com/ten_commandments_001.html]... and, not to my surprise, see that he uses the Protestant numbering. (Unless you count "I am the Lord thy God in which case he has eleven commandments...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:16, 19 February 2007 (EST)

:But really, the interesting question is: why are people making such a fuss about this? I have the feeling that neither side is being candid about their motivation.

:If Judge Roy Moore (or anyone else) wants to acknowledge God, he can do so with his actions and with the conduct of his life... I don't know why he needs a ton of stone to do it. If I felt that the only message people intended to send by a display of the Ten Commandments was that they personally oppose murder, adultery, profane language, and Sunday shopping, I don't think I would see any harm in it.

:On the other hand, I don't really think I really equate a public display of the Ten Commandments, with a legal requirement that, as a condition of employment, every government official and university professor must subscribe to the XXXIX Articles of the Church of England. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:49, 7 February 2007 (EST)

== Freedom of religion ==

[[User:Phist|Phist]]I have no problem with someone putting up a massive banner with the 10 Commandments on it all over their house or workplace, but you have to be prepared for your next door neighbor putting up an equally massive banner with satanic slogans on it. The USA does not have a state religion, and as such if you allow public displays of one religion's tenants you must extend that to all religions. So if you're prepared to see Islamic, Buddist, Hindu, CoS(Church of Satan), Athiest, Shamanistic and Nihilistic banners too, go ahead and put up those commandments.

:The moral values of Western culture aren't based of Satanic, Animist, and Shamanistic ideals. They are based directly off of what is described on the Ten Commandments. It's not a religious point; It's a historical one, because the entire justice system is based off of it. --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 23:59, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::Unfortunately, we're still not allowed to make laws outlawing religious displays just because they're for a false religion. For soem fool reason, the Founding Fathers didn't make Christianity the State Religion of the US, so if the courts allow the 10 Commandments, they HAVE to allow everyone to put up their 'holy' laws as well. Do you want YOUR kids reading quotes from the Satanic Bible in school? --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 00:49, 11 March 2007 (EST)

:::That might have something to do with the fact that there was not then and is not now any one religion called 'Christianity'. Catholics, Protestants, Anglicans, Lutherans all come readily to mind. So also do the Quakers, the Puritans. Today the number of different branches of Christianity is even greater. Which one should be the official religion of America and why? [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 02:29, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I think you missed the point of my statement; the Ten Commandments could easily be considered as historical artifacts, because of the significant impact that they have had on American society as a whole for over 2,000 years. I doubt that The Satanic Bible, The Qu'ran, etc. have had anywhere near the cultural and political impact of the Ten Commandments. --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 00:53, 11 March 2007 (EST)

::::The second largest religion in the world is Islam. It seems that the Koran has had somewhere near the cultural and political impact of the Ten Commandments - especially given that the Ten Commandments had a couple thousand years' head start to make its impact. --[[User:FPiaco|FPiaco]] 16:20, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::''Western'' culture; The Qu'ran didn't have the impact on ''Western'' culture like the Bible did. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:32, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::By your reasoning then [[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']] the public schools could teach history OF the Bible. I don't think that's likely to happen. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 14:37, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Public schools ''can'' and ''do'' teach the ''history'' of the Bible, in ''history'' class. The curriculum I am familiar with (Washington State) has a 2-week high school freshman course on the ''history'' of Biblical times, Jesus's life, etc. As a historical, literary object, the Bible is extremely important. Just like the ten Commandments have significant historical impact. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CrimesoftheLemon:

Absolutely not. It's a clear breach of the 1st Amendment.

HUH? im from washington state...i dont remember that course at all.... I do vaugly remember
that there was one paragrah on Jesus in our history books but it didnt call him messiah.
which town are you from?
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 13:49, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

==Shouldn't the title be...==
*'''Are''' public displays of the Ten Commandments allowed under the constitution?

or

*Does the Constitution '''ever''' prohibit public displays of the Ten Commandments?

As it reads now, it seems to be asserting that the Constitution does not allow public displays of the Ten Commandments, and the debate is whether or not it should (presumably by amendment). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:Don't the first and second commandments contradict the American constitution? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::I agree that the title is misleading. The word "public" is the problem. As worded, it seems to ask if a display "visible to the public" should be allowed (which, ''of course'', it is!). The question I believe it ''means'' to ask is whether the 10C's can be displayed on ''public property'' - which they can be, and are - when they are presented in historical context (cf. the frieze on the Supreme Court). It is when they are presented in the context of the processes of government, especially presented alone, that the issue gets contentious. So the lesson I see here for people posting debate topics is to be very careful about wording so the question is clear and unambiguous. Which can sometimes be very challenging! [[User:Human|Human]] 16:56, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Well its clear that some people dont want ANY displays of the 10 commandments, what it comes
down to is if a teacher puts up the 10 commandments on a wall in thier classroom is that an
"establishment" of Christianity of is it "free exercise thereof". Now if the Teacher wanted
to wear a T-shirt that had the 10 commandments to me thats "free exercise thereof" and there
is nothing the gov't can do..however if she were to post it on the wall of a gov't building
it might be construed as "establishing" Christianity as far as the gov't is concerned and probably
shouldnt be allowed. One might note though other relgions namely islams 5 laws? may be posted on
gov't property under the lame excuse of "historical reference".
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 13:59, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

==The Constitution DOES allow the public display of the 10 Commandments==

For 200 years the Constitution allowed the display of the 10 Commandments on public property. The Supreme Court building itself has a representation of the 10 Commandments engraved on it. The Constitution has not changed since that time. What has changed is the interpretation of the Constitution by unelected federal judges and justices.

The Constitution still allows display of the 10 Commandments. Sadly the interpretation of the Constitution currently enforced by our government does not allow their display.

The courts won't allow the 10 Commandments, but they will allow a crucifix in a bowl of urine. They will protect anti-religious "art" in the name of freedom of speech. If the First Amendment did not mention religion, then freedom of speech would allow display of the 10 Commandments. The religion clauses of the First Amendment were intended to allow even more freedom for religious expression, but courts have interpreted them to provide less protection for religious symbols than for ordinary speech. The courts have twisted the religion clauses to protect people from religion, rather than to protect religion from government.

The Constitution should be interpreted - as it long was - as allowing religious expression in the public arena and preventing the government from interfering with religion. [[User:Sbowers3|Sbowers3]] 09:37, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

-----------------------------

One thing that just really bugs me though: If people are so keep on displaying these 10 commandments, it should also be allowed to disply the punishements for "breaking" these commandments:

1st. Commandment, Exodus 20:3 “Thou shalt have no other gods before me”. Old Testament punishment - Deuteronomy 17:1-5 “And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heavens, which I have not commanded. Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing and shalt stone them with stones, till they die”. Deuteronomy 13:6-10, “If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is of thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. Thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God." Exodus 22:20 “He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed”. New Testament punishment - Mark 16:16 “He that believeth not, shall be damned”.

2nd. Commandment, Exodus 20:4 “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water below.” Old Testament punishment- Deuteronomy 27: 1 5 “Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image.”

3rd. Commandment, Exodus 20:7 “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain”. Old Testament punishment - Leviticus 24:16 “And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death”, New Testament punishment - Matthew 12:32 “Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come”. Mark 3:29 - “He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgivness, but is in danger of eternal damnation”.

4th. Commandment, Exodus 20:8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy”. Old Testament punishment - Exodus 31:15 “Whosoever shall work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death”. Numbers 15:32. “And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the Sabbath day…And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses.”
5th. Commandment, Exodus 20:12 “Honour thy father and thy mother”. Old Testament punishment - Exodus 21:15-17 “And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death”. More punishment - Exodus 21:17 “And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death”.

6th. Commandment, Exodus 20:13 “Thou shalt not kill”. Strangely enough this is a commandment despite all the punishments that require death in the New Testament and the Old Testament. How can thou not kill when thou is commanded to kill at the same time?

7th. Commandment, Exodus 20:14 “Thou shalt not commit adultery”. Old Testament punishment - Leviticus 20:10 “And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death”.

I havent looked up the last three yet, but I think its pretty obvious that it is a waste of time and money to allow the 10 commandments to be displayed, since no one will step up and uphold the "punishments" for breaking those "laws"..

Other than that, if this were allowed, other religions might have a go at it too..

{{unsigned|Xchokeholdx}}

: The ten commandments were given as a ''standard'' by which to live. This standard is applicable to everybody, for all time. The punishments you list were specific to the particular culture to which they were given. In other words, they are no longer applicable. Sorry you wasted so much time on that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:28, 2 January 2008 (EST)

In what ways are the commandments that call specifically for a exclusive focus on god and his sabbath irrelevant "standards" to expect everybody to live by? The concept itself is a violation of the principle that we have an inclusive system, which errodes the often lauded terminology included in the clause celebrated by theistic, constitutional revisionists. If such an issue is to be made out of the prohibition of the free exercise thereof, then how do we interpret the context in which a list of "rules" to live by can be publicly displayed when some of those "rules" call for unilateral Christianity? -JBall

==A Better Question Would Be...==

"Should such displays be funded with taxpayer dollars?"

Really, I don't think it's possible to debate the original question: manifestly, such displays are allowed. I don't even think the question of whether "the government" should be allowed to do so is one for serious debate.

The question, it seems to me, should be whether or not such displays can be funded by state and federal taxes. THERE, I think, we get into questions of Constitutionality, as it inevitably leads to a situation where some taxpayers are being required to pay for speech they don't support. (And, yes, I realize that there are many issues of taxpayer dollars being misspent in this fashion; I personally believe that all of them are un-Constitutional.)

I believe that such displays on public property, if funded by private contributions specifically for that purpose, pass the muster of Constitutionality and should be permitted.

[[User:BenP|BenP]] 16:05, 2 May 2008 (EST)

I Believe in the direction BenP is going...but I personally don't think it should even be allowed on public property; private is most certainly allowed. Reason being this: while BenP understands that "some taxpayers are being required to pay for speech they don't support" you also have to remember that the public property has to be maintained with taxpayers money as well. And it is public property, not christian property. I certainly wouldn't want my walk in the park infested with billboards of multitudes of faiths vying for my attention.

Debate:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?

2010-01-15T17:49:36Z

Jordanball: /* They aren't! */

{{debate}}

Its just a thought I had. At their core element, political parties are economic. You have the right, which favors the rich, and the left, which favors the poor. One strives to keep things the same, the other tries to change the system so it is more equal. So why does the right seem to embrace religion more?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 09:30, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:"Conservatism" is about conserving things, such as traditions. Regardless of what it stands for right now in the US, conservatism has always meant trying to preserve order, protect the country, protect the ruling class, and protect a country's traditions. Every country has some traditional religion, and the conservatives (i.e. right side of the political spectrum) usually want to protect that.--[[User:Mathematica|Mathematica]] 03:36, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:I'd say it's a bit more complicated than that. Politicians, by definition have no qualms about anything, do not hold any principles really - whatever will get them elected and allow them to keep their power. Religion has worked for the right (often) and economic disparity has worked to the left (class warfare). The Rev Ted Haggard is but the most recent example of the hypocrisy of the "right" and on the "left" Nancy Pelosi's efforts at exempting the American Samoa from the minimum wage hike (lobbying by companies headquartered in San Francisco). In a very broad sense, Milton Friedman was right (and as believed by President Reagan) - the best way to protect our freedoms is to keep the pie that the politician rascals control as small as possible and give them as little power as possibly we can. The "left" and the "right" loves Governmental control when it suits their purpose - the left for economic reasons (mostly), the right for social/religious/related agendas that they can enforce. [[User:kchittur|kchittur]] 12:10 PM, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

::If politicians have no principles, as you seem to be suggesting, then why run for political office in the first place? In other words, if you don't have an agenda that you wish to advance, why run for office? Power in and of itself is useless unless you turn it to advancing your own beliefs. "Government Control" only gets us halfway. Control over what? I suppose the recognition and money are nice, but there are a lot better ways than running for political office to make money. Politicians only seem unprincipled because they are often forced to compromise with the other side to advance their beliefs at all. --[[User:Rustybutterknife|Rustybutterknife]] 18:28, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::A rush, a high, the desire to grab power (OK, perhaps there IS a principle, "grab power") - When I hear about "Public service to give back" - I puke. Many who are in office have, I am guessing, no other better way to make money than wheel/deal - trade/back stab/whatever ... True, that many may try to do what they want to do, but such do not survive - leaving us with the scoundrels. I am watching the story of Congressman Jeff Flake of Arizona, who is STILL fighting a losing battle on the issue of pork/ear marks - he was on 60 minutes a while ago. I do sound like such a cynic. [[User:kchittur|kchittur]] 23:45 (CDT) 21 March 2007

:I dont believe that the right does embrace religion more. The Left is full of religion. For example, environmentalism taken to its extreme is a religion. [[User: kara]]

:I'm talking about religion in the classical sense of modern Abrahamic religions. Let me rephrase. In any society, when you have a SMD|Plurality voting system like the US, 2 political parties emerge. One party favors the business sector or the rich. The other party favors the working class or the poor. This will always happen under these circumstances. So why is it that in America, the right have taken up God as a member of their party?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 10:31, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I would not say that the right has taken up God more than the left. What about Jesse Jackson?There are plenty of preachers on the left. To say that the left favors the poor and that the right favors the rich is not accurate. Things are not that clear cut. For example, some would say that the Roman Catholic church is far right. However, the Church has taken a clear pro-illegal immigrant stand in the United States. Most people (that would include politicians) are right on some issues and left on others. [[User: kara]]

Perhaps it is only that what is "right" and what is "left" is all a matter of perspective? Religion certainly plays a role in shaping perspective, though that does not mean that it is the only thing. I for one, do not consider myself a conservative, but I do consider myself religiously a Christian. I think the reason people think the "right" is more religious is because more people on the right voice their religion as justification, and claim unity among their religion to back their claim. I think the good example of this is the Creation Theology branch that I've seen on this site and elsewhere. It's pretty much a "Christians believe this, or else they are not real Christian" kind of claim. Then it's a simple matter of taking a poll and asking people if they consider themselves Christians or not. If they say "yes," then it appears they believe what you do. You can follow the same pattern with any religion, or even with any group or folk. "I am a republican, I believe abortion is wrong. All republicans believe this, therefore if anyone else is a republican, they also believe this. If they do not, they are not a real republican." 'Tis all a matter of opinion. -- [[user:Dikaiosune|Dikaiosune]] 21 March 2007

Leftist Christians don't bring their religion into it as much as conservatives. --[[User:Kirby|Kirby]] 00:01, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I get the sense that conservatives us the Religion more because that is often all they have.--[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 25 March 2007 (EDT)

This question is obvious. It's because God favors conservatives, and therefore, the rich. Debate closed. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 14:42, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:People who actually have a relationship with Jesus Christ tend to be on the right side of the political spectrum. People who just have a religion based on doing good things will drift to the left side. So the debate question is wrong from the start. [[User:SarahFan|SarahFan]] 09:26, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

==They aren't!==
Conservatives enrichen the poor while the left exploits them for votes. But recently I've seen more religiousness eminate from the left then the right. Non-theistic religion has been on a steady increase. I'm sorry if that pops the bubble the people think of religion as only being a belief in the spiritual realm such as Christianity. Humanists proclaim their religion everday from the left spectrum and everyone hasn't a clue that a religion is being professed. So I don't, and can't agree that it is only the right side of the spectrum that is more religious.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:07, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

I didnt noticed if this debate is talking particulary about the US but here(in this part of the continent) poor people that are mostly farmers or so, are very attached to religion. To prove that, anyone should listen to the folk songs and theyre full of religion. A lot of Singers which came from the poor part of the society and which are clearly left-winged, sing a lot of things about religion.
I think that the church (as an institution) tends to protect their enormous amount of money and interests (At least here in south america) and always using god as their banner. Nevertheless there was (and still are) a lot of individual people inside the church more related to social work, helping the poor(economically poor) people, Not by charity. They help them day by day, next to them teaching them important things to survive. I have to point out in case that i didnt express myself quite right: all these people are seen like they belong to some left ideology.
Thats all, well. I hope that i expressed myself good enough.
Ogainax

The answer, when broken down to it's most simple truism, is that the right wing can only exist in a hoary dreamscape populated by various stretches of blind faith. This is how the secondary religion of the right ends up being a stringent orthodoxy to the proven failures of a raw, unregulated, purely "free market" utopia. -JBall

Debate:Why should we be afraid of God?

2010-01-15T17:07:59Z

Jordanball: /* Be Very Afraid */

{{Debate}}
God, as understood and accepted, is everywhere, knows everything, is all powerful, can do anything, to anyone, at anytime. So, why should God have to instil fear in humans? If God can do anything, to anyone, at anytime, why instill fear? There is nothing anyone can do about it anyway, according to that belief system. [[USer:Seekcommon]]

*Your right. Come to think of it why would God do anything. What possible purpose could his existence serve. If God is pointless then what is the point of Conservapedia? What is the point of this article?[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:40, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

== Be Not Afraid ==

1 John 4:18 '''There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.'''

-That's deep man.

:When the Bible says things like "knew that he feared God" I think it's using archaic language indicating [[respect]] - not "[[fear]]" in the sense of terror. But that's just my own [[Universalist]] interpretation of scripture. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:43, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== Be Very Afraid ==
Fear is the vehicle by which mass control is achieved. Without this institutional building block in place there would have been no reason for the daydreams of theists to take root in the first place. Primordial "religions" were, to their credit, at least vested in tangible, practical things like "worship" of the earth, nature and community. This kept things sporadic, pliable, and decentralized; with enough room and acceptance for a plethora of various interpretations and ideals within the same broad framework. Instilling a vicious merit system by which everybody must view things through a black-and-white prism of "good versus evil" generates the dogma neccessary to stratify and entrench institutions. With the benefit of historical calcification it also enables those institutions to incorrectly give themselves credit for societal advances they not only had nothing to do with producing, but for which they had actively worked against since their inception. For details read objective commentator Joseph Mccabe's analysis on how Christianity has drafted it's own bunk history portraying itself as a force of liberation against pre-Christian slavery and degredation of women (among other falsifications). It is for this reason that the "faithful" are expected to be afraid of god. -JBall

Certainly we should love God for all the love he shows (and has shown) us. But you have to remember that God does set a standard of living that we should try to live up to. God choose to do many things to show his justice, he threw Adam and Eve out of the garden because they choose to sin. Because God is justice we should fear him because many times we choose sin which is unjust.

Double Edge

* What about all the rules to live by as stated in the Old Testament? If those rules are followed today, I wonder if anyone will be alive - since death seems to be the punishment for so many things, including, working on the sabbath. I wonder how long this post/response will last before it is moved/deleted. [[User:Seekcommon]]

Don't you think that if everyone were being killed for their sins, the amount of sins would decrease? Death is a powerful crime deterrent.

P.S. I don't know why you fear that your posts will be deleted. Posts will only be deleted if they are obscene. Your questions are welcomed, at least by me. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 23:18, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
* I am glad to find some interest. There have been deletions that do not make sense, I wish I had saved some of the posts. It has been my experience that on the right AND the left, often when discussion/debates veer into uncomfortable territory, wham, the hammer comes down. [[User:Seekcommon]]

* How can an infinite span of time suffering the torment of fire be justice for a mere 70 or 80 years on Earth spent under confusing circumstances with conflicting "gospels" to choose from? [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 14:59, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
** Good question. Seems unreasonable to me. Then again, it's the issue of instilling FEAR, perhaps there is nothing to fear from the Almighty Himself but from the mortals that helped write the books/scriptures and changed them over the years. [[User:Seekcommon]] (Wonder what the life of these words will be? A day? Two perhaps?

The word fear applys to different emotions. Firstly, we should fear the Lord in the sense of the word meaning to have reverential awe (after all he created the universe). Secondly, as his children, we have no reason to fear him (using the common definition of terror and fright) unless we pursue that is perverse and sinful. It's good to fear the Lord, not to be afraid of the Him (unless you're sinful.)[[user:Dfairlyxed13|Dfairlyxed13]]

*Perhaps you could provide a source for your definition of fear Dfailyxed13 as it sounds like total B.S.. I mean really, fear = reverential awe, what a contortion.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:31, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

We should fear the corruption which stems from the universe, but fear no god, for the power of the divinai will fall to the wrath of Sathience.

*Please explain what "corruption which stems from the universe" is supposed to mean. You might also define you pretend term or Sathience.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:31, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

You better be afraid. God destroyed every living thing on the planet, save those in a boat, on a whim. God has shown a pattern of punishing those who displease him by killing their children, family and associates so do not fool yourself into thinking a righteous existence will save you.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:31, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

You can think what you want, but I for one am very afraid of the great "I am". The Bible refers to God as a consuming fire, therefore I am afraid.--[[User:JonL|JonL]] 18:01, 14 November 2007 (EST)

Correction- " I Am "........ I am afraid, but in a good way.--[[User:JonL|JonL]] 18:02, 14 November 2007 (EST)

In a good way........:) --[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 09:59, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

how about the term of "worshipful fear"?[[User:Kmcheng|Kmcheng]] 16:40, 25 December 2008 (EST)

:Fear comes in different forms, that of terrifying fright, which is what God sometime uses towards careless or hard hearted rebellious men, to whom appeal to their most basic instinct for survival must be made: "And the same hour was there a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell, and in the earthquake were slain of men seven thousand: and the remnant were affrighted, and gave glory to the God of heaven."(Rev 11:13)

:Then there is the "fear" which that of of esteem, reverence and respect, of "awe," which motivates heart and actions. One who has a loving but manly dad of integrity should love him, which makes one fear displeasing him out of esteem for him and his values. The aspect of the dad's power to discipline, however justly yet reluctantly he may be to do so, is also a healthy, beneficial, and necessary fear.

:Like love, fear is a good thing if rightly directed, and love and fear are actually complementary (like as "rejoice with trembling": Ps. 2:22; and "walking in the fear of the Lord and the comfort of the Holy Ghost": Act 9:31). As we all ultimately love and fear something, including fearing the loss of esteem if we are found to have fear, and as loving or fearing something more than our Creator is ultimately bad and harmful, so God, who needs nothing (Acts 17:25), commands us to fear Him above all else, which is to our benefit. (Dt. 8:6; Ps. 34:7,9; 103:13,17; 145:19; Mt. 10:28)

:Yet, the Bible reveals the highest manner of motivation is that which is purely of love for God, having no other contrary desire, and is a fruit of true continuing obedient faith, which loves what God loves (and us hates what God hates); a holy love which is contrary to and displaces worldly love, and is fit for eternal glory, and need not fear the contrary. "Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world. There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love." (1 John 4:17-18)

:I am not much there yet. but i see that is what i must seek after. "Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you." (Phil 3:15)

:"The LORD will perfect that which concerneth me: thy mercy, O LORD, ''endureth'' for ever: forsake not the works of thine own hands." (Psa 138:8) [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 20:10, 3 February 2009 (EST)

Debate:Can any man live without some code of morality?

2010-01-15T16:46:36Z

Jordanball: /* No */

{{debate}}
== Define Terms ==
Live: To retain the chemical, mental, and spiritual processes necessary to remain responsive to people and God.
Should be changed to "responsive to surroundings" - [[User:trig|trig]].

Code of Morality: Some set of absolute rules by which a man may live, based on worldview.(Feel free to edit definitions)

[[User:Mawest217|Mawest217]] 13:39, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

== No ==
'''No'''. What is [[morality]], after all, but a code of ''values''? A man without morality has no values. But surely every man values ''something.'' Even if all that a man values is himself, and what will make him happy, he still has values. With values comes morality.

Thus a man might ''claim'' to be [[Amoralism|amoral]], but in fact he does live by a code of morality that he himself has invented.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:17, 8 March 2007 (EST)

There's a Haiku in that:
Man might claim to be
amoral, but in fact he
does live by a code.
[[User:Marym|Marym]] 18:56, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:Agreed, although I would further add that an 'amoral' man is still kind of a xxxx. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 21:46, 11 November 2007 (EST)
::[[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]], watch your language on this family-friendly site.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:57, 11 November 2007 (EST)
::: Sorry, just trying to inject some levity into the debate. :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:00, 12 November 2007 (EST)

My take on this is that morality has both an innate and an encultured aspect. The existence of a moral sense is "hardwired" like the ability to learn language. But although we are all born with the potential to develop as moral agents, the course that this development takes is partially determined by the experiences we have as we learn and grow. Theoretically, an individual might grow up without moral training of any kind. However, I would argue that all human societies possess a volume of more or less explicit moral teachings. Thus, even a society which habitually indulges in practises that we might find entirely immoral, does so in accordance with its own moral code. This is not to say that all moral codes are equal. The other (and more difficult) aspect of morality is the question of moral development: the morals of societies change over time, and, in particular, it is an undeniable fact that individuals and groups arise in all historical societies claiming to be in possession of a higher morality than the one that curently prevails. We thus always find ourselves in a marketplace of competing moralities, and it is not easy, as any conservative will acknowledge, to lay claim to moral infalibility: There are always alternative points of view. In Western societies, the existence of an alleged "moral vacuum" is largely the result of the absence of a centrally prescribed code of morals in certain spheres of life (above all sexuality and religion) where one did exist - at least nominally - until recently. Nonetheless, a broad consensus does continue to exist over many moral issues. [[User:HabamusPapem|HabamusPapem]] 17:50, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

No, of course not. You don't have to be religious to be moral or have a moral code. There are people who think morally it's ok to kill certain groups of people for whatever stupid reason they have, that's their moral. Although it's in opposition to all religions and philosophies. Morals are what one makes them, no one doesn't have them, sometimes people just don't share the same morals. --[[User:Ronnyreg|Ronnyreg]] 06:08, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I know that [the determination of] the way of a man is not in himself; it is not in man [even in a strong man or in a man at his best] to direct his [own] steps. (Jeremiah 10:23, ''Amplified'') [[User:BibleBrown|BibleBrown]] 19:39, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

===postmodern morality===
In the Postmodern world that we live in, our morality is defined by whatever feels right and works for that individual person. There is no central absolute standard in order to judge. However, that is a defeating system, because what if my morality does not match up with someone elses? What if I decide to go rob a store, and that was genuinely what I thought was right to do. Of course that's an extreme example, because not many people in their right mind genuinely think it is the right thing to do. Even criminals know it's wrong, they just don't care. But where does this sense of morality come from? Our postmodern culture says that all viewpoints should be tolerated and no One should find dominance. However, those that hold to that position are philosophically contradicting themselves because they are enforcing postmodernism (their viewpoint) on everyone else. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 12:53, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

The way the topic is phrased is an adjunct to one of the pillars of theistic-conservatism; the idea that morality is bequeathed from some (or many) institutions who "teach" mankind how to behave amongst ourselves. Though obviously ludicrous, as evidenced by the fact that (pre-religious) civilization would have never survived to it's current state without a rudimentary collective conscience banding communities together with an innate sense of right and wrong, it is not difficult to see how this becomes a standard principle of the right. -JBall

===semantic===
This debate depends on whether there is a universal 'right' way to behave in all situations, independent of any opinions on what it might be. I would argue that athiests, such as myself have ethics rather than morals, since their values of right and wrong stem from a regard for others as opposed to a rigid dogma. Consider last week in Iraq, a Kurdish girl was stoned to death by a mob, possibly including her own family, because she was judged to have broken her religions moral laws about sex. Evey member of that mob was behaving morally according to their religion and values, but few without a religion would say they behaved ethically. The Old Testament demands death by stoning for a girl in simmilar circumstances (disobeyed her parents, went with a guy of another creed against their wishes), but few modern Christians would actually advocate following the written word of the Bible, they'd make an interpretation of the dogma - the absolute moral - as they (arbitrarily) see fit. Morality is always subjective, but those without religion do not pretend to base their judgements of behavior on bronze age writings, but rather on a philosophy or social contract. [[User:Marym|Marym]] 19:31, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

===everybody else does it===
I agree with no. Even if the code of morality isn't religious based, there is still an idea of what is right or wrong and people conform to the idea of society as their basic moral code. Just as animals raise their young to do certain things like hide from a predator or attack their prey, society teaches people to behave in certain ways such as not killing others or not stealing or lying because there are negative results. It's the negative result that keeps a person "honest".
Regardless of whether a particular person follows the morality of a religon or not, he/she will follow the morality of the people in his/her own group. If he/she is a member of a church, then of course, the church's morality determines the persons. If the person is a member of a gang, then the morality of the gang will determine his/her morality.
It could be argued there is no universal right or wrong, only actions perceived as right or wrong and those make up the morality of the group.
Some cultures see abuse of wives to be moral, others see it as an atrocity. Some cultures see murder as acceptable if its against an opposing force, others see it as wrong no matter what. Some feel it is moral to raise animals for food, others feel animals shouldn't be used as food at all. Morality is in the 'eye of the beholder' in that way. Whatever the group of people that a person is a member of sees as moral will be the moral standards of that person. History has determined most of our morals as a society and the Bible has determined our morals as Christians. The two don't always overlap. --- John

===Animals don't have a moral code===
Humans are animals. All non-human animals live without a moral code. They have instinctive respect for the dead, and other such things that may be considered moral, but they have no moral code. These animals have survived just fine through the years. Since humans are just animals like any other, I see no reason why humans could not live without a moral code. -loveothersasyourself

I disagree: non-humans have a true sense of right and wrong, based on rules that are partly instinctive and partly learned. The only thing they do not have is written codes. Anyone who has trained a dog can tell you. A dog will, on occasion, show remorse for transgressions that nobody has discovered yet. A puppy will accept the fact that it has to learn rules of conduct from the elders and continue to uphold them when it becomes an elder. -[[User:trig|trig]]

===Define Live===
How do you define live? If live is defined as the action of retaining the chemical processes required for life, then yes, you can live without a code of morality. If we define live as to enjoy life here on earth, than no, you cannot have true happiness without a code of morality. If we define live as to have eternal life, than no, you cannot live without having some code of morality. [[User:Mawest217|Mawest217]] 13:31, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

<big>'''Define it first'''</big>

Some people keeping saying that they can be a moral/good person without God or religion. First, I want someone to define moral, or what is a "good person". This term "good person" sounds so good that no one ever bother to define it. I afraid no one can define it unless you have some standard about it. For moral, who is to say lying or killing is wrong unless there is a set of rules say it is wrong? Who is the rule giver? I mean, unless you fall in the culture of moral relativism, that there is no absolute, and so there is no way to tell between right and wrong. By the way, bible says God already put His laws into our heart so we can know right and wrong. But often time because of our sin covered our heart, we because foolish about it.[[User:Kmcheng|Kmcheng]] 11:55, 25 December 2008 (EST)

== Yes ==
Morality is a set of laws that determines the difference between right and wrong. Morality generally comes from religion, whether it be Islam, Christianity, Judism, etc. Morality often changes through time; what is deemed moral now may be vastly different than what is considered moral in the future. Many argue that it is indeed possible to live without morals, as morals are not usually found among other species. This, however, can easily be disputed and the idea is flawed.

Double Edge
{{Unsigned|Double Edge}}

::I have no religion. I also have a small blue card in a draw, labeled 'National Blood Service' and printed with my donor number. I am both an atheist, and a moral person, as evidenced by my willingness to walk half an hour across town and then return a little bit lighter and less fit for the benefit of others. I myself am proof that morality does not require religion. But in case one isn't enough, I am sure there will be several tens of millions of atheists who would be willing to testify to their own morality.

To save time, the standard counter for this like of argument is to substitute a narrower definition of morality, one which is sufficiently narrow and full of arbitary restrictions derived from religion that only a follower of that religion could meet it. You may, for example, argue that it doesn't matter if someone is a charitable blood-donor, campaigner for the poor, kind, loving, polite and a perfect example of all things good - if they arn't Christian, they cant be moral. Its circular, and its pathetic logic, but it works when fed through a confirmation bias. - Suricou
:::You have in fact shown that, though you believe in no [[God]], you still have values. Not everyone will accept those values as complete, but again, you have values. Your values are even more sophisticated than those of the purely self-centered man.
:::I did not ask whether man can live without [[God]]. He can, though I wouldn't advise it. Rather, I asked whether a man can live without ''values''. I maintain that ''every'' man has ''some'' standard of value, and therefore every man lives by ''some'' moral code.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:15, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

'''Reply''' Perhaps an athiest can live with values. But is it not possible for a man to do what has the highest utility for him. His values are not consistant this. His only purpose is survival of the fittest. Therefore he has no standard for morality. Therefore he lives without a code of morality.

Double Edge

:If you define morality merely as "a code of laws dictated by [[God]]," then I suppose you're right. But an [[Objectivism|Objectivist]] wouldn't agree with you. Objectivism says that a code of morality is ''any'' code of values that a man accepts ''by choice.''

:So I suppose everything depends entirely on what morality is.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 13:45, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

It reflects poorly on the editors of Conservapedia to be phrasing questions using "MAN" instead of "PERSON" considering we are in the year 2007. Women are not meekly pouring their husbands scotch while their men engage in intellectual discussions on your site. I assure you, you have many women readers whom you would be advised to address should you wish to be considered a reliable and unbiased resource. {{Unsigned|Valerie}}

:::"Man" in this context means "human", not "male". It's your duty to educate yourself, not to complain because others won't conform to your ignorant understanding of the word.

:This is a separate issue, but I use ''man'' to mean "any human being." I don't hold with surrendering the common-gender contexts of certain words, for no better reason than that they are "masculine" forms. For the record, I don't believe that a woman (that is, a female) can live without morality--that is, totally without values--any more than can a man (that is, a male).--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 08:37, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Absolutely, think of all the serial killers and mass murderers that go on almost forever that seem to have no morals or real code of living. As long as there is evil in the world there will be a need for morals.--[[User:Goose89|Goose]] 13:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:But what if the serial killer's or the mass murderer's personal moral code includes killing dozens of people. Is there an absolute moral code that we all must follow? And, if so, who decides what goes on that code? --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 14:01, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Who is to say what is moral and immoral? These two concepts technically do not exist. Interesting.
{{Unsigned|Gesiwuj}}

Yes. Just ask the president. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 02:10, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:``But what if the serial killer's or the mass murderer's personal moral code includes killing dozens of people.`` Historically, it often does, Dominican monks torturing and killing people during the Spanish Inquisition sincerely belived it was a moral *duty* of theirs, just as with Conquistadores slaughtering the peoples of South America. People seldom believe they are not (morally?) justified in their actions, no matter what those actions are. [[User:Marym|Marym]] 20:04, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:::If your lack of understanding of this word doesn't meant that the concept doesn't exist, silly. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:32, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Double Edge, i am an atheist. I do not live in moral anarchy. I have very strong moral values. I do not kill, i think it is wrong to steal or to commit adultery and i think that tolerance is the greatest virtue. To suggest that simply because i belive that the scientific evidence points to the non-existence of a god, does not immediately mean that therefore i have no morals whatsoever, and you suggesting that it does causes me to feel slighted and misunderstood. Please think more carefully about what you are saying about another person before you say something so generalising again. Bolly Ottihw 18:16, 20 April 2007

Morlity can be seen as something like money. Money, really, does not exist. You cannot hold 'money' - you can hold an object of known value, but that is not money. You can hold currency - but what is it but paper and ink, or a piece of metal? Is money held in a bank, where it is nothing but bits in a computer? Money doesn't exist, and yet its still possible to buy things with it. Because, so long as people believe in it, it '''does''' exist - its existance comes only from that belief. Were everyone to suddenly stop accepting money tomorrow, money would simply disappear and all that currency return to being worthless paper. And morality, in the same way, does have a real existance - so long as enough people believe that it does, and are willing to act on that belief. - [[User:Suricou|Suricou]]

I am an atheist. If there are no gods then there can be no absolute right and wrong. Without gods where could absolute values come from? If there are no absolute rights and wrongs there can be no morality because morality (in my view) cannot be a relative concept. What use is morality if mine can be fundamentally different to yours and neither is superior? That is not what I understand morality to mean. In the end, if one is an atheist, the best you can do is to put it down to a matter of taste. Isn't that all that's left? It is not to my taste to torture babies for fun (and I hope it's not to your taste either). I can think that my taste is better than yours but I can't prove it. Religious people regard that as a totally unsatisfactory state of affairs and they may be right. But that is not an argument for the existence of gods. Maybe the universe is just unsatisfactory in some ways. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:47, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:Horace, why does non-existence of God imply non-existence of absolute values? --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 12:32, 17 November 2007 (EST)

===Semantics===
The debate question "Can any man live without some code of morality?" is more of a discussion topic that a debate question. That being said, I will play the game and treat this as actual debate:

I believe that any resolution to this debate would depend very heavily on the semantics. A "code" of morality denotes text, or minimally, language so specific that is could be dictated and recorded as text. So, if one admitted that the moral rules do not need to be codified, one would have to conclude "yes". Also, if one admitted that any man "lived" before written language, one would have to either conclude "yes" or hold that men are no longer as able as their predecessors.

The next word in the question that is critical to the debate is "without". The semantical question is 'What would be considered "with" a code?'. My best take on this is that 'with' implies that the written text be available to the man as a reference. Even if the man cannot read, it could still be "with" him if there were others that he could task to read it for him. But this may be too loose an interpretation. Wouldn't "with" also imply that the man considered the code to be of some positive value and be willing to conform at least some of his behavior to it?

Although the word "live" is also critical to the debate, I do not see it as being as pivotal as it may first appear. As "live" is defined, there is this "spiritual processes" requirement which itself begs for definition. Otherwise, one can conclude "no" simply by asserting that the required "spiritual processes" is something that evaporates without codified morality. I suspect that most people who would tend towards a "no" response, would also view all "spiritual processes" as being quite hardy - even to the point of being immortal.

--[[User:ScottB|ScottB]] 13:09, 3 December 2009 (EST)

== Yes and No ==

The question is whether it is possible to live without a moral ''code''. Absolutely. On the other hand there is the question of whether it is possible to live without ''morality''. I would say no. There are serial killers and people who do many evil things, but not living morally is different from living without morality. People cannot necessarily explain their morality; people may claim they have no morality; they may even believe it: that does not mean they are right. --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 12:30, 17 November 2007 (EST)

Debate: Which version of the Bible should be used as the authoritative reference on Conservapedia?

2010-01-15T16:37:24Z

Jordanball: /* Please Add Your Suggestions Below */

{{debate}}

'''NOTE - PLEASE READ THE PREMISE SECTION BEFORE POSTING REPLIES - THANK YOU.'''

==Premise==

This is not a "Yes/No" type of debate, but more of a forum for gathering views from across the base of CP contributors. There have been several discussions on this site in one place or another that revolve around the specific text used in one version of the Bible or another. Two examples would be:

*Some feel that the [[Essay:Adulteress Story|Adulteress Story]] is the opinionated insertion of editors as opposed to part of the "authentic" gospel
*Some feel that the number of times the word "Hell" is capitalized or non-capitalized indicates a bias in a particular version of the Bible

So the question is, since there are variations in the different versions and translations of the Bible that may be disapproved of on CP, but the Bible itself is a critical reference source for this site, ''which specific version'' of the Bible should be promoted as the authoritative reference source for citing in articles here?

This is a serious question, and people take this subject '''very''' seriously and personally, so I will emphasize that while this is a debate page that encourages frank expression, comments here need to be respectful.

==Please Add Your Suggestions Below==

I would say, looking at the trajectory of much of the content here, that something like Pentacostal if we are being specific. If we are going to expand the tent a little bit I would say anything involving the various hodge-podge of evangical denominations with a heavy dose of Baptist leanings. That being simply an observation. -JBall

Debate:Atheism vs. Pastafarianism

2010-01-15T15:14:43Z

Jordanball: /* Why Atheism is ridiculous */

Stick with me, this can get confusing for those who aren't highly verbal and good with spatial concepts. "[[Flying Spaghetti Monster]]" (FSM) is another word for "everything." The Flying Spaghetti Monster equals everything. Everthing is The Flying Spaghetti Monster. To deny that "He" exists is silly because the universe and everything in it exists. Thus, atheism is prepostorous if The Flying Spaghetti Monster is everything.

The only question (and it is a valid question) is whether Everything when taken as a whole is sentient or not.

In other words, does The Flying Spaghetti Monster (or "everything" if you prefer) think? Does The Flying Spaghetti Monster have a plan? Or is Everything (i.e. his noodly appendages) just ... here?

Some people prefer to believe that Everything is just randomness with no plan. "Everything" is just does its thing with no guiding force, no rules, no anything. Everything, of course in an ever changing but non-planned form, has always been here. Everything will always been here. Everything is nicely organized into protons and electrons and stars and galaxies (did you know that [[supercluster]]s of galaxies are shaped exactly like spaghetti threads, coincidence?)
Lives come and go with no meaning whatsoever. All of this and more is "Everything".

Some people have come to realize that Everything seems to have a design and a plan, and that the Grand Architect planned everything. Some people (Einstein included) believe that time is not absolute and that the infinitely complex organizational structure of Everything implies one undeniable conclusion: Everything (or The Flying Spaghetti Monster) is sentient. The Flying Spaghetti Monster has a plan. That plan is far more complicated than we can possibly imagine or understand.[[ME]]

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

I suppose cut and paste is the sincerest form of flattery. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:54, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

May he touch you with his noodlely appendage! Ramen!

==Why Atheism is ridiculous==
Stick with me, this can get confusing for those who aren't highly verbal and good with spatial concepts. "God" is another word for "everything." God equals everything. Everthing is God. To deny that "God" exists is silly because the universe and everything in it exists. Thus, atheism is prepostorous if God is everything.

The only question (and it is a valid question) is whether Everything when taken as a whole is sentient or not.

In other words, does God (or "everything" if you prefer) think? Does God have a plan? Or is Everything (''i.e.'' God) just ... here?

Some people prefer to believe that Everything is just randomness with no plan. "Everything" is just does its thing with no guiding force, no rules, no anything. Everything, of course in an ever changing but non-planned form, has always been here. Everything will always been here. Everything is nicely organized into protons and electrons and stars and galaxies. Lives come and go with no meaning whatsoever. All of this and more is "Everything".

Some people have come to realize that Everything seems to have a design and a plan, and that the Grand Architect planned everything. Some people (Einstien included) believe that time is an illusion and that the infinitely complex organizational structure of Everything implies one undeniable conclusion: Everything (or God) is sentient. God has a plan. That plan is far more complicated than we can possibly imagine or understand. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:19, 24 April 2007 (EDT) [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:56, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:Your argument has one fundamental flaw--you are assuming that God is everything which is something that is absouletly true. [[User:Lopku|Lopku]] 8:50, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

:I've complied your argument and run it. It has nothing to do with God. Here's your argument:

pound-define GOD everything
int main(){
:everything exists by definition of thing;
:therefore, GOD exists;
:return 1;
}

Here it is after preprocessing:

int main(){
:everything exists by definition of thing;
:therefore, everything exists;
:return 1;
}

Where do you mention the omni-present flying fairy in the sky?
[[User:Cthx]]

* I've never spoken with, seen or heard any spagetti fly which was not first thrown, that's why I don't go off claiming I know what the Flying Spagett's Monster's will is.

* I believe that in the material world science is the only way to the truth: if the evidence says it's so, I tend to believe it's true.

* I believe human rights, democracy, honesty and equality for all are the highest universal values. I understand that each of these words can be twisted to drive a specific ideology and I do not support some of those political interpretations of these words.

* I believe multi-nationalism is a 50 year old hoax. I believe that "diversity" is a word used as a club to blunt the achievements of the most successful cultures on the planet while saddling them with the responsibility to clean-up messes they didn't create.

* I believe there would be no tax money is to spend on health care for the poor if the USA did not spend at least another $6 billion for each aircraft carrier.

* I believe reason and logic are worth more than blind faith. I believe that people who don't understand the logic of others call it blind faith so that they can denigrate their logic.

* I believe Jesus had much to teach, but he's been misinterpreted by [[User:Middle Man]].

* I believe religion is something between a person and his or her deity. I agree with our founding fathers that religion is an important part of public and private life but the belief in God doesn't not allow for the imposition of religion upon anyone.

* I am an American citizen and know that 96% of the world population wishes they were Americans too. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:07, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Atheism isn't ridiculous god answers prayers in three ways yes no and wait.
If you were praying to god to win the lottery you would either win, lose but consider gods answer to be wait.
In the win scenario you credit god for the win and if you lose god is telling you to wait he'll get to you.
If you pray to a cellphone to win the lottery you will either win or lose but assume that the awnser is wait.
What I'm getting at is that if you pray to god or a cellphone you will get the same resoult any win even with god or the cellphone on your side is just a coincdence. P.S: Its not a debate if their is only one point of view.[[ME]]

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is very forgiving, you may still repent for your blasphemy.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

::I'm not sure I'll ever understand your obsession with spaghetti, but at some point it stops driving your point and starts making you look really devoid of ideas. Your point is: God is as laughable and dubious an idea as the idea of a ''flying spaghetti monster''. In other words, you can't combat logic with logic, so you'll make Rosie O'Donnell-styled faces and weird-noises to prove your point. Oh, I get it ... [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:54, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Actually, it's called sarcasm: I'm pointing out that if your "logic" can prove the existence of God, it can also prove the existence of Zeus, Ra, Shiva, Marduk and, yes, the Flying Spaghetti Monster (all I have to do is say that one of them is everything).
I'm not saying God doesn't exist, I'm just saying there is no way to prove or disprove his existence, there never is with supernatural beings.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

::Yeah that's real funny. I get it.

::It's a simple matter to prove that God exists. The hard part is figuring out what this means. It's also true that there's nothing easier to make fun of than something you don't understand. So it's no wonder you are so delighted with yourself.

::When you decide to grow up and talk like an adult, then pick the word that makes you happy: God, Marduk, Luck, Shiva, ''g'' (the imaginary catalyst, see [[Atheism vs. Deism]]). Only when you have a word to describe everything can you examine what God means or is. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 19:09, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

^^^ Everwill in both cases you have managed to embody the very (self made) characterization of your opponent in an attempt to do exactly what you are trying to accuse him/her of doing. In case you didn't know, although I am sure you do, FSM is an established critique of theism that this individual did not simply make up here. I have yet to see a theist come close to disputing it as a viable challenge to their own reliance on a flying speghetti monster with a different name. Every single aspect of how FSM theory correlates to "real" religion is dead on. Snarky, ill-constructed shadow boxing around the point being clearly made doesn't make that point go away. Neither do lame attempts to personify your commentary as wizened and somehow graced with more "maturity." You lost the debate as soon as you entered it and offered nothing but ornamental distrations and shameless ineptitude recast as "enlightented" condescension. In fact, if anything you have made the entire point of FSM better than you adversay ever could have. - JBall

So you agree with me that the existence of Ra, Zeus or Marduk is equally plausible as the existence of the Abrahamic God? [[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

::I agree that it's pointless to argue about which religion is better with someone who does not acknowledge the existence of a deity. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::If one starts out by stating that Atheism is ridiculous, just exactly who is supposed to take up the debate? Of course, believers view atheism as incorrect, just as adults view Santa as fiction. To whom is your discussion directed?--[[User:Eastfernstreet|Eastfernstreet]] 14:55, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

==Let Me Paint a Picture==

Just suppose there was a universe in a multiverse far far away....

... and in that universe, which came from nothing, and had no organisation, no structure, by some remote chance of fate that only happens once in every 10 to the squillion years, that matter self organised into a self-reproducing molecule. To begin with, that structure was crude, basic and lacked any real semblance of we might call life, but it had one single feature, that it was able to self-replicate (albeit somewhat haphazardly) and reproduce. Reproduce it did, and over time there were many copies of this thing. I say 'thing'; I actually mean things, because from this simple rudimentary molecule, came others, better equipped to reproduce, and so began the process of reproduction, change, survival and adaptation.

A squillion years passed and that self-reproducing molecule had became so sophisticated that it was no longer a molecule, but had packaged itself with a coating of material for protection; that material had its own molecules which told it how to reproduce and survive, how to accrete and modify naturally occurring minerals in the surrounding context, and how to use the natural energy of starlight to produce different molecules.

Time passed, and these packages of molecules began to take on a myriad forms; some remained stationary, making complex molecules from the atmosphere and starlight; others roamed about using the stationary packages as raw materials to create their own package coverings. The diversity was amazing. The single molecule had by now invaded every part of the planet; every ecological niche was filled by a different type of package, and everything worked. Many of the moving packages began to use other packages for their material needed to grow and survive; some got rather good at it. Some even began to be able to structure rudimentary plans of how to do it better, and these were passed on to other packages of the same type. These packages became so good at adapting to their environment that they began to shape their environment for themselves; at first, simply finding cosy spots to rest, then hollowing out spaces or using material to construct things.

One day, one of these packages, used the complex set of molecules within its package not to plan a nice cosy spot to rest, or to work out even better ways of accreting more material to itself, but to ask the question 'Why am I here?' That unanswered question inevitably led to other questions, such as 'What is space?' 'What is time?', and 'Why is so much of my life spent looking for nice cosy spots to rest and better ways of accreting material to myself?'.

A squillion years later and the descendants of these packages were still asking themselves the same questions. Long ago they had enlisted the help of most of the universe in their quest to find the answers. They had harnessed the power of the very small: atomic nuclei and quantum fluctuations to power and drive their auxilliary questioning devices; they had reached out on the very large scale to the furthest depths of their universe, and all were connected. The question was still unanswered until one day, the huge, all-encomassing packeage managed to make the final connection which pieced everything in the universe together. Then it all fell into place. All at once the package could see - not only where everything is, but how everything was, and where it will be. The package knew all the answers, and knew that it could change them.

For a time, the package wallowed in smugness and self-satisfaction. It had answered all of the questions that could usefully be asked, and many that were useless. There followed a period of boredom followed by a long peiod of emptiness. Most of all, it was lonely. Desperately and unutterably lonely. How lonely you cannot possibly imagine. Destined to be for the whole of time without any other being for comfort or companionship. It craved attention. For a while it went mad. Then out of that madness came a brilliant idea. As it could change time and space, why not look back over its long multisquillion year history and change things?

The universal package didnt really approve of its humble beginnings so it decided that a tweak here or there wouldn't go amiss. The first package to ask the question 'Why am I here?' didn't really seem right. Wouldn't it be better if the first question recognised the importance of where that primitive package was heading? Why not change that question to 'Who put me here?' or 'What am I destined for?', or more importantly 'Is this everything, or is there something else?'. Best of all, putting the idea 'Who put me here?' meant that primitive packages would come to a realisation (but not understand the significance) of a universal package, and would begin to talk to it.

Its first attempts to do this were crude and clumsy. They missed the mark by miles. Packages attributed 'universal package status' to stars, minerals, and other packages, but not the one universal package itself. Then it hit upon the solution, almost by accident - to put into the mind of one lowly package the idea that this lowly package was the naturally occuring descendant of the one universal package. That idea was so powerful that it reverberated down through the whole of time like an avalanche down a mountain slope. All at once, all the packages wanted to talk to the universal package, and it was happy. It was no longer alone, and it was loved.

Some packages believed in the one universal package; other packages believed that they had arisen from the mud of the planet in a multi squillion year history. Did it matter to the universal package? Not a jot. They were both right - and both wrong. It amused the universal package to watch the antics of these primitve packages arguing with each other in such a pointless manner. This was entertainment, and it was certainly much better than being bored, lonely or going mad.

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 02:35, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

==It's not a religion==

Uh, pastafarianism isn't actually a religion, it's a satire of religion, atheists don't actually believe in the Flying Spagetti Monster, there use the concept to demonstrate logic flaws in religion.

And the the poster who stated that God is everything and by rejecting God atheists reject everything, atheists reject the concept of religion and a supernatural being who determines the outcome of the universe. They do not reject the universe or things which they believe to be real, and hence do not reject everything. And Einstein did not believe time was an illusion, he believed it was relative to the frame of reference of an observer, just as he believed mass and length were and that the speed of light was the only constant. [[User:DegreeOfProof|DegreeOfProof]] 00:41, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

:Pastafarianism is about a lot of things. It's origin is in an open letter addressed to the Kansas Board of Education (which at the time was debating whether or not Intelligent Design should be taught in schools) in an attempt to prove that if even one non-scientifically provable theory of creation (and I'm using that term liberally) was to be taught in school, then any comparable theory should have to be taught as well. It also includes elements of Omphalism, i.e. that everything appears to be much older than it is because His Noodly Appendages interfere with our scientific equipment. The argument, like in the case of many parody religions, is founded on Russel's Teapot which holds that the burden of proof is on the believer, and not the skeptic since, according to actual religious tradition (i.e that the burden of proof is on the skeptic), it would be the responsibility of everyone else to prove that the FSM does not exist. [[User:DefiantElements|DefiantElements]] 23:37, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

::Pastafarianism is sarcastic mockery. A Sophists arrogant attempt to mock other religious beliefs in order to marginalize them. Or as it is here that once again the religious athiests are trying to explain away what they have little if no ability to conceptualize. It is along the lines of a prejudicial parody and satire meant to slander another religion much like in Germany from 1933 to 1945. Note the use of cartoonish characters. Pastafarianism isn't a religion, it's a propaganda attack on theistic religion from a non-theist. An exercise in religious bigotry that appeases a non-theist peer group. Here is what the title really says: non-theistic religion vs. theistic religion. It was meant as an insult to the intelligence of the Kansas Board of Education through over simplification and I'm surprised nobody can even point out that fact.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:46, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:The purpose of Pastafarianism was to protest the Kansas Board of Education's allowing of creationism to be taught in classrooms. The point being is that creationism should not be taught in schools simply because creationism is not scientific. [[User:Raymond|Raymond]] 18:37, 10 December 2007 (EST)

::The point of Pastafarianism is the same as any other attempt to belittle those that don't fit someone's political, religious view. Mockery through parady and childish satire which is also known as propaganda. Facts aren't even bothered with. The science behind the Creation is the same as the faithful evolutionist uses but of course excludes since it doesn't fit the belief system requirements of evolutionary theory. I can accept the fact that there are two views here and be tolerant of that point. What isn't acceptable is to have a different point of view that the faithful adherents of the sacred theory of evolution have that won't allow other scientifically valid theories accepted only because they challenge their own. Proving therefore that it ultimately requires a faith like belief system in order for it to be kept alive. This is the whole point. You've yet to prove your theory (except to the faithful) so you can't exclude other theories.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 13:09, 11 December 2007 (EST)

:No, it isn't. Do you even know the history behind Pastafarianism? It was created as a mock religion to protest the Kansas State Board of Education's allowing of creationism to be taught in schools. It is nothing childish. it is a protest against how pressure groups can indtroduce Christian bias into an non-theocratic classroom. I don't know where you are getting your definition of propaganda but it is way out of context. Propagandqa is not childish satire and any legitimate dictionary can quote you on that. There is no science beind creationism; this is the reason that most other civilised countries do not teach it in their public schools. Since the pseudoscience of Christian-perspective creationsim can be regarded as legitimate, why can't all forms of creationism be regarded as legitimate? Do we really have to teach an alternate theory that the Earth was created by Zeus, Brahman, Russell's teapot, or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster? If we don't, it would be biased only to include the Christian God's theory. That is the reason for the creation of Pastafarianism. It is a protest of the inane bias by fundamentalist pressure groups that want to use religion to invoke power among the gullible by impopsing their pseudoscientific views in the classroom. [[User:Coventry|Coventry]] 19:53, 30 December 2007 (EST)

::So all you're stating here is that God doesn't exist, and we should believe your word on the subject, as well as every like-minded individual? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:04, 30 December 2007 (EST)

:: "''Do you even know the history behind Pastafarianism? It was created as a mock religion ...''": Isn't that consistent with what Roopilots6 said?
:: "''...the Kansas State Board of Education's allowing of creationism to be taught in schools.''": I'm sure they never did that.
:: "''It is nothing childish.''": Mocking rather than rational debate is not childish?
:: "''it is a protest against how pressure groups can indtroduce Christian bias into an non-theocratic classroom.''": That's evolutionary spin for "it's a protest against allowing any other view than ours into supposedly-neutral classrooms".
:: "''There is no science beind creationism;''": So how come almost all the early scientists were creationists? And how come science only arose because of a Christian (creationist) worldview? I'd suggest there's more science behind creationism than behind the atheist origins myth (evolution).
:: "''...is the reason that most other civilised countries do not teach it in their public schools.''": No, that's not the reason.
:: "''Do we really have to teach an alternate theory that the Earth was created by Zeus, Brahman, Russell's teapot, or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster?''": No. Is anybody claiming that we should? No. So why bring up red herrings?
:: "''If we don't, it would be biased only to include the Christian God's theory.''": No, it would be ''balanced'' between teaching a creator vs. no creator. At the moment, only the no-creator view is allowed a look in. Is that fair?
:: "''It is a protest of the inane bias by fundamentalist pressure groups ...''": As opposed to the bias by atheist pressure groups?
:: "''... that want to use religion to invoke power among the gullible ...''": Huh? I'm not sure that even makes sense.
:: "''..by impopsing their pseudoscientific views in the classroom''": As opposed to the atheists already doing just that?
:: It all sounds rather one-sided to me. You're right, we're wrong, and that's it!
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:35, 31 December 2007 (EST)

:Obviously, Rootpilots6 does not know the history behind Pastafarianism because it ''was'' created as a mock religion to protest the actual allowing of creationism to be taught in shools. Yes, they did do that.
:Contrary to your belief, the creator of Pastafarianism did have a long rational debate at the Kansas State Board of Education. With their descision continue to allow the teaching of Creationism, The creator of Pastafarianism proposed that the theory according to the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster should be taught in schools to as a ''satire''. Satires are certainly not childish.
:Now if you would suggest that a neutral classroom should introduce all theories into the clasroom, why would they only introduce the ''Christian'' theory. That's Christian spin. None of these other theories are based on scientific method except for Evolution which is why it is inane to introduce a massive amount of theological theories into the classroom that have no scientific merit whatsoever.
:Yet, all of these early creationist scientists didn't actually study any science that would have contradicted the Bible. However, this changed with Charles Darwin. He never doubted the Bible as being literal until his studies based on scientific method contradicted the Bible. Nor did science only arise because of a Christian creationist point of view. In fact, the most contributing era to science was the classical antiquity period which was before Christianity arose.
:And yes, that is the reason that most other civilised countries teach only evolution in their schools.
:Now if we don't have to teach any theories based on Zeus, Brahman, Russell's teapot, or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster, why should we have to teach theories based on the Christian viewpoint of a deity which doesn't follow scientific method either?
:Yes, it would be biased to only include the Christian God's theory. Please explain to me why the other deities are of less significance. At the moment, the naturalist theory is looked at because it is the only one of all of them that is based on ''scientific method''. Now that is definitely fair.
:Yet again, the bias from religious pressure groups is the promotion of a theory that is not based on scientific method. Atheist pressure groups are actually promoting Evolution which is based on scientific method.
:It does actually make sense that religion has been used to invoke power on the gullible. History shows it.
:Now you missed something here... Christians are trying to impose their ''pseudoscientific'' views onto the classroom while atheists are trying to impose their ''scientific'' views on the classroom.
:Your argument is ironically the one that is one-sided: Christian biased sided. However, I will admit that I am biased to science. [[User:Wolverhampton|Wolverhampton]] 19:11, 4 January 2008 (EST)

:::When user Coventry returns, this time not as socks Alsace and Wolverhampton, he's going to put his money where his mouth is. He's going to prove an example of evolution by using the scientific method only, and this example is the so-called evolution of the horse. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:29, 4 January 2008 (EST)

::: "''Yes, they did do that.''": Repeating the assertion does not make it so. My memory and quick bit of research says otherwise.
::: "''Contrary to your belief, the creator of Pastafarianism did have a long rational debate at the Kansas State Board of Education.''": Okay, so it was rational debate with the board, and mocking in public when his arguments failed to convince. That still doesn't make it any better.
::: "''Now if you would suggest that a neutral classroom should introduce all theories into the clasroom, why would they only introduce the ''Christian'' theory.''": First, I did not suggest that they should introduce ''all'' theories, whatever that may mean. Second, creation is not exclusive to Christianity. Third, I didn't say that only creation should be introduced. Intelligent design should be allowed also. Fourth, creation and ID are the about the only ''scientific'' alternatives.
::: "''None of these other theories are based on scientific method except for Evolution...''": This is anticreationist rhetoric which doesn't stand scrutiny and which is used to keep the evolutionary monopoly without having to actually address the arguments.
::: "''..it is inane to introduce a massive amount of theological theories into the classroom ...''": That is not being proposed. About all that is ever suggested is introducing ''scientific'' evidence consistent with creation.
::: "''Yet, all of these early creationist scientists didn't actually study any science that would have contradicted the Bible.''": That's only because true science ''can't'' contradict the Bible, because the Bible is true. But if you mean that their science had no potential to contradict the Bible, that's absolute rubbish.
::: "''He never doubted the Bible as being literal until his studies based on scientific method contradicted the Bible.''": Wrong again. His ''purpose'' in writing about evolution was to do away with God.
::: "''Nor did science only arise because of a Christian creationist point of view.''": The experts/historians say otherwise.
::: "''And yes, that is the reason that most other civilised countries teach only evolution in their schools.''": Simply repeating an assertion is not a valid argument. Failing to provide a valid argument when challenged suggests that you have none.
::: "''...why should we have to teach theories based on the Christian viewpoint of a deity which doesn't follow scientific method either?''": That's a loaded question, because creation ''does'' follow the scientific method. More than evolution does.
::: "''Please explain to me why the other deities are of less significance.''": Because there's no scientific models based on them?
::: "''Yet again, the bias from religious pressure groups is the promotion of a theory that is not based on scientific method. Atheist pressure groups are actually promoting Evolution which is based on scientific method. ''": That's at least three times you've made that claim. It's past time to back it up.
::: "''It does actually make sense that religion has been used to invoke power on the gullible. History shows it.''": We are talking about Christianity here, not "[[religion]]".
::: Don't bother replying again unless you are prepared to show clearly that evolution is science and creation is not. Continuing to repeat the claim over and over is not an argument.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:57, 4 January 2008 (EST)

:You actually think that satire is “mocking” and “irrational” when Conservapedia depicts a political cartoon mocking liberalism on the [[liberal]] page. You employ a double standard here. I highly doubt you would allow a political cartoon mocking conservatism on the [[conservative]] page. Satire actually does make the situation better. It gets the attention of people who also feel that the action is unjust. Now if intelligent design would be allowed, would you then support introducing creationism and intelligent design based on the views of the Greek polytheists, Germanic pagans, Hinduists, etc.. There is no sense in introducing intelligent design and creationist theories, especially when they are rejected unanimously by scientists. Teach it in history, not in science class. Teach science based on the scientific method in science class. None of the creationist and intelligent design theories are based on the scientific method.
:I’m sorry to burst your bubble but it is true that none of these theories are based on the scientific method. No, it is not anti-creationist. Nor is it used to simply silence creationist arguments. Just because the scientific method proves the theory of creationism and intelligent design wrong, doesn’t mean that it is trying to create a “monopoly”. Lay off the ad hominems. How do you really think this doesn’t address the argument? It is the argument. You have just used a non sequitur. Contrary to your belief, science does contradict the Bible. Now I know that there are countless contradictions, but I’ll start with one. Now in Isaiah 11:12 and Revelation 7:1, the Bible states that Earth has four corners. Hmmmm… well, science has already indisputably proven that the Earth is spherical (of course after long oppression from Christians because they were too stubborn to accept the truth). I could go on…
:Now here’s a flat lie on your part. You obviously have no idea what the hell you are talking about. In Darwin’s autobiography, he explicitly stated that he had always believed that the Bible was indisputable and could not be contradicted. He never doubted the existence of God in his youth and that is a fact. Darwin later doubted the verifiability of the Bible when his scientific research led him to the conclusion that the Bible is pseudoscientific. And yet you continue to make unsubstantiated claims. All records of Darwin’s study and experimentation of the evolutionary process follow the scientific method. Creationism is theory based on no scientific research, hence not based on the scientific method. Don’t bother replying again unless you are willing to cite your assertions. Simply repeating the fabricated claim is utterly invalid and only furthers your hypocrisy. [[User:Staffordshire|Staffordshire]] 19:15, 6 February 2008 (EST)
:: "''...would you then support introducing creationism and intelligent design based on the views of the Greek polytheists, Germanic pagans, Hinduists, etc.''": If they had scientific merit, then yes. Your question presumes that I agree with your view, which clearly I don't, so is an invalid question. That is, your question presumes that those beliefs ''and creationism and intelligent design'' all have no merit.
:: "''There is no sense in introducing intelligent design and creationist theories, especially when they are rejected unanimously by scientists.''": And you have the gall to call ''me'' a liar! Either this is a blatant lie, or you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. ID and creationism are rejected by a ''majority'', likely even a ''large majority'', of scientists, but it is absolute nonsense to claim that it is rejected ''unanimously''. You've blown your credibility right there. And seeing you ask for references (despite not supplying any yourself), see [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4983 here].
:: "''None of the creationist and intelligent design theories are based on the scientific method. ...it is true that none of these theories are based on the scientific method''": So you assert, but fail to demonstrate.
:: "''Just because the scientific method proves the theory of creationism and intelligent design wrong, doesn’t mean that it is trying to create a “monopoly”.''": I never claimed that.
:: "''Lay off the ad hominems.''": What ad hominems?
::"''How do you really think this doesn’t address the argument? It is the argument. You have just used a non sequitur.''": Huh? What doesn't? What is the argument? What non-sequitur?
::"''Contrary to your belief, science does contradict the Bible.''": No it doesn't, and you fail to demonstrate your claim (although you do try).
::"''Now I know that there are countless contradictions...''": Yet you fail to successfully demonstrate even one.
::"''Now in Isaiah 11:12 and Revelation 7:1, the Bible states that Earth has four corners. Hmmmm… well, science has already indisputably proven that the Earth is spherical ...''": Oh dear! You've never hears of metaphor? It's an expression that is still used today, even by people who know that the world is spherical! You critics lambast us Bible-believers for taking the Bible literally (when we generally don't), but take metaphor as literal statements yourselves in order to try and find fault with it!
::"''...(of course after long oppression from Christians because they were too stubborn to accept the truth)...''": Of course. Except that that statement is fiction.
::"''Now here’s a flat lie on your part.''": It's only a lie if I say it knowing it to be false. I don't know it to be false.
::"''...[Darwin] explicitly stated that he had always believed that the Bible was indisputable and could not be contradicted.''": You are ready to believe that I lied. How do you know that Darwin didn't lie?
::"''He never doubted the existence of God in his youth and that is a fact.''": Who said anything about his youth?
::"''Darwin later doubted the verifiability of the Bible when his scientific research led him to the conclusion that the Bible is pseudoscientific.''": Not according to Gould[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1877] and Ruse[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1585/]. Note, that's another citation like you asked for, despite not supplying any yourself!
::"''All records of Darwin’s study and experimentation of the evolutionary process follow the scientific method''": Probably basically true, actually, but then it's also been said that the one thing that the ''Origin of species'' didn't have is ''the origin of species''! He carefully and scientifically documented variation ''within'' a species, but didn't show anything actually evolving.
::"''Don’t bother replying again unless you are willing to cite your assertions.''": Given that you didn't cite your own assertions, I don't see why I should have. But I did anyway. I'd suggest that you don't bother replying unless you get a better idea what you are talking about.
::"''Simply repeating the fabricated claim is utterly invalid and only furthers your hypocrisy.''": Well, given that my claims were not fabricated and not invalid, it follows that I wasn't hypocritical. So what's that say about your ability to judge?
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:17, 6 February 2008 (EST)
:Since you believe that views with scientific merit can be included, the Bible should ‘’not’’ be included whatsoever. In fact, all of those other creationist views had more scientific merit due to the astronomical basis for their evidence while the Bible has none whatsoever. So, the Bible is henceforth scientifically invalid and should not be incorporated into the classroom for scientific purposes.
:Oh, yes I do have the “gall” to call you a ‘’liar’’. Duly because it is unanimously reject by scientists, yet you provide a citation that lists scientists with no accountable information on a scientific consensus between one another or analysis on the subject. That just completely destroys your credibility, not only because you have no idea what you are talking about but you obviously have no idea what a scientist does, in order for them to reach a ‘’unanimous consensus’’ they must actually study the given protocol and approve it within the scientific community. Yet, this is something you do not have. However, I do[http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution%20statement.pdf] and it is undeniably unanimous.
:Yet, you question my assertion that the creationist and intelligent design theories are not based on scientific method and you cannot find a source that does demonstrate your argument as a fact. But since your credibility is lacking due to the previous source, I cannot expect you to provide any resourceful claims. But to answer your question…[http://www.clarku.edu/~piltdown/map_intro/creationscience.html]
:Well, I didn’t think it was necessary to embarrass you but I will. Revelation 7:1 refers to angels standing on the four corners of the Earth. Of course there is also unanimous scientific consensus that the Earth is spherical so it cannot possibly have corners. Yet, just as there are biblical fundamentalists who deny evolution because it contradicts the Bible, there are those that deny the Earth being spherical because it contradicts the Bible. Yes, they are out there. They’re called the Flat Earth Society. Was that not enough for you? Genesis 1:16 states that the Moon is a light just like the Sun. Wrong. The Moon is a natural satellite that reflects sun light.
:But now you’re saying that you take the Bible literally and the “four corners” is just a metaphor. Well, then the whole damn Bible must be a metaphor since it is so erroneous! You just pick and choose what you want to believe to suit your prejudice while labeling everything else as “metaphors”. The creators of the Flat Earth Society took the “four corners” passage literally just as you take the text that contradicts evolution literally. You are no different that those fundamentalists.
:Of course you had to label another point as “fiction” just like you label everything else you don’t want to follow as “metaphor”.
:I am very ready to believe that you have lied because you have destroyed your credibility. Yet, Darwin always expressed an orthodox belief in God as described by those who knew him best, that was only until he began his research that he began losing faith. Please show me proof that he lied.
:[[User:Staffordshire|Staffordshire]] 21:39, 12 February 2008 (EST)

:: "''Since you believe that views with scientific merit can be included, the Bible should ‘’not’’ be included whatsoever.''": If you are saying that the Bible itself should not be introduced as evidence, then I agree. But that doesn't preclude introducing scientific evidence for a view that is itself based on or consistent with the Bible.
:: "''Oh, yes I do have the “gall” to call you a ‘’liar’’. Duly because it is unanimously reject by scientists...''"": Dead wrong, as I proved.
:: "''...yet you provide a citation that lists scientists with no accountable information on a scientific consensus between one another or analysis on the subject.''": I don't even follow this statement. You are admitting that these people ''are'' scientists, and it is clear that these people ''do not'' "reject" "intelligent design and creationist theories". That itself is enough to prove that your claim was wrong.
:: "''However, I do[3] and it is undeniably unanimous''": Huh? I deny it! That document does not even ''pretend'' to be the unanimous view of every scientist. Do you understand the meaning of the word "unanimous"?
:: "''Yet, you question my assertion that the creationist and intelligent design theories are not based on scientific method and you cannot find a source that does demonstrate your argument as a fact.''". You leap to amazing conclusions! How do you know I can't find one? I pointed out that you ''didn't'' demonstrate your argument, so in return you claim that I ''cannot'' demonstrate an argument that I'm not sure I even explicitly made!
:: "''But since your credibility is lacking due to the previous source...''": It's only lacking in your mind. My "previous source" proved my point.
:: "''But to answer your question…[4]''": Okay, so now you have at least supplied ''some sort'' of substantiation to your claim. Not that it stands up to scrutiny though. That article in itself is replete with misleading statements and outright errors. For example, leading creationists do not claim "creation [as] described in Genesis to be a scientific account". What they claim is that the account in Genesis is ''scientifically accurate'', but not that it is a "scientific account". Also, it is patently false to claim that "no biologist has been led to doubt that evolution has occurred". Further, it is bigoted in referring to people who believe in creation as "creationists" and people who believe in evolution as "scientists", as though there were not scientists on both sides of the debate.
:: "''Well, I didn’t think it was necessary to embarrass you but I will. Revelation 7:1 refers to angels standing on the four corners of the Earth. Of course there is also unanimous scientific consensus that the Earth is spherical so it cannot possibly have corners.''": Which in no way refutes that it could be metaphor. I should also add that the language of much of Revelation is apocalyptic, not narrative, so is hardly a good place to be finding examples of supposedly-literal statements.
:: "''...there are those [biblical fundamentalists?] that deny the Earth being spherical because it contradicts the Bible.''": Rubbish. Utter rubbish.
:: "''Yes, they are out there. They’re called the Flat Earth Society. Was that not enough for you?''": No, that was not enough. There ''may be'' a few people who believe in a flat Earth, and who use the odd biblical reference to support that view, but I doubt that there is ''anyone'' who believes in a flat Earth ''because'' it contradicts the Bible. And I've also heard that the (almost non-existent) Flat Earth Society is a joke group, not a serious group. And even if there were some who believe that, demonstrating that one group wrongly believe something because of a particular interpretation of the Bible does not mean that a different group having an interpretation that you disagree with is also wrong.
:: "''Genesis 1:16 states that the Moon is a light just like the Sun. Wrong. The Moon is a natural satellite that reflects sun light.''": As I said above, creationists don't claim that the creation account is a ''scientific account''. That is, although they believe that it's scientifically accurate, it's not intended as a scientific treatise given in scientific language. Furthermore, Genesis 1:16 says that the Sun and the moon were made at the same time, but it does ''not'' say that that the moon is "just like" the sun.
:: "''But now you’re saying that you take the Bible literally ...''": No I'm not. So you are wrong yet again. I take the Bible the way that it was intended to be understood, that is, taking the literal parts as literal, the metaphor as metaphor, etc.
:: "''Well, then the whole ... Bible must be a metaphor since it is so erroneous!''": Metaphor is determined by the language, not by whether or not it is literally correct. And the Bible is not erroneous.
:: "''You just pick and choose what you want to believe to suit your prejudice while labeling everything else as “metaphors”. ''": No I don't, and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop trying to decide for me how I understand things. You are jumping to conclusions about things that you know next to nothing about (such as what I believe) and then accusing me of those things. As I just mentioned, metaphor is determined by the language, not by whether I want to believe it or not.
:: "''The creators of the Flat Earth Society took the “four corners” passage literally just as you take the text that contradicts evolution literally. You are no different that those fundamentalists.''": Aren't I? First, I doubt that the creator(s) of the Flat Earth Society could accurately be described as "fundamentalist". Second, I take the creation account as literal because that's the way it was meant to be understood: as actual history, not as metaphor.
:: "''Of course you had to label another point as “fiction” just like you label everything else you don’t want to follow as “metaphor”. ''": Well, I've shown that the second part of that is wrong, so it follows that the first part is wrong also.
:: "''I am very ready to believe that you have lied because you have destroyed your credibility.''": You have not demonstrated that I have destroyed my credibility, so your claim of me lying (which is a non-sequitur anyway) fails.
:: "''Please show me proof that [Darwin] lied.''": I have no obligation to do so. First, I never claimed that he lied, so that alone is sufficient reason why I don't have to show proof. Second, you accused me of lying simply because I repeated a claim made by prominent evolutionists that, according to you, contradicted what Darwin said. That doesn't make me a liar, and neither does it make those evolutionists liars. They may have simply been mistaken. Or perhaps you are. I was merely pointing out that you were very ready to accuse me of lying, yet didn't appear to have even considered the ''possibility'' that Darwin lied.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 13 February 2008 (EST)

:Any form of science that goes by the scientific method and is unanimously accepted as fact by scientific consensus should be taught in public schools. It doesn’t matter whether or not it is consistent with the Bible, ‘’The Picture of Dorian Gray’’ or ‘’Daniel Deronda’’.
:You didn’t prove me a thing. You provided me a list of scientists with no evidence of their collaboration and expertise on the subject at hand. It is you that is dead wrong. You clearly do not understand the meaning of unanimous, especially in scientific consensus.
:Obviously since you haven’t provided a source that proves intelligent design as a fact, that must mean that you cannot find one, which leads me to the conclusion that there is no evidence of intelligent design being based on the scientific method. Feel free to show me a source. I’m waiting.
:Your previous source didn’t prove a thing. Your previous source gave a list of scientists with no verifiability of collaboration, study, or expertise on the subject. I, however have provided a source in this favour with respect to evolution.
:Yes, creationists do claim it to be a scientific account if they claim it to be scientifically accurate. It is the same thing! That’s like saying that World War II didn’t begin in Europe but world War II started in Europe.
:Yet, do you even realise that among this scientific study, there is no doubt among these collaborating biologists that evolution has occurred? Read it. That was the survey among those scientists who have studied and collaborated within the subject thoroughly, not some scientists that cannot verify an expertise, collaboration, consensus, or even experimentation on the subject.
:In the case that the “four corners” are a metaphor, then the whole Bible must be a metaphor. You cannot refute that either. It just shows that the crackpots that wrote the Bible truly believed that the Earth was flat.
:I have proved you wrong so you are just making yourself less credible by saying “rubbish” because you are much too weak to disprove the argument. Well, it is not rubbish. The Flat Earth Society was founded by fundamentalists just like you who take the Bible too literally and label whatever they don’t want to follow as “metaphors”. Just like you! You are just another of those small groups of fundies that uses the very odd Biblical reference that Earth was created based on the story of Genesis. Unfortunately, your doubts cannot be sustained because the Flat Earth Society is still active and they truly believe in that Biblical rubbish just like you.
:The Bible calls the moon a light. The moon is not a light, simple! The Bible is wrong which is something it has a reputation of.
:Yes, the founders of the Flat Earth Society were very fundamentalist and they didn’t doubt a single word of the Bible. What makes you think that the creation account was any more literal than Revelation?
:Yes, you have an obligation to do so. You did claim he lied. Now you’ve just lied again. Now please show me which evolutionists contradicted what Darwin said. Despite the fact that you jumped to the conclusion of the fact that Darwin lied while giving so evidence for his dishonesty, you refuse to doubt the authenticity of a very scientifically inaccurate book. I smell a double-standard. [[User:Staffordshire|Staffordshire]] 12:35, 22 February 2008 (EST)

:: "''Any form of science that goes by the scientific method and is unanimously accepted as fact by scientific consensus should be taught in public schools.''": It has to be unanimously accepted as fact by scientific consensus? That seems to be a bit restrictive, but even if that is so, why then is evolution taught?
:: "''You didn’t prove me a thing. You provided me a list of scientists with no evidence of their collaboration and expertise on the subject at hand.''": Huh? I provided you with a list of scientists who are creationists. That in itself is evidence. And many of those in the list have links to articles about them which give further information about them. What ''exactly'' do you want to know further?
:: "''It is you that is dead wrong.''": Nope.
:: "''You clearly do not understand the meaning of unanimous, especially in scientific consensus.''": You mean that "unanimous" ''doesn't'' mean "[http://www.onelook.com/?w=unanimous&ls=a complete agreement]"? What dictionary are ''you'' using?
:: "''Obviously since you haven’t provided a source that proves intelligent design as a fact, that must mean that you cannot find one...''": You have ''straaange'' logic, especially given that I've already answered this point.
:: "''...which leads me to the conclusion that there is no evidence of intelligent design being based on the scientific method''": That is also illogical. Not being able to ''prove'' something (even assuming that was the case) does not mean that there is no ''evidence''.
:: "''Feel free to show me a source. I’m waiting.''": What would you accept? A scientist simply saying that it was scientific, for example?
:: "''I, however have provided a source in this favour with respect to evolution.''": Which I've already pointed out didn't even ''claim'' unanimity, let alone demonstrate it.
:: "''Yes, creationists do claim it to be a scientific account if they claim it to be scientifically accurate. It is the same thing!''": It depends on your definition of "scientific account", I guess, but no, I would (and do) argue that it's ''not'' the same thing. Suppose that a scientist ventured into a dangerous forest area of Amazon, and found and studied a new species of insect. Upon his return, he writes two books. One book describes the new species of insect in great detail, such as how long it lives, what it feeds on, where it lives (e.g. in hives), and so on. It is, in all respects, a ''scientific'' account of the insect. The other book describes the expedition he went on to study the insect. It's a personal story, not a scientific account. It describes the problems he had raising money for the expedition, the issues he had with obtaining visas and permits, the help he was given by the local population despite not knowing their language, and the encounters he had with dangerous creatures. In describing these adventures, he uses the correct names of the places and the creatures he encountered, and accurately describes them, but this book is, nevertheless, not a ''scientific'' account, yet it is ''scientifically'' accurate in what it does mention. That's the sort of thing I'm getting at here. The creation account is not written as a scientific account, with the terminology and sorts of details that a scientist would want to read in it. But it is, nevertheless, scientifically accurate.
:: "''Yet, do you even realise that among this scientific study, there is no doubt among these collaborating biologists that evolution has occurred?''": Sorry, what scientific study? Your two links ([3] and [4] above), were not studies. And of course something produced by evolutionists is going to say that evolution occurred!
:: "''In the case that the “four corners” are a metaphor, then the whole Bible must be a metaphor.''": Why?
:: "''You cannot refute that either.''": I don't see the need, because you've not made a case worth refuting.
:: "''It just shows that the crackpots that wrote the Bible truly believed that the Earth was flat.''": Now you're simply being nasty, without showing any evidence. Any more of that and I just might give you a short block.
:: "''I have proved you wrong...''": No you haven't.
:: "''... so you are just making yourself less credible by saying “rubbish” because you are much too weak to disprove the argument.''": No, I say "rubbish" because the argument is so ridiculous. And as I've just said above, you need to make a case before there's any onus on me to refute it. Simple assertion does not a case make.
:: "''The Flat Earth Society was founded by fundamentalists just like...''": Oh? Just like me? Can you prove that? Or can you even prove that (a) they are not a joke society, ''and'' (b) that the Bible is the ''reason'' they believe in a flat Earth, rather than just an additional bit of justification for their view?
:: "''You are just another of those small groups of fundies that uses the very odd Biblical reference that Earth was created based on the story of Genesis.''": On the contrary, I'm one of a very large group of people throughout history as well as presently who believe that.
:: "''The Bible calls the moon a light. The moon is not a light, simple!''": Define "light". That is, provide the definition of the Hebrew word translated as "light" in English Bibles. The Bible does ''not'' say, as you are implying, that the moon generates its own light.
:: "''The Bible is wrong ...''": Not on that point.
:: "''...which is something it has a reputation of.''": Only because of misinformation spread by fundie atheists, as you are doing here.
:: "''What makes you think that the creation account was any more literal than Revelation?''": Its language, for one thing. The creation account is narrative; Revelation is apocalyptic language.
:: "''Yes, you have an obligation to do so. You did claim he lied.''": You are good at making assertions and not so good at providing evidence. I didn't claim that, so I guess that makes you a liar (by your logic; I'll be more gracious and think that you are just blinded by your own biases). The rest of your post is either based on your inaccurate claims or is just more (or the same) unsubstantiated assertions.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:27, 23 February 2008 (EST)

:What exactly is your argument for creationism and against evolution? I can’t see that you have made it clear, although if you have, please point it out. That rant about the scientific account is quite twisted. The source saying that creationists use the scientific account of genesis is clearly unambiguous. I don’t see how you can take umbrage to it. There is much to be said for the account of the Bible, however. The Flat Earth Society was certainly serious in respect to their belief that Earth is flat (based on Biblical quotes) but if you want to accept the assumption that the Flat Earth Society is a joke or that Charles Darwin lied in his journal (which is highly unlikely considering his devout religious upbringing), then you must accept the possibility that the Bible is not the word of a supreme deity and really just annals of faerie tales. The problem with the Bible is that it is no more than the stuff of legends. There are many passages that have been defended by fundamentalists, but are challenged by so much scientific evidence that the apologists are eventually forced to ignore them. The Bible says that Earth is round (Isaiah 40:22). This one is commonly used by Christian apologists to defend the Bible’s purported scientific accuracy. However, Earth is not round, Earth is spherical. And in case you were wondering, they did have a word for sphere in old Hebrew, which is basically synonymous with “ball” (Isaiah 40:22) (same book, too). If we were to believe that the Bible was the unmoving, unchanging word of God and scientifically infallible, we must believe that Earth rests on pillars (Psalm 75:3, Samuel 2:8). Oh, and let us not forget that big dispute between Galileo and the Church in which Galileo claimed that Earth isn’t stationary when the Bible clearly said that it was (1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 104:5, Psalm 96:10). The point is that the no religious text, including the Bible, should be put forward or even juxtaposed with science. One is a personal belief system and another is the gathering of information to determine the forces of nature. I don’t see how Galileo and Darwin are any different in this case. [[User:Kilmarnock|Kilmarnock]] 12:34, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Your comment that "One is a personal belief system and another is the gathering of information to determine the forces of nature" is itself a personal belief, and one that I don't share. Rather, one is the infallible world of the omniscient God, and the other, particularly when it comes to evolution, is the fallible musings of people who are unable to observe the events they say happened, and who are generally storytelling from an anti-God point of view.
:: What exactly are my arguments? Sorry, but that's such a huge question that it can't be adequately answered here. Try reading many of the articles [http://www.creationontheweb.com/ here]. And if you don't know what the arguments are, then you have no business trying to say that the arguments are wrong. In a nutshell, however, it is as I put above: creation (the event) has been revealed to us by the Creator Himself, so we can reliably believe that. Evolution is a story intended to explain how things came to be without God, and is not really science, as it is a story about the unobservable, untestable, unrepeatable, past. Further, what evidence can be gathered (fossils, etc.) are more consistent with the creationary view than the evolutionary view.
:: "''That rant about the scientific account is quite twisted.''": Oh? In what way?
:: "''The source saying that creationists use the scientific account of genesis is clearly unambiguous.''": What source?
:: "''...if you want to accept the assumption that the Flat Earth Society is a joke ... then you must accept the possibility that the Bible is not the word of a supreme deity and really just annals of faerie tales''": Why? One is not dependent on the other.
:: "''...if you want to accept ... that Charles Darwin lied in his journal ...''": I you reread my previous posts, I explicitly denied claiming that Darwin lied.
:: "''The problem with the Bible is that it is no more than the stuff of legends.''": According to whom? You've supplied no evidence of that, and there is a widespread belief, and plenty of evidence, that it's accurate history, so the onus is on you to support that claim.
:: "''There are many passages that have been defended by fundamentalists, but are challenged by so much scientific evidence that the apologists are eventually forced to ignore them.''": I don't know of one such passage that is "ignored".
:: "''The Bible says that Earth is round (Isaiah 40:22)...However, Earth is not round, Earth is spherical.'' (rest snipped)": This is a classic bibliosceptic case of trying to find problems where none exist by playing with words. A recent [http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13620-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions.html New Scientist article] attacking creationists referred to the "scientific fact" of the "roundness of the Earth" (and it was taken to task for not describing it as spherical!). On my Wikipedia user page I referred to the world being "round", only to have an evolutionist tell me that I wasn't correct, as "The planet earth is closer to an oblate spheriod, or a generalized ellipsoid with lateral heterogeneities"! That is, it wasn't actually spherical!
:: Another problem with bibliosceptic arguments is that, despite falsely accusing creationists of taking the Bible "literally", they do it themselves! Your claim about the Earth being supported on pillars and being unmovable is supported by a series of verses, every one taken from a passage of poetry or song! Haven't you ever heard of poetic licence? And Galileo was a creationist, objecting to the secular views that the church had adopted. Kind of like creationists today objecting to evolution!
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:48, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

::Religion is simply just one’s personal belief system; that’s not an opinion. Religion as a concept cannot possibly be the infallible word of God because that is a too specific description of religion. Some religions are not even theistic. If you are referring to Christianity as being infallible, that is your own personal belief. It is not science and they should not go hand in hand and your opinion on whether or not evolution is fallible is also a personal belief as it is unscientific to reject it simply because it contradicts your personal beliefs (religion). Hence, religion and science are two different concepts. Now when you say that the people who are unable to observe the events that say happened (in regards to evolution), it shows that you simply don’t understand evolution. Neither is evolution from an anti-theist or even anti-religious perspective. Evolutionary thought has been prevalent even thousands of years before Charles Darwin. In fact, many of the scientists who proposed it and/or studied it were religious or at least theists themselves, including Charles Darwin. The idea of storytelling is also quite wrong. Evolution would have never survived in the scientific field if it had only been based on storytelling. Evolution is based on the scientific method which requires experimentation and evidence, something which it has provided. Religion on the other hand, particularly those belief systems stemmed from the Bible are based on no more than stories themselves. Christians who use the “Genesis account” or “consider Genesis to be scientifically accurate” (call it what you want, I can’t see the difference), are taking a text literally that is no more than storytelling itself. Nor can a Christian prove that otherwise by observing scientific experimentation.
::I would be curious to know your arguments, at least in a nutshell. The page appears to be full of them but I don’t exactly understand your points. If you are saying that this Web site (I read this[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/52/] article) reflects your personal beliefs, I’ll assume that for now (unless you state otherwise). However, that Web site is quite disturbing to me. The site assumes that evolution “removes any clear source of authority in our lives” which is wrong. Evolution does not, in fact. Evolution only reflects that all organisms descended from a common ancestor. You may look in any scientific textbook or ask any evolutionary biologist and they will disagree with this site’s statement. Evolution has nothing to do with the belief in God. And remember that Christianity is not the only belief system that describes the concept of “God”. You say that I have no business to state that the arguments are wrong. I never said they are wrong. However, if you do indeed believe in what this site is saying, it goes to show that you do not have a clear understanding of evolution and thus can’t say that evolution is wrong either or even argue against it. Arguing against evolution when you don’t understand it is bad enough but when you demonise it, it is a sign of weakness. Evolution is most certainly not the cause of broken lives, broken families, suicide, Nazism, or communism (if you disagree with this, please tell me but I am going by the article on the Web site you provided).
::When I say the source that says creationists use the scientific account of Genesis, I mean the one that was provided earlier in the debate[http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution%20statement.pdf]. I really do not understand what umbrage you take over the “scientific account” statement. What makes it so twisted is that you state that saying “Genesis is a scientific account” and that “Genesis is scientifically accurate” imply two different things and that to say that Genesis is a scientific account is misleading. How exactly is this misleading and how does a different syntax (in this instance) imply something else? I am also curious to know why you accept the possibility that the Flat Earth Society is a joke. Accepting the possibility of two different things being dubious has nothing to do with whether or not the two juxtaposed things are related other than in the context of whether or not their legitimacy is dubious. So if you give the possibility that the Flat Earth Society is a joke, you might as well bring up the possibility that the Bible is a collection of faerie tale annals. Why the double-standard?
::In your previous post, you select a quote from my previous post like this: "...if you want to accept ... that Charles Darwin lied in his journal ...". Yes, I indeed said that but you left out that I said that "if you want to accept the assumption" between the ellipsis. I said you only assume so. In an earlier post, you said about Darwin's journal entry: "How do you know that Darwin didn't lie?". Thus, you give the possibility that he lied (although, you don't support this assertion with any facts).
::In the event that you disagree that the Bible is not the stuff of legends, I must ask how does the Bible differ from any other archaic texts that describe things not known to be observed by a scientific consensus such as dragons or leviathans? Sure, it may be held to have historical accuracy. The Nibelungenlied served as a useful tool for historians to uncover the history of the Burgundians. However, the details about Siegfried and the dragon are usually considered to be legends. (One may choose to reject these considerations made by historians and believe the legends, of course.) I'm just curious as to how the Bible differs from such other legendary manuscripts. But if you insist on seeing a legitimate source that agrees with my point about the Bible being the stuff of legends, I feel obliged to reveal one[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-35341/Judaism].
::Regarding those scripture references, how do you cite the assertion that Bible sceptics merely playing with words? There ''is'' certainly a problem in the scripture. Earth is not round. It is spherical. It is incorrect to say that it is round. Bible sceptics do not "falsely" claim that creationists take the Bible literally. The argument presented in Bible scepticism is that if one were to take Genesis literally, then why not take the songs in Psalms or 1 Samuel literally? After all, the Church took the songs in 1 Chronicles and Psalms literally that state Earth is stationary. If they knew beforehand that Earth does not rest on pillars, why would they put it in a song? In 1 Samuel, it's not even a song. It's a prayer. Why would Hannah state in a prayer that God does something he really doesn't? Then there are fundamentalists that say homosexuality is an abomination because the the Bible says so. However, they tend to ignore some of those passages that give some precepts that would be considered wacky today. If we must follow the passages in the Bible that say homosexuality is an abomination, why don't fundamentalists follow those passages that say we cannot cut our hair (Leviticus 19:27), mix textiles for attire (Leviticus 19:19), eat anything with blood (Leviticus 19:26) (I don't see fundamentalists objecting to restaurants serving rare steaks), women teaching men (1 Timothy 2:12), tattooing, and piercing (Leviticus 19:28). Oh, and let us not forget those many passages that justify slavery and cruel and unusual punishment. My point is that there are parts of the Bible (including Genesis) which are not only scientifically inaccurate, but do not represent even the norms of most Christian fundamentalists today. Historically, there have been fundamentalists who have used the Bible to oppose scientific views such as the Church opposing the astronomical viewpoints of Galileo and fundamentalists who have used the Bible to promote intolerance such as those who justified racism with the Curse of Canaan. And today, there are fundamentalists who are using the Bible to oppose scientific views such as creationists opposing the evolutionary viewpoints of Charles Darwin and fundamentalists who are using the Bible to promote intolerance such as those who justify homophobia with passages in Leviticus. It just shows that history repeats itself and I have yet to see how the abuse of dubious Bible passages regarding moral and scientific viewpoints from today's fundamentalists differ from those in the past.
::I am aware of Galileo's faithfulness to Christianity in spite of his clash with the Church, but I didn't know that the Church was adopting secular views which he opposed. That seems quite ironic, especially considering Galileo's situation. Could you cite this assertion? In regards to those passages that contradict science which are now ignored by fundamentalists, they include those passages that say that Earth is stationary. The fact that the Church took those passages literally which resulted in a clash between the Bible and astronomy proves that there are passages which fundamentalists will defend in spite of scientific evidence against them, kind of like creationists today objecting to evolution! [[User:Kilmarnock|Kilmarnock]] 22:34, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Yes, I agree that religion is one's personal belief system, but where I disagree is that it is ''just'' that, rather than something founded on fact, such as the fact of God's existence and of God creating the universe. I don't understand your objection to religion not being the infallible Word of God "because that is too specific a description".
::: I agree that Christianity is not science. I accept that religion and science are two different concepts. I reject that science is superior to God's revealed Word.
::: I don't reject evolution "simply because it contradicts your personal beliefs". I reject it because (a) it contradicts the revealed and infallible Word of God, and (b) it contradicts scientific observations.
::: "''...it shows that you simply don’t understand evolution.''": Oh? How does it show that?
::: "''Neither is evolution from an anti-theist or even anti-religious perspective.''": Agreed. But it is anti-Christian. Darwin started off believing in God, but evolutionists like Michael Ruse and Stephen Jay Gould have said that the motive behind evolution was to replace God, and that ''does'' seem to be the case with Darwin.
::: "''Evolution would have never survived in the scientific field if it had only been based on storytelling.''": Why not? I say that it has survived because it allows atheists to be "intellectually fulfilled", to quote Richard Dawkins.
::: "''Evolution is based on the scientific method which requires experimentation and evidence, something which it has provided.''": Incorrect. What experimentation can you do to see if fish changed into amphibians millions of years ago? Even if you showed today that fish ''can'' evolve into amphibians, it would still not prove that it happened millions of years ago. And the evidence today is that fish ''can't'' evolve into amphibians. That is, we understand enough about genetics to know why fish don't change into amphibians. It's only the faith of evolutionists (not evidence) that says that it did happen in the past.
::: "''Christians who use the “Genesis account” or “consider Genesis to be scientifically accurate” (call it what you want, I can’t see the difference)...''": That wasn't the distinction I was making. The distinction was between "scientifically accurate" and a "''scientific'' account".
::: "''Christians who use the “Genesis account” ... are taking a text literally that is no more than storytelling itself.''": Oh? What makes it "storytelling"? Since when does an eyewitness account count as "storytelling"?
::: "''If you are saying that this Web site (I read this[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/52/] article) reflects your personal beliefs, I’ll assume that for now (unless you state otherwise).''": You assume correctly.
::: "''However, that Web site is quite disturbing to me.''": Not surprising. Evolutionists don't like to be told they are wrong.
::: "''The site assumes that evolution “removes any clear source of authority in our lives” which is wrong. Evolution does not, in fact.''": Yet you provide no counter argument to the reasons they gave.
::: "''You may look in any scientific textbook or ask any evolutionary biologist and they will disagree with this site’s statement.''": And yet the article quoted evolutionary biologists that agreed with that point!
::: "''Evolution has nothing to do with the belief in God. And remember that Christianity is not the only belief system that describes the concept of “God”.''": Belief in evolution replaces belief in the creator God of the Bible, because the former makes the latter unneccesary, and because the former contradicts the biblical account.
::: "''You say that I have no business to state that the arguments are wrong. I never said they are wrong.''": Then what are you arguing about?
::: "''However, if you do indeed believe in what this site is saying, it goes to show that you do not have a clear understanding of evolution and thus can’t say that evolution is wrong either or even argue against it.''": Another fact-free statement of your opinion. Why would it show that? The site was largely written by scientists who learned evolution, and in some if not most cases by people who used to believe in evolution. What makes you think they don't understand it?
::: "''Arguing against evolution when you don’t understand it is bad enough but when you demonise it, it is a sign of weakness.''": You mean like the evolutionists demonise creation rather than actually address its arguments? No, creationists address the arguments of evolution. That's not "demonising" it.
::: "''Evolution is most certainly not the cause of broken lives, broken families, suicide, Nazism, or communism...''": Just because you say so? Because other articles on that web-site will back up those claims.
::: "''What makes it so twisted is that you state that saying “Genesis is a scientific account” and that “Genesis is scientifically accurate” imply two different things and that to say that Genesis is a scientific account is misleading. How exactly is this misleading and how does a different syntax (in this instance) imply something else?''": I explained that earlier, with the example of the Amazonian scientist. What's unclear about that explanation?
::: "''I am also curious to know why you accept the possibility that the Flat Earth Society is a joke.''": I recall reading that somewhere once. What's so wrong with accepting that that explanation is a possibility?
::: "''So if you give the possibility that the Flat Earth Society is a joke, you might as well bring up the possibility that the Bible is a collection of faerie tale annals. Why the double-standard?''": It's not a double standard at all. I accept the ''possibility'' of ''anything'' that (a) I haven't investigated, and (b) is not blatantly illogical or against known facts. I don't know a lot about the Flat Earth society, so I accept the ''possibility'' that it is a joke society, and I also accept the ''possibility'' that it's not. But just quoting their existence to me does not mean that it's not a joke society. I don't accept the possibility that the Bible is a collection of fairy tales because this is something that I know a lot more about and know that there's good reason for rejecting that idea.
::: "''you left out that I said that "if you want to accept the assumption" between the ellipsis. I said you only assume so. In an earlier post, you said about Darwin's journal entry: "How do you know that Darwin didn't lie?". Thus, you give the possibility that he lied (although, you don't support this assertion with any facts).''": An ''assumption'' and a ''possibility'' are two different things. A ''possibility'' is something that you consider ''possible'', but don't necessarily believe to be the case (but don't reject either). An ''assumption'' is something that you ''do'' believe, even if you do so without complete certainty. I pointed out that it's ''possible'' that Darwin lied, not that I think he did; that is, I made no ''assumption'' that he did.
::: "''...how does the Bible differ from any other archaic texts that describe things not known to be observed by a scientific consensus such as dragons or leviathans?''": The question is loaded, as it implies that the only things accepted from ancient texts are things that are observed by scientists. That Ceasar Augustus ruled Rome, for example, is something known only from ancient texts, not from scientific observation. Almost all ancient history is known in this way, and to that extent, there is no difference between the Bible and other ancient texts. But of course the Bible ''is'' different, in a number of ways. First, we know that the Jews went to great lengths to copy it accurately, so rather than being a distorted copy of a distorted copy of ... the original, as many ancient documents are, it is a very accurate copy of a very accurate copy of ... the original. Second, archaeologists have found evidence confirming a very large number of details mentioned in the Bible, so we know that it is a very reliable document. Third, it claims to be the testimony of the omniscient God, and there is evidence, such as consistency of authorship over at least 2,000 years and fulfilment of prophecy, that supports that claim.
::: "''... the details about Siegfried and the dragon are usually considered to be legends.''": True, they are usually ''considered'' that, but there's good reason for thinking that dragon "legends" have a basis in fact, and in particular, in dinosaurs.
::: "...how do you cite the assertion that Bible sceptics merely playing with words?''": How do I "cite" it? I'm not sure what you mean, but I did ''substantiate'' it, and you have not refuted that.
::: "''Earth is not round''": Then why did ''New Scientist'' say that it is? Answer: Because "round" is a general term that can include "spherical". That you deny this is why SoI say that this is playing with words.
::: "''The argument presented in Bible scepticism is that if one were to take Genesis literally, then why not take the songs in Psalms or 1 Samuel literally?''": Because the Psalms and the verse from 1 Samual are ''poetry'' or ''song'', not ''narrative'', like Genesis. If I said to you that it's raining cats and dogs, would you understand me to mean that it's raining very heavily, or that felines and canines are falling from the sky? Whether or not you take words literally depends on their context. The context of Psalms is that it's poetry/song. The context of Genesis 1 is that it's narrative.
::: "''After all, the Church took the songs in 1 Chronicles and Psalms literally that state Earth is stationary.''": Just like you are doing so: in order to justify their/your point of view, not because the words require that.
::: "''If they knew beforehand that Earth does not rest on pillars, why would they put it in a song?''": Because not every conversation, song, poem, metaphor, parable, etc. is couched in scientifically-literal terms. Why in recent times have we said that Australia rides on the sheep's back? Not because this is literally true, but because a lot of Australia's income derived from wool. This sort of thing occurs very frequently; there's nothing odd about the Bible doing it also. It's only bibliosceptics like yourself who try and make out that there's something wrong with the Bible doing so, and/or make out that one is unable to tell the difference.
::: "''In 1 Samuel, it's not even a song. It's a prayer.''": It's a prayer in poetic form.
::: "''Then there are fundamentalists that say homosexuality is an abomination because the the Bible says so.''": Of course. Because it does, and not in poetry.
::: "''If we must follow the passages in the Bible that say homosexuality is an abomination, why don't fundamentalists follow those passages that say we cannot cut our hair (rest snipped)''": Because the Bible includes laws specific to the Jews under the Old Covenant. The laws themselves, specifying punishments for certain deeds, are no longer applicable. The principles behind some of the laws, such as God making a man and a woman, not a man and a man (a matter of ''history'', not ''law'') still apply, though. That is, God created sexual intercourse and marriage to be between a male and a female in a state of life commitment, and even though the ''law'' regarding what should happen to someone going against this is no longer applicable, the fact that this is the way we were designed is still the case.
::: "''My point is that there are parts of the Bible (including Genesis) which are not only scientifically inaccurate...''": Yet all the examples you quoted made no scientific claims.
::: "''Historically, there have been fundamentalists who have used the Bible to oppose scientific views such as the Church opposing the astronomical viewpoints of Galileo''": "Fundamentalists"? That term was only coined in the early 20th century, and it is not appropriate to apply it to those that opposed Galileo, as their motivation was not one of sticking to the biblical account. Rather, the ones that opposed Galileo are more like the liberal churches who today have compromised with the atheistic origins myth (evolution).
::: "''And today, there are fundamentalists who are using the Bible to oppose scientific views such as creationists opposing the evolutionary viewpoints of Charles Darwin...''": That wrongly presupposes that the evolutionary view is scientific.
::: "''...fundamentalists who are using the Bible to promote intolerance such as those who justify homophobia with passages in Leviticus''": I doubt that you know the meaning of "tolerance". It means to put up with something you're opposed to, not to accept all things as legitimate. And aren't you intolerant of creationism?
::: "''I didn't know that the Church was adopting secular views which he opposed. ... Could you cite this assertion?''": See [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5586/105/ here]. And for more on the whole affair, see [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1625/ here].
::: "''In regards to those passages that contradict science which are now ignored by fundamentalists, they include those passages that say that Earth is stationary.''": I've since answered this on the Main Page discussion page. Your proof texts were all poetic passages.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:47, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:As I have said before, “religion” is not the infallible word of God simply because the word “religion” is too abstract. There are atheistic religions (e.g. those that do not have a God or Gods). A religion is a personal belief system and if you are referring to Christianity as the “infallible word of God”, that is a specific personal belief system. Nor is religion always founded on fact (although some are). If you want to demonstrate the factuality of religion, you must first understand what religion is (it is not defined as the “infallible word of God”, not all religions are theistic) and you must secondly demonstrate which religion so as to provide evidence for its factuality as different religions have different “factualities”. Keep in mind that it is not a fact until you prove it. If you are certain that religion is superior to science, you must demonstrate this claim with evidence of not just a subjective nature. Otherwise, anyone may claim that any school of knowledge is beyond religion or science for that matter while demonstrating this on the mere basis of subjectivity. You state that you reject evolution simply because it contradicts the “infallible word of God”. Well, the infallible word of God is your personal belief. It is nonscientific and subjective. To legitimately reject it, you should first demonstrate how you are certain that this personal belief system of yours has more objective plausibility than evolution. Nor does evolution contradict with scientific observations. Scientific observations give strong objective support for evolution. Unless there is something scientific you know of which contradicts with evolution. If there is something, I would be interested in seeing it.

:You quoted me as saying “…it shows that you simply don’t understand evolution.” And you ask me how that is so. But you removed the first part of the sentence which actually has your answer in it. My words in full were: “When you say that the people who are unable to observe the events that say happened (in regards to evolution), it shows that you simply don’t understand evolution.” There’s your answer as to “how it shows that”. The people who observe evolution are able to observe the events that occur. Evolution has been observed since Charles Darwin himself experimented with it. As I have said before, if you do not understand the subject, you cannot argue against it, let alone reject it. So there is no reason to reject it simply because of religious interests.

:How exactly is evolution anti-Christian? Just because Darwin experienced a loss of faith, doesn’t mean that evolution is inconsistent with Christianity. As I have said before, there are unscientific factoids in the Bible (even irrelevant to evolution) that many Christians ignore because of scientific evidence, thus a large majority of Christians accept evolution as a fact and still believe in God. But you also say that evolution was used as a tool to “replace God”, well remember that Christianity is not the only monotheistic religion in the world. If the intention of evolution was to “replace God” then evolution wouldn’t simply be anti-Christian but anti-theist. But since there are theistic evolutionists who have proposed evolution before Darwin, this goes to show that the idea that evolution was meant to “replace God” is wrong. Keep in mind that evolution is not a political position. If you are referring to Darwinism as having the motive of “replacing God”, that is no less dubious than the previous claim. Darwinism is merely the specific observations and hypotheses of evolution as Charles Darwin recorded it. It bears nothing of a political agenda in the scientific observations, regardless if some evolutionary theorists have suggested that this is the case. They have nothing to verify this with but speculation.

:You say that it is incorrect that “Evolution is based on the scientific method which requires experimentation and evidence, something which it has provided.” But you only select a specific example without observing the actual examples that have been tested in laboratories. Animals have been observed to have mutated through ancestral genes. Animals have been especially observed to mutate to adapt to a change in environment to sustain the survival of their kind (i.e. evolution). One of the most prominent examples of this mutation is that of Darwin ’s finches. When Darwin performed experiments in the Galapagos Islands, he introduced a species of finches in an environment of slightly larger nuts to crack with their beaks. Within a period of only a few generations of these finches, the width and strength of the beaks of the descendant finches had greatly increased to suit the environment of larger nuts as food. This observation was only a fig-leaf. However, the idea of introducing animals into another environment in which they must mutate to adapt to their surroundings in order to survive has been proven to be successful with scientific experiments. Given these scientific experiments and the fossil record of common ancestry with many animal species, evolutionary biologists are able to observe the DNA of the fossils and compare it with the DNA of the hypothetical descendants of these creatures to determine that the evolutionary mutations of these creatures over long periods of time are successful in providing evidence for evolution. And your statement that evidence today states that fish cannot evolve into amphibians is incorrect. Fossils of amphibious fish known as fishapods have been found and the experimentation I have just explained has provided scientific evidence that just as trout had to mutate to survive in brackish water and salt water, the common ancestors of many fish alive today had indeed mutated to survive in both water and air environments. And we still see evidence of close descendants of fishapods today (i.e. lungfish). So no, it is not merely “faith”. Faith doesn’t work in scientific experimentations. As I have said before, if you do not understand the subject, you cannot argue against it. No evolutionary biologist will tell you it is only their “faith” that assures them of the plausibility of evolution.

:You’ve already said before that evolution is storytelling (although are unable to support this statement). Now you ask how an eyewitness account counts as storytelling. Well, for all we know, Genesis isn’t even an eyewitness account. But that’s beside the point. Look up “storytelling” in a dictionary. It fits perfectly with your description of Genesis. It is merely the telling of a creation story, hence storytelling. How this is any more plausible than any other versions of creation storytelling is something you have yet to explain.

:Since you are making the distinction between “scientifically accurate” and “scientific account”, is there a difference between the two, namely that assumes Genesis to be either fully or partly “scientifically accurate” or “scientifically accountable”? But the Web site is not disturbing to me because I am being told I am wrong. Nor is that a trait specific to evolutionists and not creationists. I guarantee that there are plenty of creationists out there who are utterly disturbed by being told that they are wrong. When you say that I provide no counter argument against the Web site’s claim, you are incorrect. Right after I wrote that evolution does not remove a source of authority, I said that “Evolution only reflects that all organisms descended from a common ancestor”. And this has absolutely nothing to do with the belief in God. I have already countered the argument that evolution is antitheist. One can believe in God and still believe in evolution as there are theistic evolutionists who may very well disagree with the Web site’s statement and many of the early proponents of evolution were theists themselves. The site gives no claim as to how evolution actually removes authority from a person’s life or even bothers to explain how the concept of evolution and God are inconsistent with each other. And where you get the idea that there are evolutionary biologists quoted on that site as agreeing with the site’s statement, I cannot concur. However, if you are referring to the atheistic statement made by Dr Will Provine, this proves nothing. Dr Provine only expressed his disbelief in God and the meaning of life. He by no means says that evolution proves that there is no God and the meaning of life. This is not a scientific claim but an opinionated claim.

:I am arguing about the fact that you said I have no business to state the arguments on the given Web site are wrong if I don’t know them. I never said that they were wrong when I didn’t know the arguments. So why are you assuming beforehand that I would say that they are wrong? I hope that’s not a straw man argument. And I’ve already gone over why 1. Belief in God is not synonymous with the belief in the Christian God, hence the disregarding of the “creation” (according to Genesis) is moot. 2. You have yet to connect the idea that the former makes the latter unnecessary. As I have already said, many theistic evolutionists would disagree with you. It is perfectly reasonable that one can believe that God created the universe and allowed humans and other animals to evolve from how he has created them. 3. Will you not acknowledge the fact that the Christian concept of God is not the only concept of God and thus the Genesis account is not the only creation account?

:No, my statement that if you merely believe what the site says is not “fact-free”. I have based this argument on the facts provided earlier in my posts. As I have said, evolution is not inconsistent with the belief in God as the site so dubiously and “fact-free” claims.

:Please give me an example of how evolutionary argument demonises the story of creation, specifically as these certain creationists do by scapegoating it (that doesn’t include satire). In this case, you’re wrong to say that [these] creationists address the evolutionary arguments. The biological arguments for evolution do not support atheism, Nazism, communism, broken lives, broken families, or suicide. Not simply because I say so, which is a very arrogant statement on your part. If you disagree with a point I am making, feel free to point it out and ask me to explain it but refrain from being sarcastic. Evolution is not a political ideology. It is a scientific observation. The allegations that Adolf Hitler based his Holocaust ideology on evolution are examples of mere speculation. Adolf Hitler never said that he was influenced by the work of Charles Darwin or evolution for that matter. Hitler did however state several times that he was doing the Lord’s work in wiping out the “impure races” as described in “Mein Kampf”. So no, the site does not back up the claims that Hitler was influenced by evolution. It only cites another author speculating that Hitler’s conquest was influenced by evolution. The bottom line is that Hitler never proposed this as his influence. He however put in writing the influences of genocide that Christianity and God had on him.

:Your explanation about the Amazonian scientist does not describe how the syntax implies different. A “scientific account” may at least imply either a scientist’s journal or a scientific record. So in the context of the evolutionary study provided earlier, “scientific account” and an “account that is scientifically accurate” do not imply anything different

:So you say that you only accept the possibility that the Flat Earth Society is a joke simply because you don’t know much about it. Well, remember what I said about how if you do not understand the subject, you cannot argue against it. Even you have a similar statement in which you say that I would have no business to argue against something I know nothing about. So why are you just assuming the possibility that the Flat Earth Society is a joke without even researching the Flat Earth Society? I have researched the society and it is certainly no joke. You are using a double-standard by dismissing the evidence for the Bible’s dubious claims as a “possibility that it is a joke”, but at the same time, you don’t accept the possibility that the Bible is a collection of faerie tale annals because unlike the Flat Earth Society, you have extensively researched the Bible. So by researching a topic that supports your belief and ostracising evidence against it, you are employing a double-standard.

:If you think it is possible that he lied, do you not assume so? If you don’t then why would you even bring it up? The same principle applies to the previous argument. You have absolutely no evidence to back up your claim, yet you either assume or simply present the possibility that something is dubious without even researching it. If you indeed assume that Darwin lied (but you first must know of the subject before you make any assumptions), why don’t you accept the possibility that the Bible is just a collection of faerie tale annals (without using subjective support for this claim).

:No, my question does not imply that the only parts of the text in archaic manuscripts that are accepted as fact are observed by scientists. In fact, I made the later statement that parts of many archaic manuscripts are used by historians. So that whole rant about how Caesar Augustus ruling Rome is not observed by scientific fact is moot. Like I have said before, many archaic texts have been useful in determining past history. Yes, the Bible is a very reliable document but so is the Nibelungenlied. Even other documents, especially such Middle Eastern flood epics besides that of Noah’s ark have been of use to archaeologists in the research of natural history (e.g. the Epic of Gilgamesh). Now, if you know of the fulfilment of prophecies in the Bible, you would first have to verify them to give the Bible any more legitimacy over other archaic manuscripts.

:Actually, there is no reason to think that the dragon legends have any basis in fact. Dinosaurs went extinct approximately sixty-five million years ago, long before anything closely humanoid appeared on Earth. Yet, you don't believe in in evolution and you think that Earth is only 6,000 years old. Well, I can prove your idea of Earth's age wrong in a plethora of different ways, but I'll just be specific with the dinosaurs. Archaeologists use stratification to determine the age of the soil in which the dinosaur was fossilised which is a process that involves dating the soil based on the half-lives of rock samples in which the fossils are found in. These different half-lives constitute the different eras of natural history. However, no dinosaur remains have ever been found in soil with a half-life past the beginning of the Tertiary era. This pattern of a mass lack of fossils of dinosaurs and several other animals that are now extinct constitutes the K-T boundary which points to a mass extinction event cause by hypothetically increased volcanic activity or a major meteor impact. As for humans, not only does Darwinism verify our evolution from a common primate ancestor, but geological dating additionally verifies that it was impossible for dinosaurs and humans to have lived in the same era.

:But, I presume you don't believe in evolution, so I will expand on a different concept. In the Nibelungenlied, Siegfried is described as slaying the Dragon and bathing in his blood to become invincible from any sword or spear. However, a lime leaf fell on his back which gave him a weak spot. Sounds familiar? But if you believe that it is possible to bathe in a dinosaur's blood and become invincible, I will expand on a very similar story to Siegfried. The Iliad is also a very historically reliable account of the Trojan War. Yet, Achilles being the son of a sea nymph is usually omitted from history books. In this mythology, the sea nymph is considered to be a deity (as Greek mythology was a polytheistic religion). However, this bears a serious conflict with monotheistic religions such as Christianity which describes their being only one deity and Him only having one son. Since the two dogmas contradict each other, one can either assume that one of them is merely the stuff of legends, or both are (unless we are living in a parallel universe, of course). But, since you believe that the Christian dogma is the one that properly demonstrates the truth, you must first verify that the holy book central to Christianity (the Bible) is no more the stuff of legends as the mythological accounts of Greek polytheism.

:So how do you "substantiate" the idea that Bible sceptics are merely playing with words? Do you have a link to such an article by ''New Scientist'' that says Earth is round? "Round" is not a generic term that applies to "spherical". They are two specifically different concepts. One demonstrates the shape of a two-dimensional figure and another demonstrates the shape of a three-dimensional figure. Going by the simple definition is not playing with words. However, manipulating the word's meaning ostensibly demonstrates playing with words.

: So, what point are you missing exactly that the Church did not believe that the songs that demonstrated Earth to be stationary were metaphorical? The Church took the songs and prayers literally, so why should Genesis be any different? You say that not every song is scientifically literal. Yet, not every narrative is literal either (e.g. Genesis). So, why is Genesis any different from not being literal? So no, Bible sceptics do not "try" to find things wrong with the Bible. The fallacies are already there.

:How do you verify (with scripture) that these laws in Leviticus are meant only for Jews? And how do you verify (with scripture) that they are no longer applicable? And most of all, how do you verify (with scripture) that the laws regarding homosexuality still apply? Also, you state that the principles behind homosexuality being an abomination apply through history. Can you verify this, too? Regarding how we were "designed" merely because humans can reproduce with sexual organs does not outline the principle that homosexuality is "immoral" or "unnatural". Sexual organs often not always used by heterosexual couples to suit this "design" of reproductivity and there are heterosexual couples who do commonly engage in evading this purported principle. Thus, making homosexuality irrelevant to the evasion of the principle. And remember that homosexuals may engage in life commitment too. So essentially, a homosexual couple forming a life commitment to each other is actually closer to these purported principles than that of a heterosexual couple that are not in a life commitment at all and using their sexual organs for an activity other than that of what they were originally "designed" to do.

:So just because a term is coined in a point in time to refer to something in the past, does that mean that it cannot refer to that something in the past? The term "Prime Minister" wasn't used until the nineteenth century to refer to the statesmen who held the office in Britain. However, the Prime Ministers well into the eighteenth century are still known as "Prime Ministers". Oh, and if concepts must be no older as the terms that describe them, that must mean that Earth is not approximately 4.5 billion years old (as I believe) or approximately 6,000 years old (as you believe), but only about 600 years old since the term "Earth" was used c. 1400 to refer to the planet which we occupy. It is quite appropriate to apply the term to those who opposed Galileo. A fundamentalist (minuscule f) is defined as a strict adherent to any basic set of principles. As the Church's motivation was sticking to the Biblical account (specifically, that of the songs and prayers which describe Earth as being stationary), thus it is certainly appropriate to apply it to those who opposed Galileo. The Galileo affair didn't merely involve "churches" but ''the'' Church which was the institution that opposed Galileo's astronomical hypothesis and persecuted him for it. Now, you say that those who opposed Galileo were "like" the "liberal" churches who compromise with evolution. 1. How do you make such a connection? 2. Do you know the meaning of "liberal"? For the record, liberalism is not a doctrine that merely advocates secularism and not a term merely to describe those who believe in evolution and reject the theistic origins myth (creationism).

:In the statement in which you quote me as saying that "there are fundamentalists who are using the Bible to oppose scientific views such as creationists opposing the evolutionary viewpoints of Charles Darwin", you say that this "wrongly presupposes that the evolutionary view is scientific". Are you really saying that the evolutionary view is unscientific? Do you even know the definition of ''scientific''? Evolution has been experimented and analysed by scientists while using the scientific method for years and concluded by scientists that evolution is a legitimate and accurate scientific field (just as relativity and gravity were experimented and analysed using the scientific method). If you are indeed boldly suggesting that evolution is unscientific, how do you verify such a claim?

:I doubt that you have the presupposition to doubt that I do not know the meaning of "tolerance" because I do. Tolerance is the permissive attitude towards opinions and practices that differ from one's own. It by no means implies that one may "oppose" the view. Despite me not being homosexual, I have a permissive attitude towards homosexuality, that doesn't suggest that I oppose homosexuality because I do not. Hence, I ''tolerate'' homosexuality. And no, I am not intolerant of creationism. I believe that one has the right to believe in creationism, despite me not believing in it. But aren't you intolerant of evolution?

:In the article you provide, it says that the Church rejected Galileo's hypothesis (Copernican cosmology) for a hypothesis that was considered to be un-Christian (Aristotelian cosmology) and then goes on to say how the Church rejected those Biblical texts that contradicted Aristotle. Since the passages that contradicted Aristotle were disregarded by the Church, those same passages must have contradicted the passages that support the claim that Earth is stationary. Thus, the Church would have had the option of accepting the assumption that Earth is not stationary based on a cosmological view supported by the scripture (Copernican cosmology) or accepting the assumption that Earth is stationary based on a cosmological view also supported by the scripture (Aristotelian cosmology). So upon accepting either assumption, the Church would have been inevitably "accepting secularised views" because either one would have contradicted the scripture. [[User:Kilmarnock|Kilmarnock]] 02:05, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Debate:Is Rap music torture?

2010-01-14T20:52:19Z

Jordanball: /* Depends, really */

According to ''ABC News'', suspected terrorists undergoing [[coercive interrogation]] have been " forced to listen to rap artist Eminem's 'Slim Shady' album. The music was so foreign to them it made them frantic" [http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/print?id=1322866] Is this dehumanizing treatment banned by the Geneva Convention, and if not, should it be?

:I suspect the detail about the kind of music was mentioned to make the treatment sound more ludicrous and less cruel. If you can encourage people to joke about whether rap music is torture, you're deflecting attention from the general character of the treatment itself.

:I suspect that the significance of the music's being "foreign" is that the patterns to it are unfamiliar, and it would be preceived as unpredictable noise rather than as music.

:What volume level was it played at? Was the real point to induce sleep deprivation?

:If you played "music" to me at 110 db, continuously, it wouldn't really matter whether it was rap, Balinese Gamelan music, or Khachaturian's ''Sabre Dance,'' it would deprive me of sleep.

:But if you say "they were subjected to intense noise" it sounds like it could be torture, whereas if you say "they were subjected to rap music," it sounds like a joke. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:23, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::What [[User:Dpbsmith|he]] said. I was too lazy to type it myself. As far as "torture" or banning under the GC (as if ''we'd'' pay attention to such "outdated concepts"), once you reach a certain volume level, which is easy to do in small cinder block rooms, it's not only not "music", it's simply a physical assault - it causes permanent damage, for instance. [[User:Human|Human]] 00:21, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well at what point it causes permanent brain damage is debatable... [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:37, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Who said anything about ''brain'' damage? The effect of prolonged exposure to high sound pressure levels (for varying times and SPLs) is well documented - ''on the ears''.

:::::Point taken. I amend my statement. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:04, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

People can be very creative when it comes to finding new ways to harm others. - Suricou

During the invasion of Panama, when Noriega was hiding in the Vatican embasy the US blasted rap until he came out. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 12:01, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

If it is, why do people listen to it? {{unsigned|JessicaS}}

:Songs by [[Barney the Dinosaur]] were also used in this capacity. While cultural barriers rendered this technique mainly ineffective at [[Guantanamo Bay]], if this were to be used against Americans I would expect it to be a powerful coercive weapon. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 14:21, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

West Coast rap or East Coast rap? [[User:Sterile|Sterile]]

I kind of think that Country music can be tourture. [[User:Jason|Jason]] 22:37, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

== Yes ==
It makes my ears bleed. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 10:56, 27 November 2007 (EST)

It's annoying. All of the songs are about the same thing.--[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

Of course, when it is used to facilitate long term sleep deprivation. It's terrible. [[User:Nrupert|Nrupert]] 13:50, 11 December 2008 (EST)

==No==
As JessicaS above said, people wouldn't listen to it if it was torture. Although, I do find it rather funny that it has been used as a weapon against hostage-takers etc. [[User:SavedByGod|SavedByGod]] 12:39, 13 January 2008 (EST)

== No ==
It truly matters.--[[User:Aquacadet|Aquacadet]] 17:35, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

It is horrible in most cases. >:( [[User:BethanyS|~BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 18:42, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

== Depends, really ==
"rap" is a very broad term, with TONS of subgenres and such. Theres some good rap out there, like NWA and some of the other old-school rap (which I like.). Just...don't bash an entire genre based on a single song.

But I agree that most hip-hop, or crunk music that's '''popular''' is crap. Most people who really do like rap agree.
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Calling it "torture" is a bit much. However I will say that Rap music, and most popular music tributaries have been leading the front of an effort to curb instrumental effort in music.
-JBall

Debate:Crusades... Good or Bad?

2010-01-14T20:36:41Z

Jordanball: /* TRAGIC */

{{debate}}

Were the [[Crusades]] Good or Bad

==Necessary==
This is no question of 'Good' or 'Bad'. It's a question of necessity. And it might be at the time to prepare for the next and maybe final crusade. It's about time to stand up and fight for your values. Currently Muslims all around the world are pressing us to accept their ridiculous values. If you do not agree it means flag burning and terrorism. So, killing people (even at war) is a bad thing, but it might be necessary for our own survival.--[[User:Jack Ketch|Jack Ketch]] 06:31, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:Wait… you're suggesting we kill people for burning a piece of cloth that we've attached value to? Really, why is flag burning by aggressive individuals who, might I add, are not American themselves, significant? I am also wary of advocating "fighting for ones values". Where can we reconcile violence with "love one another"? [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 09:09, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Jack Ketch, are you being serious? because if so then that might have been the dumbest thing i have ever read.

==Good==

Crusades are good only if they involve Indiana Jones.

The first crusade was fine. It was wrong of the [[Muslim]]s to be killing pilgrims who traveled to [[Jerusalem]]. It was okay to fight back.

Reply: Only Against the guilty, As a Jew and a person extremely concerned with human rights my opinion is that: no matter for what reason the massive murder of civilians without cause other than religios orientation is sin. The Mass killings of Jews and Muslims are underplayed in todays textbook. Holy wars are fundamentally contradictory, as most religios scholars declare that killing is Wrong. History has tought us that murder is followed only by murder.

Today, if a nation took over Jerusalem and started killing [[Christian]]s who wanted to visit it, we would definitely fight back. On the other hand, the second and fourth crusades were not right and have left an embarrassing scar on the Christian world to this day. I don't know whose idea it was to sack [[Constantinople]], but it shows the true state of these other crusades. The third crusade was a slight exception to this general state of the later crusades, but its motives are debatable. I suppose that this whole argument really boils down to weather war is "right" or not. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 14:00, 13 December 2006 (EST)

I don't think either Billy or Tim really understand certain aspects of the crusades. First of all, Billy said there was no such thing as a just war, but really there are just reasons to fight. Not all the crusades were just but to say that no war is just is false. Billy quoted "Love thy neighbor as thy self." That's right but sometimes you need to choose the lesser of sins. Which is worse, to let the defenseless be slaughtered or to defend the defenseless? Either way you're violating the commandment. Which is why there is reconciliation. ''Double Edge''

Reply: There haven't been any credible sources that state that Christian pilgrims were killed or harassed in the Holy Land. If there was some killing, it was greatly exagerated by Pope Urban III at the Council of Clermont

Comment: Of course it is sinful to fight a war for the wrong reasons, but I don't believe that every war is by definition sinful. As noted above, war is sometimes the lesser of two evils. But remember that it only takes one party to start a fight. When someone is determined to start a fight, we cannot avoid it- we can only decide, through our actions, whether it will be a war or a massacre. We know that evil will result whichever course we take, but it does not follow that both courses are sinful. The course which leads to the lesser evil- or the greater good- is the right course, and therefore is not sinful. I believe that we all sin, but I do not believe that God puts us in positions where it is impossible for us to choose a course that pleases him. (See I Corinthians 10:13)- Chris J

Well said Double Edge. War is never morally right, war is never good. God never intended for war, but sadly, man is in a fallen state and has turned away from this original intent. War has become a very real thing in the world, but sometimes it is the lesser of two evils. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 18:19, 14 December 2006 (EST)

I don't see anything wrong with having a Christian holy war. Making Jerusalaem safe for defenseless pilgrims was a worthy goal. The Crusades were good.

Mr. Schlafly
:*Mr. Schlafly, if you are not familiar, the crusades were not uniformly good. The fourth crusade was not an attempt to recapture the holy land, but instead was a profitable and disgraceful act in which Pope Innocent III ordered the peasants to Constantinople. The out-of-control Crusaders ruthlessly and systematically violated the city's holy sanctuaries, destroying, defiling and stealing all they could lay hands on- nothing was spared. It was said that the total amount looted from Constantinople was about 900,000 silver marks. For further reading please see: Phillips, The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople, intro., xiii. [[User:Sunfun2|SunFun2]] 09:26, 30 January 2008 (EST)

Tim said the pilgrimages were useless. But the crusaders weren't only defending pilgrims they were defending their fellow christians in Byzantium and many of the jews that lived in the Middle-East.

: This is simply false. Many Jews died due to the crusades and many Christians in Byzantium were killed by the crusaders. Constantinople itself was sacked by the crusaders in 1204. The Jews were so harmed by the crusades that the standard Askenazi liturgy changed to remember the events(to give you an idea of how rare that is, the standard Orthodox liturgy didn't change at all after the Holocaust). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:58, 13 February 2007 (EST)

I believe that the first two crusades were in defense and justified and the second two were wrong. If you believe that all wars are sinful. Then a country cannot have a defense system or military at all. If someone were to try to kill and steal from your own family you would stop them by force or would you watch them get killed. This is the same thing with a war on a national level. Ultimatlely if you do not believe in war we would not have a nation. The United States had to have its own war for independence the Revolutionary war in which, many men died. The Ten Comandments says "Thy Shalt Not Kill", but are you not killing when you refuse to defend the defenseless? For example in War World II, if it were not for the Alled forces and the United States the entire Jewish people could have been destroyed. I guess when Hitler was taking over Europe you would sat back and watched because you are a pacifist. Deborah G.

---
Tim said that the Chrsitians should have been smart enough not to go somewhere where they might get killed, and that a country has a right to control its borders. ---

However, I would like to remind everybody that things were different back in the Middle-Ages, and that the first victamized christian pilgrims had no way of knowing about their impending doom. They couldn't just check the internet for the latest Middle Eastern travel information. ---

As for the Europeon reaction to such terrorism, how is it wrong? So your statement is implying that if your friends & family got intentionally mutilated by someone, that the only 'just' action would be to find a new travel desination? ---

Also all wars cannot be bad, if they were (are) then why does God often take sides? (see different Biblical wars, specifically involving the Old Testament) --- Joe B

If the European Christians were not willing to fight the expansionist Mohammedans, then the Mohammedans would have invaded Europe. Thanks to the Crusades, Europe
was not destroyed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:27, 23 February 2007 (EST)

:I guess I will weigh in here, Europe was not destroyed because of Charles Martel victory in southern France The Battle of Tours 732 AD (before the 1st crusade) and the defeat (almost destruction) of the Ottoman Empire's army at the gates of Vienna 1529 (300 years after the last Crusade) and the successful defense at Malta 1292 AD (the year after the last Crusade). None of these events were concerned with the Crusades. The sacking of Constanstiople advanced the movement of Islam by weakening a power bulwarking Europe. Europe did advance in technology by exposure to the middle east as it was the more advanced of the two areas in some ways. I am saying that this looks to be more of socio/ethic/religious broad movements to me rather than the Crusades per say.

Question for above statement- How did the Crusades expose Western Europe to science and technology? From what I remember, the Rennaisance really started to kick in around the late 1300's and early 1400's, the same time that Greek-Orthodox scientists, scholars, and artists were fleeing the Turkish onslought. Nobodies ever heard of El Greco? Born as Greek-Orthodox in Crete and famous Rennaisance painter who introduced new styles? Imagine who he inspired and taught, and spread rennaisance tradition, all thanks to the Turkish onslought and the collapse of the Byzantine Empire.

Out of curiosity, why do you call Muslims "Mohammedans"? We don't call Americans "Washingtonans" or Jewish people "Abrahamans". I'm not saying the term "Mohammedan" is necessarily incorrect. It used to be the popular term for Muslims in the West. But why do you think it is appropriate?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:38, 24 February 2007 (EST)

: Abraham did not create the Jewish religion, and Washington did not create American political philosophy. Lots of movements are named after their original founder and leader. I use the term "Mohammedan" because it is a neutral and well-understood term, and is the most accurate term for the way I was using it. Mohammad believed in using military force to expand his empire, and so did his followers. That makes it Mohammedan. Sometimes people use the term "moslem" or "muslim" to refer to narrower religious goals. Whether those narrower religious goals include territorial expansion would just be a distraction from the point I was making. The term Mohammedan is an ordinary dictionary word, and there is no reason not to use it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:58, 24 February 2007 (EST)

::There is much revisionism on this subject; let's review some of the meta-historical aspects at work.

::Mohammadism arose in the vacuum of the collapse of the Roman Empire and was spread by force. However, pockets of non-Islamic and Christian communities remained throughout Asia Minor and the Middle East (as they do today). These non-Muslim's living in the midst of Islam were very oppressed, and thier lives were spared only by accepting [[dhimmi]] status. Trade relations between Europe and the East (India and China), which had been going down the [[silk route]] since ancient times was vital to all economies of ancient civilizations. The rise of Islam disrupted this.

::The first four Crusades were an attempt to "roll back" the encroachment of Islam on Western Civilization, end the oppression of Christian minorities in Muslim territiories, and restore the disruption of trade with the East which had an impact on prosperity and living standards worldwide. Western commercial trading interests, traveling the silk route in caravans were often taken hostage, forced to convert to Islam or suffer a hideous death such as beheading at the hands of persons and groups we today would probably describe as terrorists. By the end of the last Crusade it was apparant the approach of direct confrontation and rollback over two centuries had failed. Nevertheless, the economic impact of reduced trade on living standards had been felt.

::Christopher Columbus came up with an idea to restore trade with the East ''without'' direct military confrontation to gain access to the trade routes -- sail west to get east. Instead of confronting the problem head on, simply go around it. It was risky and had never been tried, but hopes of regaining the prosperity of old times fueled expectations. So Columbus was granted patronage by government in those desperate times to solve the threat of Islamic terrorists to Western commercial interests.

::History records what happened was bigger than anyones expections; rather than simply restore commercial contact between the Western Europe, India, and China, Western Europe embarked on an economic expansion throughout the [[Western hemisphere]] for the next 500 years. This was rewarding to the posterity of Europeans for several generations, however the original cause of the problem -- the threat of Islam to the economic interests and prosperity of the rest of the world -- had never been dealt with, and was forgotten.

:::Please could you provide your sources for the "disruption of trade" leading to economic problems in Western Europe? My understanding of the First Crusade is that it was largely based no reports of abuse of pilgrims, though whether that abuse was remotely institutionalised or simply the activity of individuals and small groups acting on their own behalf (just as there were thieves and bandits in Western Europe) is certainly open to debate.

::::The First Crusade is also known as the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Crusade Pauper's Crusade]; IOW, because of the widespread economic disruption over several centuries which resulted with the rise of Islam, a vast army of unemployed with little hope under the status quo and nothing to lose answered the call for the Crusade. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:52, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:The Paupers Crusade (Or Peasants Crusade) was actually the first ever crusade. It failed miserably though, the remnants finally meeting up with the de facto first crusade, which comprised of some of the mightiest princes of France. Some historians have went so far as to call it the Frankish Crusade. As per the original question, the Crusades were horrible, an act of genocide impossible to defend. When the Christians took Jerusalem, the blood of the Muslims, Jews and Eastern Christians went as high as their ankles. It truly was a bloody atrocity, and trying to frame it any other way is intellectually dishonest. In fact, a discussion like this wouldn't be found anywere else but conservapedia, which I suppose in itself is a good thing. What most amazes me about this debate is that some people can actually claim it was a good thing -> Pope John Paul II himself apologised for what is broadly considered one of the greatest humanitarian disasters of all time. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 12:49, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:: It was bad because it was bloody? All wars are bloody. I suggest that you give us some more substantive reasons, and put them under "Bad". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:02, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:I"m not saying it was bad because it was bloody - I'm saying it was bad because of the horrible atrocities based on race. It was in effect a genocide (The sack of Jerusalem, that is) [[User:Graham|Graham]] 13:15, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Crusades were good, and bad depending on context to me. anytime religious folk want to murder one another over thier imaginary friend, im glad i live in a country where that sort of behavior is looked down upon (for now.) its bad when, you know, it turns into embarassing things like witch burnings and such. if 2 people or persons agree to disagree and have a throwdown, then there should be a designated area for them to express themselves. like an entire country for them to go to so people can kill themselves over thier imaginary friend...oh wait. "live and let live" seems too simple ,and too complicated ant the same time. iif you want to ruin with religion, cool! then can you at least try not to involve anyone i care about in it. and in turn just respect the fact that "dont care/believe about religion/god" does not equal "im an uncaring heretic baby raping,puppy kicking scumbag" and leave me out of the quarrel.

So, to summarize thoughts...
Thry needed to retake the land, also Pope wanted to show dignity, they needed Christian world(?)and land, Muslims were
first to kill pilgrims, so crusades were good.. 2008 (EDT)

==Bad==

Contrary to what some people believe I believe there is no such thing as a just war because war in and of itself is unjust, calling it a “Holy War” doesn’t change anything in fact it makes it worse because you are lying to yourself and your comrades ( no war is holy, just like no war is just.) The reason we know that no war is holy or just is that it is not just or holy to kill people for personal gain( if that is just then why are there laws and commandments to follow?). War goes against our teachings because we learn from the Bible and Jesus’ teachings to treasure human life and to be compassionate towards each other. You are neither treasuring human life nor being compassionate when you are killing your neighbor.
[[Billy M.=)]]

I Hate to say it but I Agree with Billy here, but not for the same reasons.
You can't justify a war just to protect pilgrims. It was not necessary for Christians to make pilgrimages to Jerusalem. Unlike Islam Christianity does NOT require pilgrimages. Jerusalem was nothing more than a tourist attraction. The Christian Pilgrims should have been smart enough to not go there because they could be killed. There is no justification for the crusades as a "Holy War." Christianity is not a violent religion. We do not start wars just because some Christians get murdered, if we did, we would be at war with China and many other countries that persecute Christians. A Country has a right to control who comes into that country. The Muslims had a right to control who came to Jerusalem. This does not mean that they were justified in killing the Christians, but the Christians should not have assumed the right to go wherever they wanted regardless of the wishes of the people who live there. If Muslims all of a sudden decided that they wanted to make pilgrimages to America for some reason, and did not think that the American government should have a say in the matter, we wouldn't let them would we? There may have been justification for a political war against the Muslims, if they were a threat to the the European countries. Even if there was reason for a political war, the crusades went way too far, and there was no justification for a holy war. The Pope was wrong to promise spiritual benefits to those who fought in the war. He tricked many people into joining the crusades because they thought that it would make them go to heaven if they died. Also most of the crusades were only fought for ambition and plunder.

Tim

Although I do not believe that the crusades were good, I Agree with double edge on one point: There ''IS'' such a thing as a just war! Billy's circular reasonings (see above) do not change that.

[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]]

Baaad!!!!!!!
--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 10:09, 3 January 2007 (EST)

Thoroughly bad, and completely undesirable. Killing people because of their beliefs is not justifiable. Admittedly, the Muslims were in the wrong to kill pilgrims to Jerusalem, but the wholesale massacre of the Muslims was not a viable response. Sorry to tell you, but cannibalism is not justifiable except under very extreme circumstances. (Like, say, the Donner Party, not just because you're hungry). [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 15:53, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:But the Crusades were not just motivated by peoples beliefs; Islam had disrupted East-West trade and thus people's living standards by not allowing passage of trading caravans down the silk route, taking hostage of traders and forcing conversions, or killing them outright. There were economic factors at work. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:13, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::Killing people because you want more money. Yep, that's ''quite'' morally sound. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 17:48, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:::Has nothing to do with money; eating food is an "economic factor". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:54, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::::It's completely possible to grow your own food, thus removing the necessity for trade routes to obtain it. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 23:13, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:::::The thing that makes humans different from animals is trade. As Adam Smith said, no one ever saw two dogs trade one bone for the other. As Smith said, in that rude state of socierty before the division of labor is implemented, a man endevors to supply all his own needs, when he's hungray, he goes to the forest to hunt, when his roof needs patching, he goes to woods for material, etc. But once society reaches an advanced state of development (yes, even ancient Eygpt was an advanced state of development), a person cannot supply the everyday needs he has, and is far more dependant upon the produce of '''''other''''' peoples labor.

:::::Hence, trade was just as vital then for the economic needs of people and their survival as it is today. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:04, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Ummmm... Last time I checked, humans were actualy animals, being as they are mamals. AND, Animals do not farm, they scavenge. Learning ability and comprehension seperates us from other animals-[[eljawa]]
::::::umm a scavanger eats road kill, and thus is unkosher. Not all animals are scavangers. As Moses said, "ye shall learn the difference between clean and unclean." [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:45, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::That's it. I quit. I have more important things to do than try to bring people out of the middle ages. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 11:46, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::I'll put my retort to Rob's argument here when I have time, BTW, just so I'm not labeled as having run away because I have no defense. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 13:08, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Well, okay, I guess I don't quit. Here's my retort:

:::::::''Trade can take place within a single country.'' 'Nuff said. And don't get me started about the other claim… --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 23:01, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

==Comment==

Christian theologians, notably [[Thomas Aquinas]], developed a set of rules for deciding whether a war was a just war. Aquinas' formulation is part of the Catholic catechism.

Perhaps someone needs to write an article on [[Just War theory]]. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:09, 3 January 2007 (EST)

Thou shalt not kill. It seems pretty straight forward to me. Christians shouldn't use reconciliation as some kind of cop-out. It's an abuse of your religion if you know you're going out to do something bad and then stop at the church on the way back to confess.

'thou shalt not murder', actually, but you're still right - pretty much everything Jesus said was against war. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

==BAAAAAD!==

I've never heard of a situation where a bunch of barbarians burning, pillaging and raping everything on their path was a good thing...

The way I see it, the only way you could distinguish between the crusaders and the Mongols was by the colour of their skin.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:Actually, they were the [[Moors]]. I agree with you, but it does your argument a disservice. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:41, 8 November 2007 (EST)

:Ah yes. The widespread rape that occured. Good point. Tell me ''that'' was a good thing! --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 12:58, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yes indeed; so can we call this the neo-confederate view [http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=253] and fascist [http://www.sovlit.com/bios/ehrenburg.html] revisionism, condemning Sherman's march to sea and the Soviet atrocities during and after the Battle of Berlin. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:36, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Why does this topic even exist? Is there really anyone out there who thinks it's OK to start a war (and conduct it in as brutal a way as possible) just because someone lives on land that you think you have some kind of historical claim to? [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 16:06, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
::::Yes, the palestinians do, as do the supporters of [[Hamas]] and [[Hezbollah]]. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 16:08, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::Um, the Palestinians are in exactly the opposite situation: someone else has claimed the land they live on. Besides, only a small minority of Palestinians and even Hamas supporters are warlike, just as only a small minority of Americans, and in particular Republicans, are warlike, despite the words and actions of those they have elected. Anyway, this is irrelevant, you can't justify actions by events that took place centuries later. [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 13:35, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
:::I get it. When someone holds a knife to your thoat and says "convert or die," you're supposed to convert. Duh. Why didn't I think of that? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:31, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
::::I don't believe the Muslims at the time where ordering people to convert or die in the Holy Land. There are many accounts of non-Muslims living peacfully throughout the Caliphates at the time. Granted, there were instances of violence against pilgrams during the reign of some of the more extremist caliphs, but that did no last for long. [[User:Jtime|Jtime]] 16:49, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

::::::Well let's see; about the 700 A.D. Christians were the majority in Asia Minor and Palestine, the Levant, and other areas outside Arabia, or more specifically today, the Arabian Penninsula. By 1100, they were close to extinct, as they are today. Hmmm, what caused this to happen in what really is (if the human species is 130K years old) a short period of time....hmmmm..... [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:02, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::No one ever wants to answer that question, or what happened to the followers of zoroastrianism. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:28, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::In other words, two wrongs make a right. War is very rarely justified IMHO. [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 13:35, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::::If it wasn't for war, Blacks would be slaves, America would be bowing to a king and calling Senators "Lord", and we'd all be eating sauer kraut and sushi. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:26, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::Well, I obviously meant starting wars, and if there had never been a single war, it would probably have changed world history beyond recognition, so I don't think your predictions are valid, but I feel like a rant so I'll try to address them. :)
:::::::::Blacks would be slaves? Slavery is still alive and well anyway, but most countries abolished the slave trade peacefully. Bowing to a king and calling senators "Lord"? How is this worse than bowing to a president (the current one was not democratically elected anyway) and calling senators "Senator"? I'm not quite sure what to say about your last comment; do you honestly think a war over which foods you get to eat (assuming you have sufficient nutritious food either way, anyway what's wrong with Sauerkraut and sushi?) is justified? [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 15:24, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

The crusades were wrong. The killing of people is wrong. It is only oaky to kill when you have to defend someone who deserves defending. As for the religious aspect of the war, religion is a poor excuse to start killing someone. Religion not like natural resources or land, its just something that gives comfort to those who strive for something to believe in. Just because you a piece of land that some guy walked on a thousand years before is not a viable reason to start a war.
by 1718

-The greed of the few outweighs the needs of the many ~ Anonymous

:"What you do to the least of these, you do unto me".... I'd say a lot of crusaders did a lot of harm to "the least of those" they came across.... [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 22:39, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

==TRAGIC==

I can not say in my opinion that the Crusades were good or bad. I think they were both, and neither. I find it more fitting to label them as tragic. It is my belief that they should not have been carried out, or at the very least they should have been conducted differently, especially the later ones. However, the fact that they were carried out, then it is my belief that things would have been better had they been ultimately successful. That the West (and do not go deluding yourselves this was a religious thing, it was not, it was a political and cultural thing, religion was used to spur on the zealots on both sides...) should have retained the Holy Land, that the world would have been better for it, if we were to use today's world as a reference point (but then hindsight is always 20/20). The The powers that be bhind he Crusades should have left the Jews alone, and sacking Constantinople was absolute lunacy. But again, it was a different time, and you couldn't expect more from the common christian of that era to be hateful and virulent towards the "killers of Christ" nor could you expect any Pope of that era to abide any collusion or otherwise beneficial relations with "schismatics." So in a word, the whole affair was tragic.

Similiar inquiries within Islamic venues would most likely involve a "debate" over the merits of Jihad. To which right wing Americans would gasp, even when this other "debate" is essentially the same. -JBall

Debate:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?

2010-01-14T20:33:08Z

Jordanball: /* Yes */

{{debate}}

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

==Yes==

Free trade stimulates the economy. A better economy increases demand for a wider variety of goods. In order to meet demand, people will labor to produce more goods. The result of this labor is an increase of wealth; Labor + raw materials = more valuble product.
[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]]

From a global perspective, free trade certainly increases the overall amount of wealth in the economy. By eliminating barriers to trade, governments encourage members of the economy to specialize in doing whatever they do best and then trading to fulfill their wants and needs. When trade is efficient, a firm can focus its production capability entirely on the area in which it has a comparative advantage. Thus, opportunity costs are minimized and each firm is as productive as possible. Production will be greater, and production costs will be lower than they were without free trade. However, it is crucial to realize that this analysis is from a global rather than national point of view. Free trade certainly does redistribute wealth, and it is quite possible that free trade will benefit the economy as a whole, but harm a specific nation by redistributing wealth away from that nation. Free trade can put industrialized nations such as the United States at a disadvantage relative to less developed nations. Businesses in the United States are heavily restricted by health, labor, and environmental regulations. This often makes production in less developed nations less expensive than production in the US. While free trade is optimal from a worldwide perspective, it may be very dismal from our point of view. EWJ

Mr. Schlafly's arguments carry great weight from a global perspective. The People's Republic of China is a prime example both of Mr. Schlafly's defense costs argument, and of EWJ's argument about the effects of varying levels of regulation in different countries. However, within a stable society wherein all commercial entities are bound by the same regulations, free trade is increases the wealth of all financially competent members of society. In fact, free trade increases wealth by redistributing it to parties who can make more effective use of it. As an example, let us begin with the production of crude oil. The employees of a crude oil company can only utilize an infintesimal portion of thier total productions for thier personal needs. Thus they sell it to a power plant for standard currency, thereby creating wealth for themselves. The workers at the power plant only need a tiny portion of the power they produce, so they sell the power to individual homes and businesses. Each of these homes or businesses uses the power to create wealth either in the form of personal enjoyment or industrial production. All parties involved in this series of transactions end up wealthier than they begin. Obstacles to free trade would only hinder this creation of wealth. Chris J.

: '''REPLY:''' Chris makes an excellent case for trade and [[division of labor]]. By increasing efficient use of labor, overall wealth does seem to be promoted perhaps simply by reducing inefficiencies.

: But the increase in overall wealth is not shared equally, particularly when the example shifts to trade between nations. In fact, the benefits of trade may be virtually enjoyed entirely by one nation. If that nation is an enemy, it will use that increased wealth against the other nation that is enriching it. Should Carthage have enriched Rome at the time when Rome was determined to destroy Carthage? Would it have made sense for the Allies to enrich Japan or Germany in the late 1930s? I don't think so.

: Note also that most of the increase in overall wealth is due to a more efficient [[division of labor]]. When we are considering increasing free trade between countries have hundreds of millions of workers apiece, there seems to be little to be gained by dividing labor further. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:33, 21 January 2007 (EST)

'''Reply about the above Reply''' Is it always the case that two countries benefit highly unevenly with regards to mutual trade? Refrigerators provide a case in point. A Chinese company, Haier, makes refrigerators and many similar products and wanted to sell them in the United States. However a mixture of tariffs and the expense of shipping bulky things like refrigerators compelled Haier to build a factory in South Carolina. The current arrangement is for Haier to make the parts in China, ship them to South Carolina, and have American workers build the final products, which tends to be the most complex and hence highest-paying set of jobs. By using the division of labor that Chris mentioned Chinese workers turn out huge numbers of parts and American workers turn out huge numbers of cheap refrigerators. Since so many units are being built many American workers are employed in the better paying jobs, and American consumers get cheaper refrigerators. Simultaneously some very poor workers in China get to make a living. The automobile industry shows similar characteristics, with many American automakers importing the parts that go into American-built cars.
When it comes to enriching a country's enemies, obviously an odious regime like Nazi Germany shouldn't be supported. At the same time two countries might be kept from fighting each other if they trade a great deal, and increasing trade might make China an increasingly capitalist country, which is all to the good. It just seems to me that everyone getting richer and less likely to fight each other is better than people being poorer and more likely to fight. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 02:51, 9 March 2007 (EST)WOVcenter

I think when you notice economies in communist nations where they don't have free trade, you have a higher poverty rate. Communism tries to control prices and control the market, as opposed to free trade when the invisible hand is moved by supply and demand and not some government. However; I would say, that it also depends on the tax rate and interest rate on how wealth is increased. During the JFK years, the wealthy had a 87% tax rate, and wealth had not increased much even if the market was free in the USA. If the government has high taxes on the wealthy, the wealthy are less likely to invest it or spend it, which distributes wealth to the middle-class and poor in the form of jobs, dividends, and buying from small companies so they can employ more people. It is the banks that increase the wealth, because they give out loans and keep 10% of the money deposited in their vaults, which creates the wealth. If the wealthy aren't able to put their wealth into banks, because they are highly taxed, then wealth does not increase. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 23:19, 9 March 2007 (EST)

All voluntary transactions create value. It's not a zero sum game. In many cases that value can be converted to wealth through the productive use of the assets being traded. For example, let's say that I agree to sell you my old lawn mower for $20. The fact that I am willing to sell it for $20 means it is worth less than $20 to me (or else why would I sell it at that price>). That you are willing to buy it means it is worth more than $20 to you (or else why part with your $20?). Perhaps you'd have been willing to pay $30, or $40. For productive assets, the value you ascribe to it will be at least equal to the present value of the cash flows that asset will generate. Free trade allows assets to more easily make their way to the highest valued use because it removes barriers that might otherwise have prevented the transfer. By funneling assets to their highest values use creates more wealth (obviously) than funneling them less highly values uses.
--[[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 19:56, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd say "yes." Free trade has increased the world's wealth and prevented excessive inflation in America. This is a core reason why our current high gas prices haven't led to any serious problems - cheap labor from overseas. Then again, job losses, the treatment of workers, and regulations in those other countries is another issue completely. --[[User:RedBlade7|danq]] 21:45, 3 December 2007 (EST)

"Free trade" as it is always practices (as opposed to theorized) naturally maximizes and isolates wealth amongst an elite few. -JBall

==No==

Free trade is mostly the redistribution of forms of wealth from buyer to seller. The sellers, for example, receive the primary benefit of compensation for their capital and labor. The buyer must perceive a benefit also to induce him to enter into the transaction. But that relative benefit can be, and often is, very small. A one-cent reduction in price brought by increased "free trade" can be the total amount of the benefit to the buyer.

What the seller does with his large benefit can end up cost that buyer more than one cent. The restribution of wealth through free trade to an enemy of the United States can result in the money being spent on missiles directed at the United States, which then has to spend money (perhaps more than one cent per buyer) in defending against those missiles.

Bottom line: Free trade primary redistributes wealth rather than creating it.

Mr. Schlafly

Free trade is wage [[arbitrage]]. Free trade is Bill Gates saying raise the H-1b level to 300,000 further depressing American salaries.
So far free trade has resulted in continuous trade deficits. A continuous trade deficit is money that ceases to circulate in the USA.

I am a Pat Buchanan Conservative so have your counter-arguments make economic sense.

Properly designed/regulated open trade would create wealth more efficiently and for more people than a system of pro-business free trade that allows companies to exploit poverty stricken workers, prevent organization of labor, and ignore environmental standards by moving to third world nations. Bad practices lead to collapse of established working economies and a worsening of conditions for locals and the movement of jobs to this new country leads to lowered wages and employment in their nation of origination and prices don't actually fall because the company wants to increase their profit margin. Basically, costs don't fall. Labor costs fall and management costs rise. Although this is not necessarily the result of free trade, free trade could possibly act to redistribute wealth from the laborers to the owners of capital and not to actually create more wealth. [[User:Thorn969|Thorn969]] 01:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well, here are some economically sensical arguments for Thorn. First, competition forces firms to lower product prices when factor costs such as labor fall, so free trade does rapidly decrease prices. Happy Meal toys would be rather more expensive if produced in the United States. You ignore that many skilled positions in advanced economies lack sufficient workers, which prompts entrepreneurs such as Bill Gates to call for more skilled immigrants to fill labor shortages. And obviously some people do lose out in the long run, but that can be answered either with graduated taxes/unemployment relief or recourse to personal savings. Finally the trade deficit argument fails on two counts. First, if any country is a net exporter at least one other country must be a net importer. Also a basic accounting reality is the following equation; Exports-Imports=Savings-Investment. Essentially if Americans and foreign individuals or firms want to invest more in America than Americans want to save the result will be a trade deficit. Since investment is a good thing a trade deficit isn't the end of the world, although the current American one is abnormally large due to excessive federal deficit spending. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 16:12, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:[[NAFTA]] seems to be working out well for the US. I don't think Canada or Mexico is quite so enamored of it, though - except for the small group that '''does''' profit by it - notably the big business moguls. Fred Canuck and Jose Mexicano aren't getting such a good deal out of it.[[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 01:13, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

its all about re-distributing the american pie.
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 14:04, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Debate: Is it possible for man to live a moral life without religion?

2010-01-14T20:29:12Z

Jordanball: /* Yes, it is possible */

{{debate}}

'''NOTE - PLEASE READ THE PREMISE SECTION BEFORE POSTING REPLIES - THANK YOU.'''

==Premise==

The inspiration for this debate topic comes from several sources, and is not meant to be an attack on religion. The main inspiration was contemplation about the novel ''The Lord of the Flies''. Is it the basic nature of man to devolve into savagery without moral guidance, or, given enough time, would man develop a moral framework to live by because of the inherent benefits to society? If so, could this happen without religion to frame the moral values against?

The related question is that if one assumes that religion is required for man to live a moral life, then what are the essential characteristics that religion must have in order for its adherents to live a moral life. Catholics, Jews, Protestants and Muslims follow different tenets of faith, but it would be wrong to call someone immoral simply because they are devout in one faith and not another. That implies that there's a common baseline of morality to certain faiths, and that a person who follows those aspects of that faith would be leading a moral life.

The purpose of this debate is not to come up with simplistic yes/no or right/wrong answers, but to use a thoughtful question to allow members of the CP community to express their views on the subject so that others can develop new insights from reading them.

==Yes, it is possible==

I don't want to write volumes here so I am going to refer people to a good book on this topic that I read recently. It is "Primates and Philosophers" by Frans de Waal. De Waal is a primatologist. The premise of the book is that the great apes exhibit behaviors that are the basis of moral action. So morality appears to have a evolutionary basis. De Waal also points to cross cultural studies of moral decision making that suggest that some moral thinking is basically hardwired and not dependent on cultural belief systems (including religious beliefs). It's pretty fascinating stuff.

The common belief seems to be that the theory of evolution and the phrase "survival of the fittest" means that brute force and violence are the route to evolutionary success. In fact, all sorts of physical and behavioral adaptations can be successful. In the great apes, social behaviors that promote cooperation, empathy and sharing have proven to be successful strategies for survival. [[User:MikeAndrews|MikeAndrews]] 09:52, 19 January 2009 (EST)

:I believe it's absolutely possible. Whether one believes that we carry a divine spark or not, the reality is that we are all born as atheists in the sense that we have no knowledge of who or what to worship until we are taught by others. There is no reason to believe that a child could not be raised in a society where there no exposure to religion, but a thorough grounding in ethical values instead, and have that child grow up to lead a fulfilling and productive life. Cooperative society works better than every-man-for-himself anarchy, and that social factor along with the rule of civil & criminal law would be enough incentive to do the right thing or face material consequences. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 19:54, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Yes, I daily witness others that seem to live a proper life. Most consider a person moral if they are a law-abiding citizen. I can split hairs on morals. Can you live a moral life without knowing morals? In the Roman Catholic Act of Contrition it says "in what I have done and what I have failed to do." You can be a good person but fail to reach Heaven because your good human nature is not enough. Having morals is not enough, you need God in your life.--[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 20:59, 19 February 2009 (EST)

:I'm not sure that a law-abiding life and a moral life are the same thing. If I want to kill, steal, and otherwise do horrid things, and I only refrain because I'm afraid of getting caught and punished, am I, in fact, a moral person? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:14, 19 February 2009 (EST)

::That's the irony of it. You didn't commit a crime (law-abiding) but want to or fear the consequences (not moral). You are still perceived as being good when in fact you are not. Or the person that wants to do crime thinks they are moral for not committing the crime, they are still not. Can you be good without religion? Yes --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 21:47, 19 February 2009 (EST)

:::I think it's possible to be good without being religious, Jpatt. I was raised a Roman Catholic, and was taught (in my case at least) that because of original sin and man's inherently flawed nature, I was born into a less-than-moral state and had to use my life to follow God's guidance back into morality and grace. Could it also be true, though, that living a moral life for its own sake reaps its own rewards in this life?
:::I've just been laid off from my job, for example, and have to spend the next 30 days training my colleagues to take over my functions to get my severance package. It could be tempting to make the least possible effort at training so that when I'm gone, the company will acutely feel the loss. That's not the moral thing to do, though, and I'm giving the transition my best effort. What's relevant is that I'm not doing it because a poor effort would cost me my severance, I'm doing it because I like my colleagues and don't want their performance to suffer because I didn't help equip them to succeed. You can be just as missed by leaving on a high note of professionalism as you can by leaving with a petty "since you don't need me, you figure it out" bailout. The former helps you more in life, though, because it's a small world and people have long memories. You can find that in life it's better to do the moral thing for the long term happiness and benefits it brings to you, and not just to avoid negative consequences. Making the moral choice in how I leave this job has nothing to do with religion, but it's a moral choice all the same. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 23:10, 19 February 2009 (EST)

::::I agree 100%, I forgot my 'yes' at the end of my last statement. Sorry to hear about the job, certainly not good news. I'll be praying for you this week, new employment at the same pay scale. --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 23:36, 19 February 2009 (EST)
:::::Thanks for the kind thoughts - being cut in a weak economy isn't fun, but this happened once before to me in the 1990's and the job I landed in turned out to be better than the one I was laid off from. My hope isn't so much for a job with the same pay, but one that doesn't cost me time with my family. I have some special-needs kids, and I'd take a pay cut to be able to telecommute or work on flex-time as I do now to be there when they need me. The companies that offer this will be rewarded by incredibly loyal employees. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 23:47, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Doesn't anybody read Kant anymore? Helloooo, categorical imperative? Kant doesn't mention religion at all in his works, and he's 99% right in his moral philosophy that says, basically, do not do anything that, if universally applied, would eventually contradict itself. Murder without reason, for example, fails this rule. [[User:Ckral|Ckral]]

Yes. In Dante's "Inferno", the very first level of Hell is Limbo, realm of the virtuous pagans. They are not punished there, but then, they lack paradise. Dante’s work is not an authoritative source, but his ideas are reasonable and I agree with them. In Biblical times, surely in the all the lands without Christianity there were some virtuous people, and if there were even just one, God would not consign him to eternal torment in Hell.-David

Yes. I do. In short, my morals rely on respect. The argument that we need religion for morals is because of a fear of a higher power punishing us for breaking laws of morality. Morality is a social construct depending on environment, not always a spiritual one. -Nonobu

Religion, like all other such institutions (many of which are more relevant by now) is not responsible for morality. A cursory examination of the history of all religion, and an emphasis on the "big three" in particular make that observation an easy one to make. -JBall

==No, it is not possible==

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here. While I believe it is possible for an individual man not to profess a religion and still live according to a code of morals, I do not believe that it is possible for Man, collectively, to do so. Simply put: I believe that the development of concepts of morality and justice are so inextricably linked to religion as to be inseparable.

The moral man who does not profess faith in God is nonetheless informed by religious concepts of morality; thus, he is NOT living a moral life without religion. He is simply living a moral life in which religion is not the central fact. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:05, 19 February 2009 (EST)

:Those are interesting thoughts, but let me put an alternate premise forward. Most religions tend to have common values, like prohibitions against murder, stealing, deceit, etc. Given how wildly different some faiths can be, monotheism vs. pantheism for one example, isn't it more likely that man is inclined to develop moral codes that grow in sophistication along with their societies, and that these common, human-centric values are superimposed on different faiths rather than different faiths coincidentally arriving at the same moral codes? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:32, 19 February 2009 (EST)

::I would suggest that such a hypothesis is at least partially testable, thus:
:::1. Is there historical evidence of a civilization where concepts of morality and justice developed in the absence of religion, or before religion?
:::2. Is there evidence that a civilization can maintain concepts of justice and morality in the long term in the absence of religion?
:::To the best of my knowledge, no such evidence exists. Moreover, in the absence of God, I would want to know ''why'' those moral codes seem to be relatively universal. I think that you have to really strain credulity to claim that they're all due to biological imperatives. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:12, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Debate:Was the European colonization of the Americas good for the native people?

2010-01-14T20:11:29Z

Jordanball: /* Was the Roman colonization of Europe good for the native people? */

{{debate}}

==YES==

Do you mean the countless millions of dead ones or the handful who survived and were put into the "ghettos" we like to call "reservations?"--[[User:Eastfernstreet|Eastfernstreet]] 15:05, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

The European colonists brought Christianity to the Americas and ended the Central American practice of [[human sacrifice]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 05:22, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
:I wonder how many people were killed to achieve this (latter) laudable aim? [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 05:32, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
::The Spanish forced Christianity yes. Did they sit down and tell them about it? Not really, they kinda just killed them all for their land and justified it with Christianity. God, Glory, Gold. [[User:GordonF|GordonF]] 18:45, 15 March 2009
:I remember that the Europeans practiced something much more civilized that was called burning at the stake. That was especially popular during the Spanish Inquistion where thousands of people were put to death for such crimes as heresy or blasphemy. So long live society approved murder. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 21:41, 28 February 2008 (EST)

They sensibly replaced it with the human sacrifice to the concept of justice (capital punishment). The improvement here is that efforts are often made to avoid sacrificing innocent individuals. Thus the blood-lust of the population could be nurtured without arbitary victimisation of innocents. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 05:28, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
: North American Indians did not practice human sacrifice. [[User:Poblano|Poblano]] 10:45, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes, it was definitely good for the natives. Look at how they lived before Europeans came to America. They lived in tepees and were practically naked all the time. Wouldn't you want help if you were in that situation? Thanks to our colonial ancestors, native people now have a much higher quality of life due to casinos, yet are still able to maintain some of their old ways on their reservations. It is the duty of civilized peoples to raise their inferiors up from savagery. Rudyard Kipling's "The White Man's Burden" comes to mind:

:Take up the White Man’s burden—
:Send forth the best ye breed—
:Go bind your sons to exile
:To serve your captives’ need;
:To wait in heavy harness,
:On fluttered folk and wild—
:Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
:Half-devil and half-child.

--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 14:12, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
::I sincerly hope that the above opinion is not serious, and if it is, that it is not the opinion of the majority of contributors on this site. What a shame.[[User:Jnl001|Jnl001]] 19:49, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm hopeing this is a Devils advocate posting or one based on sheerignorance of history and contemporary life in Indian Country, because it is one of the most racist, bigotted things I've read in a long time. Maybe this is what the next round of media articles about Conservapedia will focus on. I can see the headlies now. "New Wiki becomes bastion of skinheads and American Nazis"--[[User:Third Day|Third Day]] 09:58, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't really see how one could argue otherwise. The Europeans taught the Indians that it was wrong to kill each other in the name of their false gods, and taught them Christianity. It is unfortunate that many were killed by diseases, but at least their souls were saved. And I agree with Conservateur's point that the whites improved their living conditions immensely. [[User:JBT|JBT]] 02:36, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

::JBT, who are you to say whose gods are false and whose gods are true? If people who follow different gods, and people who disbelieve in all gods would just agree to disagree then we'd all be a lot happier! --[[User:Eyupdutch|Eyupdutch]] 10:16, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

::I'm sure the native people are always glad to be forced into slavery and have their customs and culture brutally put down. Not to mention the 95% (a conservative figure) of their population that died due to disease and war brought by the white man. Yep I'm sure they loved that. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 20:32, 28 February 2008 (EST)

==NO==

Am I allowed to argue on both sides? I don't think this is a black and white issue.

If the reports of "smallpox blankets" and Caribbean slavery are true, then Columbus took advantage of several thousand native Americans. Also, I've heard that the native population was reduced 90% by European colonists - presumably through conquest and starvation. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 05:37, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure what the point of this debate is, the question seems bit of a Trojan Horse, but I would imagine that those who survived would say no. Bringing disease, alcohol and superior firepower to wipe many of them out, then settling their land out can hardly be a good thing from their point of view. Hopefully a few of them will respond here. Of course from the colonists' point of view everything has turned out pretty good. Also European colonization of the Americas covers a very wide range of incomers and indigenous peoples so there can be no simple answer. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 05:45, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Of course not. Just look at Mexico, smallpox killed of more than half of the native population, and people starve, the dead layed in the streets of their once clean cities, and people were tripping over their own intestines at Toxcatl. Also, in America, Wounded Knee Creek killed many Souix, Slavery was common, and the government ripped off the Ojibwe with promised food. The Navajos were also forced to march hundreds of deadly miles from their home. Also in South America, people were worked to death in the silver mines.

No. Just look at the [[Trail of Tears]] and the [[Wounded Knee Massacre]]. I don't think after the North American Indians (who did NOT practice human sacrifice) who surivived mass slaughter, deportation, the rape of their women, the capture of their land, the deliberate and inadvertant spread of disease were thinking: and they brought us Christianity! What benevolent people! [[User:Poblano|Poblano]] 10:45, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

My God. I cannot believe that anyone is so historically ignorant that they even could ask such a question. Let’s put it this way: If invaders raped your women, forced their religion on you, stole your land, and exposed your people to diseases that resulted in population loss of 90%, would you be OK with that? I did not think so. White man’s burden? Who asked for your help? We were just fine until you jackasses showed up.--[[User:Davyjones|Davyjones]] 14:30, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:I hate to ruin your liberal-taught preconceived ideas of how America was colonized, but you have been grossly misinformed. There was not nearly as much raping going on as is claimed by anti-European groups. And for the most part, at least in North America, land was not stolen. It was bought by the British/US governments from tribal leaders, but some of the tribe members refused to leave and had to be evicted or killed. And don't pretend like native tribes were having one big peacefest prior to the arrival of Europeans. The fact is that tribes had been at war with each other for centuries, committing atrocities that rivaled or even surpassed those of the colonials. Even when uniting against the so-called "invaders" would have been in their best interests, they didn't do so.
:If it wasn't for European colonization, there would still be wars between tribes going on today. You're welcome.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 14:42, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
DO you have any sources to back that up?--[[User:Davyjones|Davyjones]] 14:54, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::I thought "scalping" was common knowledge. Do you really need me to give a source for the practice? Torture was so common among some tribes that it is became a mark of courage to endure it with no outcry. Maybe the 'courage' thing needs a reference, but *sheesh* can't you just go to Google when someone makes a point in a debate?

::Are we airing our different points of view to find out how others think, or do we imagine a huge audience is watching to see who wins? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:55, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Good to know that that rape and murder is something to be thankful for. So remember, the next time someone breaks into your home, kills you, rapes your wife, and carries your children off and sells them into slavery, you are supposed to thank them! No wonder people think conservatives are stupid and racist! They never miss a chance to prove they are!--[[User:Davyjones|Davyjones]] 15:04, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Conservateur, moral equivocation doesn't make what colonists did either helpful, good, or justified in any way. Just because some of the tribes were at war with each other, or that they commited atrocities that "rivaled or even surpassed" those of the colonists, doesn't make it alright that we devastated them with disease, took any of their lands whatsoever, and commited any acts of violence for the goal of westward conquest. The fact is, colonists were the result of their decimated population, and the loss of their tribal lands, whether through sale or force, and that has to be recognized. And even if it was our intervention that stopped their warring (though clearly, that was not the goal when we set out to expand "our" country), it cost them more than any of their tribal conflics ever did. The natives got the short end of the bargain.--[[User:Stereophile|Stereophile]] 20:45, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

One almost does not know where to begin. As the above poster noted, it is hard to fathom why this question is even asked in 2007. Nervertheless, I will try to address some of the misconceptions I see above. Most native peoples did not practice human sacrifice. As for the person above who states that jative land was not stolen, I agree with the poster who challenged him to provide sources. I noticed that none were forthcoming. As for not uniting in the face of European invasion, you have to remember that Native Americans viewed themsleves as over 500 different nations. Would France, Spain, et. al. have united in the face of an invasion? I also wish to address the remark concering scalping. Around 1980 or so, James Axtell published an article in the William and Mary Quarterly called "The Unkindest Cut" that showed that scalping was a European innovation. European officals paid Indians a bounty for each enemy scalp they brought in. In the eighteenth century, on the Carolina frontier, colonists also collected these bounties. So, who really is the "savage" here? I do not agree with the rather forceful tone of davyjones, but posters on Conservapedia may want to consider this: Some of the things they post can be used against conservatives. If you post something that could be made out to sound "stupid" or "racist," I assure you, there is someone out there who will use it that way. Since what we want is to win people to the conservative side, think before you post. I'm not saying do not say what is on your mind, but think how it can boomarang on conservatives.--[[User:Lobo|Lobo]] 12:35, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

:That's the second time you've inserted that nonsense:
:*"Historical records, archaeology, and other sciences strongly indicate the practice [of scalping] originated among certain Native American tribes." [http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/1998/scalping.html]

Hardly nonsense, and this is a good opportunity to point out the limitations of relying on “scholarship” that appears on the internet. The quote you cite from Bray’s article uses the Axtell article (that Lobo refers to above) as its support. There is only one problem. The Axtell article does not support Bray’s contention. The rest of Bray’s article lists scalping incidents that occurred during the French and Indian War which occurred two and half centuries after initial contact between Europeans and Native people. It would really be a good idea to check the veracity of your sources. --[[User:McIntyre|McIntyre]] 11:10, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

No...... because they were almost wiped out. Doesn't sound to good to me. [[User:Blsiusliurthg|Blsiusliurthg]] 14:10, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

We live on stolen land from an imprisoned people. [[User:Uberdude| Uberdude]] 15:30, 30 November 2007 (EDT)

I think the first time I posted this it was in the wrong place. This is aimed at Conservateur and while the comment was posted a while ago, I felt the need to say something:

First of all, I am shocked that this kind of debate is brought up in the 21st century. The only thing I find more despicable than the fact that this question is being asked is your argument. You debate like a ten year old in grade school who's research is founded on crappy John Wayne movies. I cannot help but think that this kind of argument is born out of ignorance and a rejection of facts. To first correct your argument, you probably did not bother to research any culture of any Native American tribe at all. Almost every tribe found between the Atlantic Coast and the Rocky Mountains were nomadic. This is not to say that tribes were constantly moving around. On the contrary, Native American tribes in the northeast would typically spend 10-15 years in any given settlement until the local resources ran out, and then they moved onto another area. Therefore, many tribes believed that land could not be owned, and that it could only be used temporarily. So as you can see its a clash in idealogies; settlers believed in the concept of private land ownership, while on the other hand, Native Americans had never heard of such a thing. I suppose that from this you could argue that very early on the colonists simply did not know any better. However, rather than try to come to an agreement with tribes on how to use the land, the settlers went ahead and as you so eloquently put it, "evicted or killed" the native populations. Of course this argument can only be applied early on, as North America became further settled, and Native American culture much more easy to grasp and learn, the government continued down the path it was already familiar with.

Now, I ask you, as a fellow American, to do one of the following: First, go out and buy a book called Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee. It is long and sometimes dry, but it provides excellent historical and anecdotal texts that help to portray the plight of many Native American tribes. Read it, and then come back to this debate. However if you do not read that book I ask you then, wherever you may be, in the office, at home, at church, to get out of your seat, go outside, and step in front of a large, fast moving vehicle. It is clear that this is not the only subject that you may have misconceptions of, and it is also clear that you do nothing ni order to fix these misconceptions. This country does not need your type of ignorance.

==Was the Roman colonization of Europe good for the native people?==
Maybe yes or maybe no. The effect was that Europe became Roman just as Americans became westernized. We will never know, in both cases.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:29, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

There is absolutely no way of telling because the Roman Empire killed anyone opposed to their rule, man, woman, or child. Even Julius Ceaser. Rome didn't colonize Native European tribes and kingdoms. Rome conquered them.
~ Christos 01/27/08

completely different, 1) they didn't kill a significant portion of them with diseases 2) they let them live where they were living previously to a large extent 3) they didn't scalp them 4)yes the americas became westernized, but a large portion of the native americans weren't around to see it, and the ones who were lived on reservations. and yes it is quite obvious that the colonization of america was significantley worse (and even if the romans killed everyone opposed to their rule the colonizing europeans killed pretty much everybody). and by the way christos invasion isn't as bad as colonization (for the natives)-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 23:12, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

A lot of crude misconceptions here, this unfortunately being the standard for broad revisionionist perspectives on colonialism, specifically throughout the Americas. However, one thing that I see being avoided is any admittance of the various social technologies of indigenous communities in general. This garish disdain for any kind of beneficial contributions to (actual) democracy, community organization, military technique, linguistic integrity, diplomacy, intrinsic collectivism and so on gives all of us an excellent primer to analyze the face of contemporary racism. That being a "reactive" collage of insistence that the only true victims of discrimination are the presiding cultural stewards themselves, (often) white, "successful," heterosexual males who we are thus portrayed as constant targets for some ludicrous PC ideology laying waste to their lives. A theory contradicted daily by the mere visibility of an entire culture held in the reigns of these supposed oppressed.

It is for this reason that I believe a backwards justification for colonial imperialism is drafted. With conquest and bloodshed being vainly denied, sugar-coated, or otherwise dishonestly portrayed as miniscule while the "benefits" of what is currently a system in peril reigning in the collective imagination as a societal role model.

== Euro Colonization of the Americas: NO ==
I say no, it was not good for the native peoples. Quite simply because their numbers and identity as a seperate peoples are reduced to almost obscurity. No, it was not good for them. Even if they may have learned certain cultural and civil refinements from the Europeans, they have still been reduced to almost non-existence through disease, war, depletion of their resources, and cultural assimilation and inter-breeding. I'm not giving a good/bad opinion on this so please do not misconstrue it. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 21:04, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

== YES/NO ==

i'm gonna ride the fence, yes for those alive today, no for those that died along the way... :)
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 19:30, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

Have you ever been to a reservation besides for the casino or the fireworks? It's not exactly upperclass living by a long shot. The Native people as a whole have higher rates of alcoholism, crime and unemployment, among other things. Good thing we came and saved them all so they can all go to heaven and live with Jesus!--[[User:Tehstone|Tehstone]] 17:13, 12 September 2007 (PST)

It depends on which European power was doing the colonizing. The trail of tears, wounded knee, smallpox blankets, are all perpetrated by the English or their relatives the Americans of the day. The Spanish forced Christianity on the Southern Native Americans as did the Portuguese. I've never before heard of however of any famous French atrocities or any examples of French treatment. If the modern living standard is used to measure whether European colonization was good for the Natives, then that answer is no because even though infant mortality rates and the such were hard to keep track of among Native populations in those days, the measure of pride and culture that was taken away in the subsequent years of European colonization can. ~ Christos, 01/27/08