Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Crusades... Good or Bad?

2007-06-27T20:54:43Z

Jtime: /* BAAAAAD! */

{{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 stupidest 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''

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

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.

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.

::Today, a half millenium later, when the world is much smaller because of the ease of travel and communications, we've discovered the very problems that (1) caused the Crusades, and (2) led to the discovery of America, had never been dealt with, and now we are faced with the same problems decision makers and problem solvers of centuries ago were faced with. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:39, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:::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)

==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)

::::::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]]

: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)
:::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)

Debate:Crusades... Good or Bad?

2007-06-27T20:49:21Z

Jtime: /* BAAAAAD! */

User talk:Guitarplayer

2007-06-25T22:14:38Z

Jtime:

==Dissidents==

Listing anyone is opening up a whole can of worms; one man's dissident is another man's devil. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:09, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
:But I think it might still be a good idea. From what I have seen this site doesn't really avoid conflict too much anyway. Alot of very impotant historical figures were dissidents.[[User:Jtime|Jtime]] 18:14, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Dissidents

2007-06-25T22:11:42Z

Jtime: New page: I would suggest putting people like Martin Luther, Nelson Mandela, Ghandi, Jesus Christ, Joan of Arc, for starters.~~~~

I would suggest putting people like Martin Luther, Nelson Mandela, Ghandi, Jesus Christ, Joan of Arc, for starters.[[User:Jtime|Jtime]] 18:11, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Dissidents

2007-06-25T21:47:25Z

Jtime:

Dissidents are people who disagree with and work to change, or bring down entirely, established religious or political systems or ideals.
The etymology of the word traces its origin to the 16th century Latin "dissidentem" meaning "to be remote, disagree, be removed from". As a noun, dissident is used to refer to Protestants. Modern usage of the noun in a political arena dates to 1940 associated with the rise of totalitarian governments. [ref]http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=dissident&searchmode=none[/ref]

North American Indians

2007-06-25T00:21:43Z

Jtime:

'''North American Indians''' (also '''Native Americans''') are the descendents of those groups that migrated from Asia to North America at the end of the last Ice Age. The Native Americans of North America are typically considered to be all those tribes north of Central Mexico. While technically part of North America, most archaeologists tend to place the civilizations of Central Mexico into a seperate category.[2] Tribes in North America maintained a wide variety of [[subsistence pattern]]s, from hunting and gathering, to intensive agriculture. North America is also home to two of the most unusual groups of hunter-gatherers, the Northwest Coast tribes, and the Aleuts. The first Native Americans are believed to have migrated from Asia via the Bering land bridge, the exposed continental shelf between Asia and N. America during the last Ice Age. There are also those that subscribe to a similar migration by sea that followed the ancient coastline from Asia around the Bering land mass. A small group of researchers claim to have uncovered evidence of possible migration from Europe during the same time period, but the evidence is still heavily contested.

== Culture Areas of North America ==

American Indians of North America are generally divided into culture areas according to similarities in geography, environment, subsistence patterns, language family, and similar social practices. According to the ''Handbook of North American Indians'', there are ten such culutal areas.
:1. Arcitc- Greenland, extreme northern Canada, and the northern and western coastlines of Alaska.
:2. Subarctic- Most of central Canada and interior Alaska.
:3. Northeast- New England, Nova Scotia, the Great Lakes region, the Chesapeake Bay area, and most of current day W. Virginia, the Ohio River valley, and Illinois.
:4. Southeast- N. Carolina excluding the NE corner, western Virginia, southern W. Virginia, and all the southersn states east of the Mississippi River, in addition to parts of Arkansas, Lousiana, and eastern Texas.
:5. Plains- the entire Midwest United States from Texas north to southern parts of Canada.
:6. Southwest- Central Mexico north into W. Texas, NM, and AZ.
:7. Great Basin- Nevada, Utah, N. Arizona, W. Colorado, W. Wyoming, S. Idaho, SE Oregon, and parts of W. California.
:8. California- Interior and Coastal California and N. Baja.
:9. Northwest Coast- N. California to S. Alaska along 1500 miles of coastline.
:10. Plateau- Parts of Oregon, Washington, N. Idaho, W. Montana, and SW Canada.[1]

== Refs ==

[1]Washburn, Wilcomb E. 1998. ''Handbook Of North American Indians, Vol. 4, History of Indian-White Relations.'' Washington: Smithsonian Institute.
:[2]Swidler, Nina, Dongoske, Roger. 1997. ''Native Americans and Archaeologists: Stepping Stones to Common Ground.'' Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.

Deism

2007-06-22T20:37:05Z

Jtime:

The founder of '''Deism''' was [[Lord Herbert of Cherbury]]. <ref>http://www.theologicalstudies.org/what_is_deism.html</ref> He came up with 5 essentials of Deism which are "(1) a belief in the existence of the Deity, (2) the obligation to reverence such a power, (3) the identification of worship with practical morality, (4) the obligation to repent of sin and to abandon it, and, (5) divine recompense in this world and the next"<ref>http://www.iep.utm.edu/d/deismeng.htm</ref>

Dictionaries' definitions of '''deism''' include:
:The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.<ref>American Heritage Dictionary, 4th edition</ref>
and
:"a movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe."<ref>Merriam-Webster online: [http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/deism deism]</ref>

The Catholic Church would denounce Deism as a Heresy in the 1500s, for it's rejection of the divinity of Jesus Christ, the importance of the church, and eschewing the idea of Divine Intervention. While Lord Herbert would found the movement, by the 1800s his arguments were largely demolished by the philosopher Locke and his deconstruction of the concept of an 'Innate Truth'(Upon which much of Herbert's views on Deism were founded).

Matthew Tindal is generally credited with the modern incarnation of Deism and that practiced by the Founding Fathers who were Deists. "God designed all Mankind should at all times know, what he wills them to know, believe, profess, and practice; and has given them no other Means for this, but the Use of Reason."

Deism would enjoy a brief rise in the Western world through the 1800s, but by the early 20th century, it was on the decline. The Unitarian movement would absorb most of it's teachings and eventually produce the Unitarian Universalists. Deism today is a mixed bag without dogma or teachings beyond the idea that one should employ Reason to understand the universe. As a result, Deists who believe in Divine Intervention, Intelligent Design, and many other ideas that would have been alien to the earlier Deists are now around.

==Deism and the Founding Fathers==
While almost all of the Founding Fathers were devout Christians, some it is believed were deists, at least according to some definitions of the term.

A famous deist in early American history was the Englishman [[Thomas Paine]], who espoused deism and popularized the term in his book [[The Age of Reason]]. It is believed this had an influence on deism in the colonies. [[Benjamin Franklin]] wrote in his autobiography about an earlier period in his life,
<blockquote>Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's Lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist.</blockquote>

Franklin later repudiated many of his earlier views and he believed in a God that "ought to be worshipped," and at the [[Constitutional Convention]] less than three years from his death [[Benjamin Franklin]] advocated public prayer. He praised [[Christianity]], but his letter to Ezra Stiles a month before his death was noncommittal as to the divinity of Jesus: <blockquote>"As to [[Jesus]] of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of Morals and His Religion as he left them to us, is the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see.. I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some doubt as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I need not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect Soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble. I see no harm in its being believed, if that belief has good consequences, as probably it has, of making his Doctrines more respected and better observed."</blockquote>

Another [[Founding Father]] described as a deist was [[Thomas Jefferson]]. Jefferson personally struggled with the divinity of Christ and produced an edited version of the Gospels, later known as the [[Jefferson Bible]], which contained only the moral and ethical teachings of Jesus and omitted third-person accounts of his life, particularly the accounts of the miracles.

Ten years from his death Jefferson stated that "[The Jefferson Bible] show that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel, and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its Author never said nor saw."<ref>Jefferson, Letter to Charles Thomson, January 9, 1815</ref>

The closer Jefferson approached his death, the more Christian he appeared. He read the Bible daily as the end grew near. His grandson described Jefferson as follows:<ref>Thomas Jefferson Randolph, undated letter to biographer Henry S. Randall, reprinted in Masfield et al., ''The Real Thomas Jefferson'', p. 321.</ref>

:He was regular in his attendance [at] church, taking his prayer book with him. He drew the plan of the Episcopal church in Charlottesville, was one of the largest contributors to its erection, and contributed regularly to the support of its minister. I paid, after his death, his subscription of $200 to the erection of the Presbyterian church in the same village. A gentleman of some distinction calling on him and expressing his disbelief in the truths of the Bible, his reply was, 'Then, sir, you have studied it to little purpose.'"

----

'''Sources:'''<references/>

==See Also==
:[http://thedcl.org/christia/s/stephwill/agodeieg/agodeieg.html An Account of the Growth of Deism in England] by William Stephens.

[[Category:Religion]]

Talk:Nancy Pelosi

2007-06-22T20:29:24Z

Jtime:

== Recommend ==

[[Conservapedia:Manual of Style/Politicians]] - [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:25, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

*Perhaps users might want to know ''when'' she was first elected, and how many terms she has served, and exactly where her district is.....there are several overlapping the city and county of San Francisco, I seem to remember. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 20:45, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:I would agree with this. Also, we need to look closely at campaign contributions she's given to other members of Congress; it appears with her $50-90 million net worth, she basically purchased the House leadership position by surrounding herself with people she contributed money to get them elected to the House in the first place. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:54, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::Which see, all previous Speakers. It is germain, but hardly unusual. And nothing illegal about it. Newt and Tip O'Neil gave away millions. I did like your contributed picture better, Rob. I think it captured her true "inner beauty". --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 21:00, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Newt and them guys didn't have the personal wealth Pelosi has. While yes, some of these figures control donors and bring influence that way, I don't beleive there's been a Party leader in recent memory who purchased her way to the top with her own personal fortune as Pelosi has. And there is no other explanation, how a clearly radical figure who openly confesses to holding radical minority views has been able to assume leadership of not just a major party, but now the the majority party.

:::Let's put Pelosi's wealth in perspective; her net worth is approximately twice that of GW Bush & John Edwards who are worth roughly the same, and about half of John Kerry's sole-and separate fortune apart from Theresa.

:::Actually I had a better photo yesterday but lost it, still trying to find it. Amazing what a little bondo and $249 Earl Schieb paint job can do, huh? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:08, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Liam.... ==

I don't think a hit piece, without citation, even on one so deserving as Madame Speaker, is appropriate. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:55, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

There are citations. I'll add a few more.

*Liam, sign your posts, please. Nothing on her being the first woman Speaker? I think "Criticism" should fall below the other items on the page, eh? I complain about the same things on Reagan, etc. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:59, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I'm writing more for the Pelosi page right now. And sorry I only just now learned how to sign my posts. --[[User:Go liam|Go liam]] 01:03, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

*Thanks, Liam...you might want to check check wastingtonpost.com for Thursday's lead editorial..... --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 01:56, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
==Quotation==
The current "quotation":''"The gavel of the speaker of the House is in the hands of special interests, and now it will be in the hands of America's children."''

The actual quote:"When I accept the Speaker's gavel, I will be taking it out of the hands of the special interests and put it into the hands of America's working families and children for a better future. There will be civility, integrity and bipartisanship. We'll conduct ourselves in the manner the American people expect."[http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/12/middle_class_ma.php]

*I am happy to see that Madame Speaker, aside from her foreign policy aspirations, also agrees, through word and deed (using non-union migrant workers at her winery), with the majority of Americans who are against labor unions. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:27, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== NY Post quote...fictitious and misleading... ==

The actual, full quote from the article follows....

<blockquote>
Pelosi actually chided the White House for not objecting to the visit to Damascus on Sunday by three GOP House members. "I didn't hear the White House speaking out about that," she whined.

'''Actually, the White House did just that: "We ask that people not go on these trips," said spokeswoman Perrino. "We discourage it. Full stop."'''

'''Besides, even Pelosi must understand that there's a huge difference between three regular legislators calling on Assad and the Speaker of the House - arguably the highest-ranking Democrat in Congress - doing so.'''
As such, she is seen as the representative of the president's political opposition - one that desperately seeks to undercut and reverse his foreign policy.

More than two centuries ago, Congress passed the Logan Act, which forbids private citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. As an elected official, Pelosi isn't restrained by the law - but its meaning is clear.

Negotiating with world leaders - particularly those at odds with the United States - should be left to the president, or those authorized by him to do so.
</blockquote>

I have removed the quote.--~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:32, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

==Hype==
*''Pelosi indicated at a press conference that she had carried a message from the government of Israel. She then said she carried a message from the President. <ref>http://www.kxmb.com/getARticle.asp?ArticleId=111801</ref> Both of her claims about message carrying were lies. Pelosi told reporters the meeting "enabled us to communicate a message from Prime Minister Olmert". She may face criminal charges.''

This is a little hyperbolic, now. Whose gonna do it, one of the fired US Attorneys? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:58, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

*Well, there are many who were not fired. And, last I checked, the Attorney General can perform all of their tasks, lol. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 21:55, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
**Yah but you know the chance of this happening is 1000 to one; you probably got better odd on somebody trying to introduce impeachment proceedings against Bush. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:08, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Rob, do I detect some note of disapproval at political appointees being removed from "at the pleasure of" appointments? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:51, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
:Iglesia, the guy removed in New Mexico is a real scream. A week after he's removed, the new appointee indicts a former Democratic mayor and the former 30 year Democratic State Senate Majority Leader for embezzeling $4 million during constuction of a new Courthouse (see the irony there--even building a Courthouse is a corrupt enterprise in New Mexico). And of course $40,000 of the stolen cash ended up in Bill Richardson's campaign chest. Now considering the Courthouse has been in use now for nearly 5 years, how did this all manage to evade news headlines unitl the day after the US Attorney was removed? This one will be interesting to follow in Washington. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:57, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

I actually brokered a interaction between a United States Senator and the Attorney for the San Diego area, where the Senator was demanding action on filing against Illegal Immigrants, which was not being done. The Senator actually contacted the White House wondering why this particular appointee was refusing to prosecute crimes, unless it was the 6th or so offense. Fast-forward several months, and this same Senator is one of the chief complainant's against the President, claiming the firings were unjustified and purely political! I wonder how one takes the "politics" out of political appointments? ROFL! --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 23:12, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
:Yep. It's like Krauthammer said, Gonzales gets the boot after this screw up. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:26, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

== That stuff about Wolf, Pitts, and Aderholt ==

It appears that the inclusion of the info about those three congress members is disputed. I'm figuring its a matter of it detracting too much from Pelosi's account of the trip? I suppose that could be the case. It might fit better on the Syria page. Or is there another reason, maybe regarding the way I worded it? Because I could change that too.--[[User:Nomine Cervus|Nomine Cervus]] 07:42, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:*IMO, including the information about the three Republican Representatives is germain, so long as one explains the reason for the mild criticism they received was due to their relative minor stature, compared to the Speaker of the House, who is third in line to the Presidency. Also, they did not hold press conferences asserting they were the bearer of diplomatic messages. As stated, it erroneously gave the impression that 1) the White House didn't criticize their going, and 2) maybe because they were of the same political party, they received less heat. You might also google, and add a line their going wasn't something new, dozens of Members of Congress have visited there, much to the displeasure of the White House, including Senator Specter, another Republican. I might add they all got the same baloney words from the dictator. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 07:54, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:**True; there is a big difference between a routine Congressional fact finding mission and (1) a stated aim ''prior'' to undermine US foreign policy (2) all the doggie doo Pelosi stepped in when carrying through her threats. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:26, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== WashPost Editorial ==

Um, you know, posting the WP editorial in its entirety probably goes beyond the bounds of "fair use" and into the land of copyright violation. Maybe it should be excerpted instead? (especially since it has a link to the full editorial for anyone who wants to read it...) --[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 13:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:*LOL. Sorry, it is fair game. But nice try. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 18:20, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::I don't claim to be an expert, nor do I want to belabor the point, but reproducing a copyrighted work ''in full'' is almost certainly a violation.--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 14:48, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

*Well, thanks for your concern. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 09:00, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:::As someone who has worked in the journalism industry, WJ Thomas is right. Fair use allows for reproducing a couple of paragraphs. You CANNOT reprint a editorial in full unless you have the express permission of the originiator of the material. Proper procedure online is to have a graph or two and then link to where the original material is located.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 09:26, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Indeed. For that matter, it's also a violation of CP's Commandments. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 09:28, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

*We have actually been over this elsewhere. Most publications exempt their Editorials from the ususal. In this case I actually asked the Editor, before using it. Please try to be less imperious, it isn't friendly. As an Administrator here, I really don't need to be reminded of the Commandments, but I thank you for your dedication. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 06:26, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

==Photo==
You sure that photo was for the meeting with Assad? I thought it came from the Saudi leg of the trip, where she probably did run into more a traditional, conservative, fundemental Islamic society, in which case she is to be commended for taking her revolutionary ideological hat off. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:11, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:The photo was taken while she visited a mosque in Syria.http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2007-04/04/content_843088.htm --[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 16:38, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

::So it's incorrect to say she was dressed to visit Assad? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:43, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

::Also, I thought women couldn't go into mosques? How does a non-beleiver get an exemptions? I guess it shows what a woman worth $90 million can purchase for herself, huh? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:44, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Apparently they can, as the article mentions other (Syrian) women inside the mosque. It also says that Pelosi visited a tomb said to contain the head of John the Baptist, which is interesting in that I didn't know such a place existed...--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 18:47, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

*As I said it, so it was. She met with Assad before or after the mosque deal. Please contact me Rob. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 06:23, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Article/photo of the Pelosi-Assad meeting (note lack of head covering): http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=34c601f1-6c22-4b09-af24-9786caa71bf9&k=25613--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 09:30, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:*I suggest you spend your time doing constructive edits and creating pages, rather than arguing items like this. Notice the same suit? Have you seen the photos of her arrival for the meeting? Leaving it? Have you gotten someone at the Speakers office to run it down for you? No. I didn't think so. I get suspcicious of people who stop to argue things like this. I hope I am wrong. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 09:35, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Not trying to be a pain, just trying to help make Conservapedia an accurate and trustworthy research tool. Meanwhile, I'm working on edits online and creating larger pages offline. And if you'd rather I just keep my mouth shut when I see errors, I can do that, too.--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 18:42, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::*Well, I think you know the answer. Or should. Of course no one wants you to "just keep your mouth shut". Certain things I check out before I do them. Because of my access and background, I just pick up the phone and ask. Is it important to the integrity of this project as to if the Speaker was snapped entering or leaving the Mosque? No. Is it important to the integrity of this project as to exactly when the Speaker removed, wore again, and removed again, her scarf? No. Did the speaker, within a 24 hour period wear a scarf in difference to their religion, or hers? Yes. Does it bother me? No. I think it common courtesy if she did so. Is the press making itself look even more inane and marginalizing itself once again, in making this an issue? Yes. Is it silly for editors to pick at such things, merely because they self-identify as members of the press? Yes. As it wasn't that important, I did revert the copy attached to the picture. But when seeing several dozen such discussions in a day, is my patience and tact impacted to the negative side? Yes. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 18:43, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Legislation? Life before Congress? ==

Nothing. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 18:19, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

==Harry Hay==

Wait--so Pelosi is some sorta child-molester symp because she was in a parade that also happened to have some other old pervert? That's really really really weak, even for this place. (Double Wait--Grandpa Walton was gay???)--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 10:21, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
:This isn't any old pervert, this is the widely recognized Granddaddy of the organized [[gay rights]] movement in the United States. And his longtime membership the [[CPUSA]] & NAMBLA is of historic interest to students of Progressive activism. The commonality of views with other Progressive leaders and activists such as Nancy Pelosi is not just incidental or coincidence. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:41, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
::I understand who H.H. is. What I'm saying is, his mere presence in the parade doesn't say anything (factual or otherwise) about Pelosi. If being in the same parade makes her a suspected commie and pedophile, it would also make commies and pedos out of Borders Books & Music, ROTC-San Francisco, the San Francisco SPCA, KKSF 103.7 FM, the Anti Defamation League, the San Francisco Fire Department, Golden Gate Bridge Director Joseph Blue, Most Holy Redeemer Parish, the Triangle Tae Kwon Do Club, and American Legion Post 448, all of whom were also in the parade along with Hay, Pelosi, and 175 or so other groups/individuals.--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 12:33, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Borders Books & Music, ROTC-San Francisco, the San Francisco SPCA, KKSF 103.7 FM, the Anti Defamation League, the San Francisco Fire Department, Golden Gate Bridge Director Joseph Blue, Most Holy Redeemer Parish, the Triangle Tae Kwon Do Club, and American Legion Post 448 are not Speaker of the US House of Representatives, a Constiutional Office third in line of succession to the Presidency. And after Bush & Cheney get [[impeachment|impeached]], it will be too late to discover the politcal base of support that created Nancy Pelosi. Call it [[full disclosure]]. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:48, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

All righty, then. Of course, if that's the standard, perhaps you should add a NAMBLA disclosure to the Rudy Giuliani entry, 'cuz he's done the same thing (marched in "gay pride" parades with NAMBLA).--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 21:35, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
:Giuliani marched with the "founder of the gay movement in America" [http://bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/documents/02511115.htm] in this cite compared with Thomas Jefferson, [[Emma Goldman]], and Rosa Parks? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:16, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
::Worse than that--he marched directly behind the NAMBLA float in NYC's gay pride parade, right past St. Pat's. And he's proud to be a supporter and honorary member of the Stonewall Vets Association (Stonewall being the riots that kicked the modern gay rights movement into high gear).--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 23:07, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You're still mixing apples and oranges. Harry Hay is the Rosa Parks of gay liberation, and you are discussing something entirely different. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:19, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
::::How is it entirely different? Pelosi appears in the same parade as a guy who's a gay liberation forefather and NAMBLA supporter (though not a member). Giuliani appears in a parade with a whole bunch of ''actual'' NAMBLA members, and joins up and hangs out repeatedly and proudly with a whole ''crowd'' of gay lib founders/activists (the Malcolm X's of the movement, if you will), and even rides on their float to lead the parade, and becomes an official member of their group to boot. If anything, Rudy's transgression (if we can call it that) is worse than Pelosi's...--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 13:34, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::We don't know if Hay is a member or not. If NAMBLA has a whole series of his material on their website, who is in what position to who here? The history shows there would be no NAMBLA, i.e., an above ground organized movement, or as CPUSA members call it, the "open party" engaged in organizational and politcal activity. And it is absoltulely clear that NAMBLA does much more than advocate issues of "sexual freedom". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:57, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::I'm not disputing that they're a bunch of lowlife sleazemeisters. I'm just saying that if it's wrong for Pelosi to associate with them, it's equally wrong for Giuliani (and that the same sort of informational disclosure should be in his entry here).--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 15:57, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Let's see a cite. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:58, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Sure: "This year’s ("gay pride") parade, however, in one respect, was different. In the caravan marched the Republican candidate for mayor, Rudy Giuliani....Rudy marched just behind the float of the North-American Man-Boy Love Association." Patrick Buchanan, NYPost, 7/17/1993
:::::::::Buchanan plays the NAMBLA card again. I'll do a lexis-nexis. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:29, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

*I see, too, that the entry sez Pelosi marched "along with" Harry Hay. The cites show the parade lineup: Hay, then The SF LGBT Community Center Project, Team San Francisco (whatever that is), the San Francisco Fog Rugby Football Club (I'm bettin' that's some wild scrum!), "Healing Waters", and ''then'' Pelosi. Intentional or not, the sentence above makes it sounds like she was at Hay's side, hand in hand, when in reality it would seem that they wouldn't even have been able to see each other. --[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 20:14, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

This all sounds like character assassination.

==All Quarters==

A)"All quarters" implies conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats--Pelosi was criticized by one side (the right), not both/all. B)Yah, Murdoch's NYPost is conservative, the Washington Post editorial page has become increasingly conservative, and the Philadelphia Inquirer (note spelling) piece is not an editorial, but a commentary by a conservative columnist.--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 22:38, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:No one as best I can determine defended Pelosi (no one other than her '''extreme''' liberal base). Even Pelosi backtracked. The cite says, "Our message was President Bush’s message". [http://www.kxmb.com/getARticle.asp?ArticleId=111801] What, pray tell, does this mean? Pelosi ''agrees'' with Bush's foreign policy? Pelosi was out promoting Bush's foreign policy? Of course she had to say it in Portugal, and not here, cause she'd be skewered by her own base for furthing Bush's efforts to destroy the planet and civilization as we know it. But she knew by the time she got to Portugal what a colossal farce this trip had been, and had to go on record somewhere disclaiming her actions. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:46, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::1) Dems of all stripes defended Pelosi (not just the the "extreme liberal" ones), '''and''' some ''Republicans''(!) did, too. 2)"Our message was Bush's message" clearly means that Pelosi didn't say anything contrary to administration policy or to embarrass the president. Or, to phrase it another way, she and the president are on the same page. She continued, "It became clear to President Assad that even though we have our differences in the United States, there is no division between the president and the Congress and the Democrats on the message we wanted him to receive." 3) She said this in Portugal not because she was trying to hide, but because that's where she was when the reporter reached her by telephone. --[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 23:16, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Gimme a cite ''after the Washington Post editorial was published'' of a Democrat (outside her base) that defended her. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:05, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::::April 09, investment banker, respected diplomat, Council on Foreign Relations board member (including chairman of its Terrorism Task Force), semi-hawkish Dem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMTNKwqXpoc --[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 08:15, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

==See Also?==

Maybe I'm missing something--what do Lorena Ochoa and Ségolène Royal have to do with Pelosi?--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 23:16, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:I second the motion to remove. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:05, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:*They could possibly be Democrats, who support Pelosi, however since there isn't any mention of them in the article, I think the editor, WJThomas, should possibly explain......--[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:22, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

==Gay Rights and Abortion==

Should these maybe be separate headings, or is the plan to tie them together somehow? It's a little confusing as it stands.--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 20:14, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

*She's a well known sodomite. All will reveal in good time. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:18, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Wow. that seems a little harsh. Care to provide some information backing up that claim or are you just relying on character attacks? Gotta love the fairness of the sysops.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 18:09, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

LOL --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:36, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==My Most Humble Edits==

A new Pelosi paragraph shows up, and it has some issues—typos, grammar mistakes, unsupported factual assertions, incomplete information. I spend a few minutes cleaning it up, and doing so in a way that (I thought) was completely “fair and balanced”, as they say. But [[User:TK|TK]] reverts the whole enchilada with nary a how-do-you-do, and then locks the article as if I’m vandalizing or somesuch. So let’s go over said edits in the interest of full disclosure:

[[User:RobS|RobS]] wrote: “In may 2007 Pelosi stuck in a $25 million pork project that would benefit her rich husband, Paul Pelosi, in the Water Resources Development Act. The project involves renovating ports near four separate commercial real estate properties near owned by Paul Pelosi and will significantly boost the property values.”
*I changed “may” to “May”, as proper nouns should be capitalized. No clue why that should be reverted.
*I added a comma after “2007”. Ditto.
*I added in the source of the earmark request, the Port and mayor of SanFran, which happens to be fact (according to the cited National Review article). The original sentence made it sound as if the earmark was completely Pelosi’s idea, which is not the case. Even assuming that Pelosi agreed to the request solely to increase her riches, it’s still a fact that it was not (apparently) her idea. To suggest otherwise is [[deceit]].
*I changed “pork project” to “earmark”. “Pork project” is a loaded term, a value judgement—one person’s pork project is another’s vital economic development—so I went with the more neutral “earmark”. In addition, the previous paragraph had already noted that “earmarks” are often a source of corruption, so the reader understands that “Pelosi’s earmark” may equal “corruption”.
*I added “Republicans charge” before “would benefit her rich husband”. “…''(W)ould'' benefit is a factual assertion, one that is impossible to support. “Republicans charge…” is more accurate (as that’s what’s going on here). I’d also accept “conservatives charge…”, or “some charge…”, or drop the “Republicans charge…” and change “would’ to “could”.
*I removed “rich” modifying “husband”, because A) it’s extraneous (we already know the Pelosis are rich), B) it’s irrelevant to the issue, C) it comes across as pejorative (is it wrong to be rich?).
*I added “$15billion” in front of the name of the bill, because that’s the size of the bill, and to give some sense of scale to the earmark.
*In the portion, “…project involves renovating ports near four separate commercial real estate properties…”, I changed “near” to “only a mile”. “Near” is nebulous, unclear—how near is “near”? In this case, “near” is a mile or so. I first considered just “a mile”, but then added “only” to try to keep within the spirit of the original.
*Later in the same sentence, I also removed a second “near” that was clearly placed there in error (“…''near'' four separate commercial real estate properties ''near'' owned by Paul Pelosi.”—makes no sense). Again, no need to revert that.
*Changed “will” to “may” in, “will significantly boost the property values.” As above (see “would”), an unsupportable factual assertion.
*At the end of the paragraph, I changed “Pelosi’s” to “Pelosis” (plural, not possessive). Once again, no reason to revert spelling/grammar errors.

In addition, the article could/should note (if you want to make Pelosi sound more craven) that, A) the Pelosis increased their SF real estate holdings in December, perhaps in anticipation of her Speakership (and therefore the ability to get the previously-rejected earmark passed), and B) new House ethics rules (pushed by Pelosi) require sponsors of earmarks to sign a statement saying they will not personally benefit from said earmark (which Pelosi did), and that the nature of the controversy is “whether she acted properly when she certified that she had no financial interest in the waterfront redevelopment project, given the possibility, however speculative, that it could cause the value of her husband’s property to rise.” Both points are in the cited article, and would bring clarity to that section of the entry.--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 12:22, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

*''the source of the earmark request, the Port and mayor of SanFran''
:Going into the relationship between the mayor of San Fransisco & the San Fransisco's highest ranking member of its Congressional delegation may be somewhat extraneous, but it could be done if necessary.
*Pork is what is is.
*''Republicans charge''
:This is AP reporting; we are not AP.
*Given it is the rich responsible for all the worlds problems, from oppressing minimum wage workers to Halliburton starting the war in Iraq, this is an extremely important point. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:15, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
::*The Mayor/Pelosi relationship may be extraneous, but the fact that the Port and Mayor made the original request is not.
::*AP is '''reporting''' ''Republican charges''.--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 17:45, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:::That's right. We are not AP. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:47, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
::::I'm not picking up what you're throwing down...--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 21:10, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== Re: “not one author” ==

Look at the article—how many authors does it have?
Now if you like your characterization better—that’s fine, but don’t try to justify your edits by mischaracterizing the facts. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:28, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:One man's earmark is another mans pork. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:33, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
::I see three problems with this--
:::This is a total non sequitur and it fails to respond to my point. It even manages to be about a totally different edit.
:::The article says earmark—not pork—find an article that says pork and I won’t touch it, but since the author being used as an authority here chose to call it an earmark that’s what the article here should say.
:::Pork is spending for the sake of spending alone—like a bridge to no where—the article suggests that this spending is something that actually provide some real benefit, suggesting it is not actually pork (but see point two above, find a source that calls it pork, properly attribute it and I won’t complain)
::--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:44, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Pork benefits the home state of district, depending if your Senator or House member. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:05, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
::::You are still not responding to the substance of my post—and are not responding at all to the initial post.
::::Not all earmarks are pork. Pork is spending that is a benefit '''only''' to a representative’s district. If a representative comes from a district where they make Kevlar vests and he/she earmarks millions to buy vests from that factory for the military, it is an earmark and is not pork (assuming the military needs those vests). --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 16:49, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::This goes beyond benefiting the district. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:11, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Then it isn’t pork.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 17:33, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::So a conflict of interest that benefits the district can be aptly described as pork. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:43, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Any funding from the Federal level that benefits only the constituents of the Senator(s)/Representative(s) responsible for that funding can be fairly described as pork.
::::::I would say that whether or not there is a conflict of interest is irrelevant to determining if funding is pork or not (For example, a Representative could earmark $1 million to fund a museum to corn in his district, and that would be pork whether or not the Representative, or his family or friends, had any direct financial stake in the funding).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 18:06, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

==More to Add ==
Hi. I have a couple of suggestions for this article (the page is locked so I can't do it myself). 1)Shortly after becoming speaker, Nancy demanded use of a bigger and better aircraft than Dennis Hastert had used. http://www.washtimes.com/national/20070201-122225-1157r.htm 2)Some time back, Nancy was nailed by the FEC for campaign contribution violations of some sort (I don't recall the exact details, but I guess she was trying to buy friends in order to become Speaker, and apparently it worked).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:53, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
:It's unlocked. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:00, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

== Bad editing. ==
I just noticed that someone corrected the spelling of San Francisco in this article, but it was reverted back to the improper spelling.[[User:Jtime|Jtime]] 16:29, 22 June 2007 (EDT)