Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Professor values

2008-07-02T18:42:53Z

Lgm:

'''Professor values''' refer to the common value system embraced by a large percentage of [[professor]]s, just as [[Hollywood values]] refers to the common value system of many in [[Hollywood]]. The term Professor values seems to have been invented by Conservapedia. Google and Yahoo search on keywords "Professor" and "values" turns up little but the Conservapedia article and commentary on it.

An extremely high percentage of professors disagree with [[conservative]] principles.<ref>"90 percent of United States professors called themselves liberal or moderate .[http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol3/iss1/art2/]</ref><ref> [http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=s1153nnhjkhr407r6ng6gjg8pvc8g2s8]</ref> Professors' common value system typically includes [[atheism]],<ref>For example, the vast majority of philosophy professors are [[atheists]], even after an alleged uptick in [[faith]] [http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=s1153nnhjkhr407r6ng6gjg8pvc8g2s8]</ref> [[censorship]], [[socialism]], unjustified claims of expertise and knowledge (for example, the dogmatic promotion of the [[Theory of Evolution|theory of evolution]]),<ref>For example, a $100,000 "environmental" prize was awarded for work on a [[politically correct]] "theory of convergent evolution." [http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2008/4/4/briefBiologyProfAwardedEnvironmentalAchievementPrize]</ref> [[liberаl]] beliefs,<ref>"90 percent of professors called themselves liberal or moderate." [http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=s1153nnhjkhr407r6ng6gjg8pvc8g2s8]</ref> [[liberal grading]], [[liberal bias]],<ref>http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2005/08/26/johnson</ref> anti-patriotism, lack of productivity, [[bullying]] or discouraging [[conservative]] students (for example, homeschoolers),<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/21/AR2008032101451.html</ref><ref>http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/news/488/NCliberalbiasagnstcons060104.htm</ref> and promotion of sexual immorality.<ref>http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2001/oct_2001_4.html</ref><ref>http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/1998/october_1998_1.html</ref>
In a Zogby poll, 58% of [[Americans]] said that the bias of professors is a serious problem, while 39% said it is a "very serious" problem.<ref name="zogby">http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1334</ref> The survey demonstrated further that "an overwhelming majority also believe that job security for college professors leaves them less motivated to do a good job than those professors who do not enjoy a tenured status - 65% said they believe non-tenured professors are more motivated to do a good job in the classroom."<ref name="zogby" /> One study in 2008 found that "[[Texas]] university professors overwhelmingly favor
[[Democratic]] candidates in their campaign contributions."<ref>http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5753471.html</ref>

Professors sometimes engage in wrongdoing while completing research. "About 1,000 potential incidents of fabrication, falsification or plagiarism in scientific research go unreported every year, according to a survey that suggests such misconduct is far more prevalent than suspected. ... 22 percent was by a professor or senior scientist."<ref>http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601124&sid=aYFanemP24yM&refer=home</ref>

Faculty boards have been known to (on multiple occasions) block the granting of a tenured professorship to candidates for tenure who:

* criticize the [[theory of evolution]]<ref>"As reported last week, two members of the department that denied tenure to astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez at Iowa State University (ISU) have publicly admitted that Gonzalez's work on intelligent design played a role in his denial of tenure." [http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/05/iowa_state_avoids_key_question.html]</ref>
* criticize [[feminism]] and/or [[abortion]]
* oppose the [[homosexual agenda]]

Professors wore white armbands to protest an award of an honorary degree to a [[conservative]].<ref>http://publicbroadcasting.net/kwmu/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=1279565&sectionID=1</ref> More than 100 professors signed a letter to protest a proposal to honor a [[conservative]]-leaning [[Nobel Prize]]-winning colleague.<ref>http://bourdaghs.com/blog.html?p=484</ref>

Politicians, especially [[liberal]] ones, are routinely given high-ranking academic positions. Examples include:

* [[Al Gore]]<ref>Beginning early in 2001, "Gore will be [at UCLA] to develop a new curriculum for family-centered community building, a multidisciplinary approach that brings together authorities from such fields as education, business and public policy to work on problems that ail our society and affect our children. ... He also will be teaching at three other universities - Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism, Middle Tennessee State University in Murfreesboro and Fisk University in Nashville - in addition to his teaching and research work at UCLA." [http://spotlight.ucla.edu/special-guests/al-gore_teach/]</ref>
*[[Michael Dukakis]]
*[[Gary Hart]]
*[[Bob Kerrey]]
* [[Tony Blair]]
*[[Tom Kean]]

`

== Crimes by Professors ==
* At Northern Kentucky University, language and literature professor Sally Jacobsen incited some of her students to vandalize a pro-life display by Northern Right to Life, the campus pro-life group. Jacobsen herself also participated in the vandalism, which involved destroying rows of white crosses symbolizing the graves of aborted children. Jacobsen justified the vandalism as free speech, stating, "I did, outside of class during the break, invite students to express their freedom-of-speech rights to destroy the display if they wished to." Jacobsen was unrepentant until given the choice of facing criminal charges of theft, criminal mischief and criminal solicitation or apologizing. Jacobsen chose the latter and also paid Northern Right to Life for damage to the display. Jacobsen was suspended by the university and subsequently retired.<ref>http://www.lifenews.com/state3207.html</ref>

* "A [[South Korea]]n court Monday sentenced a former university art professor to 18 months in jail for forging her [[US]] degree certificates, officials said. The Seoul District Criminal Court found Shin Jeong-Ah guilty of forging undergraduate and master's degrees from the [[University of Kansas]] and [[Yale University]] to secure a job at Seoul's Dongguk university."<ref>http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jCfPQ1_mqM2VaXzQUSy-mXwQIvXQ</ref>

* [[Villanova University]] professor Edward R. Ritter was arrested on March 21, 2008, and charged with selling marijuana to undercover police officers, and a subsequent search of his home uncovered 19 bags of marijuana.<ref>http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/pa/20080322_Villanova_professor_arrested_on_drug_charges.html</ref>

* Kansas State University English professor Thomas Murray was a popular teacher, but he was convicted of murdering his ex-wife with 17 stab wounds and blunt trauma to her head. She "was found dead in her bedroom atop a dresser."<ref name="ctv">http://www.courttv.com/trials/murray/backgrounder_ctv.html</ref> Professor Murray had written several books, including "The Language of Sadomasochism."<ref name="ctv" /> He did not testify in his defense and spoke only at sentencing, where he called the state's case a "fairy tale."<ref>http://www.kansaspublicradio.org/newsstory.php?itemID=5892</ref>

* Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine Anatomy associate professor Peter Alan Rogers, 59, was arrested on Apr. 21, 2008 on a charge of possession of child pornography on a school laptop computer.<ref>http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/gwinnett/stories/2008/04/24/professor_0425.html</ref>

* Shortly after the end of the school year and his contract, Marshall University Psychiatry associate professor John M. Adams burglarized and murdered Bobby Burns on July 2, 2003, and then kidnapped two women and forced them to drive him across the Ohio River.<ref>http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/07/29/loc_ohprofessor29.html</ref>

* University of South Florida professor Sami al-Arian pled guilty to "aiding a terrorist group" and was "sentenced to 57 months in prison."<ref name="nysun">http://www.nysun.com/article/72228</ref><ref>http://www.mysuncoast.com/Global/story.asp?S=7961089&nav=menu577_2_1</ref> He then "spent more than a year in civil contempt after refusing to appear before two grand juries investigating Islamic charities in Northern Virginia."<ref name="nysun">

* Claremont McKenna College visiting professor Kerri Dunn was sentenced to a year in state prison after she was found guilty of staging a phony [[hate crime]], in which she "spray-painted her car with racist and anti-Semitic slurs and then reported a hate crime on campus."<ref>http://www.knbc.com/education/3998600/detail.html</ref>

* University of Hawaii professor Marc Fossorier was arrested and later convicted and sentenced to one year in jail for attempting a sex crime with a girl apparently only 15 years old.<ref>http://kgmb9.com/main/content/view/4582/40/</ref>

* A [[New Jersey]] Cumberland County College professor "was arrested on charges of harassment, trespassing and stalking."<ref>http://www.thedailyjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080305/NEWS01/80305019/1002</ref>

* University of Central Florida political science professor Michael Shawn Reichert was arrested for having "a stash of more than 100 child pornography pictures on his work computer," "plus three pornographic movies."<ref>http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_local_orlandocrime/2007/07/ucf-professor-a.html</ref>

* [[University of Wisconsin]] adjunct professor Victor M. Zamudio-Taylor resigned after being charged with viewing child-pornography in a campus computer laboratory.<ref>http://badgerherald.com/news/2002/03/19/uwmilwaukee_professo.php</ref>

* A [[British]] university professor was jailed for ten months for plotting to defraud a hospital trust. <ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20010626/ai_n14398964</ref>

* [[French]] [[Marxist]] [[structuralist]] [[philosopher]] Professor [[Louis Althusser]] (1918-1990) killed his wife in 1980 and was afterwards confined to a psychiatric hospital.

* Professor Daniel Storm, of the University of Washington, flushed 4 litres of the flammable solvent ethyl ether down the sink, rather than pay the safe disposal fees. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jim Oesterle said that his using an axe to open the containers was particularly dangerous because a spark could easily have ignited the ether. <ref>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003607035_uwprof08m0.html</ref>

* An Associate Professor at Youngstown State University was locked up and fined $50 after baring his buttocks in front of children at a county fair. <ref>http://www.thejambar.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticlePrinterFriendly&uStory_id=38283b71-1223-4e85-929f-ba0f932d5366</ref>

* Philosophy Professor [[Abimael Guzman]] of the National University of San Cristobal de Huamanga in [[Peru]] founded the bloodthirsty [[Shining Path]] organisation, one of the most violent terrorist groups of recent decades.

== Immoral, Unethical or Bizarre Behavior ==

*Emory University History Professor of History [[Michael Bellesiles]], a [[gun control]] advocate, wrote a book entitled ''Arming America, The Origins of a National Gun Culture'' (2000). Gary Wills gave it a glowing review in ''The New York Times'', but admitted later that "I was took. The book is a fraud."<ref>Jonah Goldberg, [http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/guests/s_501644.html ''Reports of the 2nd Amendment's death have been greatly exaggerated ...''] Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Apr. 8, 2007.</ref> Bellesiles resigned from his position as Professor of History when an independent committee of scholars examined his work and concluded that "his scholarly integrity is seriously in question."<ref>http://hnn.us/articles/1069.html</ref>

*According to one columnist, 88 Duke professors -- more than 10 percent of the Duke professorial faculty - endorsed and published an advertisement hurtful to students who had been wrongly accused of rape during a lacrosse team party, which "helped create the lynch-mob atmosphere."<ref>http://www.nypost.com/seven/03232007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/duke__who_wont_pay_opedcolumnists_john_podhoretz.htm</ref>

* When student Rebecca Beach circulated an email at Warren Community College in New Jersey disclosing that decorated Iraq war hero Lt. Col. Scott Rutter would be visiting, English professor John Daly replied: "Real freedom will come when soldiers in Iraq turn their guns on their superiors."<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47461</ref>

*Ward Churchill was fired from the University of Colorado for fabricating his research and for plagiarizing the work of others.--[[User:Goodman|Goodman]] 13:27, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

*Richard Lenski of Michigan State University was rude and demeaning when replying to a member of the public who asked about his research.--[[User:Goodman|Goodman]] 18:05, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

* When challenged to provide data, professors who support evolution evade the question [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog#Lead_author_won.27t_answer_simple.2C__basic_questions]

*Madonna Constantine, a Columbia University professor claimed she was the victim of racism in the fall of 2007 when a noose was found on her office door. Now she has been fired for plagiarizing the work of other professors and even her own students! [http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/25/plagiarism.professor/]

== References ==

<references/>

== Sources ==

* [http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/tables/dt07_178.asp?referrer=list National Center for Educational Statistics, "Table 178, Historical Summary of faculty, students, degrees, and finances in degree-granting institutions: Selected years, 1869-70 through 2005-06"]

[[Category:Academics]]
[[Category:Liberals]]

Talk:Professor values

2008-06-24T00:49:16Z

Lgm:

There are several things about this page that damage its credibility. It says that no professor who opposed abortion can get tenure, which is plainly not true since many have. One example is the famous conservative blogge Glen Reynolds of Instapundit.

Now professors do have faults -- they can be selfish and even commit murder from time to time (especially Professor Faust). For every possible character flaw there is a professor with it. But as a group professors are more opposed to censorship than any other group in the world (except possibly pornographers?).

And "liberal grading" does not mean giving liberals high grades and conservatives low ones. It means giving everyone a high grade without regard to political orientation or work quality level.

As for evolution: it would be hard for a biologist who doesn't believe in evolution to get tenure because it is impossible to do first rate research in biology without believing in evolution. For example, suppose you're trying to figure out how molecular motors work. If you believe in intelligent design, you consider all kinds of mechanisms that have no evolutionary pathway.

Then there's calling my edit "inappropriate" without saying what about it is inappropriate-- lgm

I think that it is inappropriate to have "crimes by professors" and "immoral, unethical, and bizarre behavior" in this entry. Either have a separate entry, or remove it entirely. Professors have good values too, they are not all completely immoral people who are self-centered and ignorant. -- Aaronp

Why do my edits keep getting reverted? I made factual edits, removing the absolutes that simply aren't true from the article. I have no problem not editing the rest, because obviously removing "Crimes committed by professors" and "Immoral and Unethical Behavior" from an article on professor values is just wrong, but the edits I made about tenure are factually correct. I have helped multiple tenure boards, and I know for a fact that not every single academic institution in the United states, let alone the world, completely dismisses a candidate based on their views on feminism, abortion, and homosexuality. Mind you, tenure confers essentially complete protection from being prosecuted for any sort of indiscretion, so keeping people with strong biases out of tenure is a good thing. I once saw a review board reject a man for tenure because he accidentally blurted out that "all those kids protesting the war should be forced into service" because they "aren't contributing to society". This was an obvious bias he had, and because it was an extreme one he was rejected for tenure. At the same time, however, I've seen a woman who was criticizing feminist values receive tenure, because she presented her thoughts in a clear, precise, and very educated way. Anyone who criticizes a set of values or an action in a biased or bigoted manner obviously isn't going to receive tenure.

Also, the reason that people who criticize evolution often don't receive tenure is because evolution has almost reached dogma-like acceptance in the scientific community. I don't want to get into a debate about evolution, but because it is so accepted, anyone seen criticizing it without scientific proof is generally regarded as not following scientific method. History may vindicate those people who do criticize evolution now, but until then, people will continue to not receive tenure based on their criticisms.

All I want for this page is to remove the absolutes. Not every institution will outright reject a person for their views on feminism, abortion, or homosexuality. It simply is not true. And because this is supposed to be an educational encyclopedia with conservative values, I believe that the information contained within should be accurate. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]

..does [[Richard Dawkins|Dawkins]] fall into this category as well? For example, ''"Liberal politicians are routinely given high-ranking academic positions despite a lack of a doctorate."'' [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:03, 8 March 2008 (EST)
:No, because he's not a politician, and he does have a doctorate (two, actually, I think). And since you bring it up...Gary Hart also has a doctorate. And, while Dukakis only has a Harvard law degree, his academic work has been in fields where he can most reasonably be considered an expert (public policy). The same can be said of Al Gore (and his have hardly been "high-ranking academic positions"--"visiting" professorships, and non-credit courses). And, finally, Kerrey is an administrator, not an academic.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 20:35, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
::He's not a politician, but he is an [[atheistic]] (and [[liberal]]) figurehead. And I wouldn't be too certain about those doctorates; [[Richard_Dawkins#Position_at_Oxford|it's debatable whether Dawkins is even a real professor]]. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 00:10, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
:I removed Hart and Kerrey as examples of "liberal politicians (who) are routinely given high-ranking academic positions despite a lack of a doctorate", because (as noted above), Hart has a doctorate, and Kerrey is an administrator (not an academic).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:18, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
::I don't know enough about those politicians in particular to confirm your edits, but your reasoning sounds legitimate. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:33, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
:::Alternately, I suppose, one could add Hart/Kerrey back to the list and change the wording of the defining phrase to something like, "...given university positions over better-qualified candidates."--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:46, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
::Actually, yes, I agree with that. These examples certainly shouldn't be removed on a technicality or a meaningless distinction when the point still stands; changing the wording of the phrase is a much better idea. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 20:56, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

== What is this about? ==

'''What?''' Another article based on an '''unheard-of phrase''' plucked out of the air? This certainly does not look like an encyclopedia article - cf. [[Hollywood values]], [[Liberal friendship]], [[Second generation atheist]], [[Liberal grading]], [[Embraced deceit]], etc. None of these belongs in an encyclopedia. Apart from anything else, who on earth is likely to look up a phrase like "professor values"? Shouldn't an encyclopedia consist of articles on topics that users are likely to look for, not on opinion pieces by its editor-in-chief? What point are you trying to make, exactly? Who is the target of this latest attack? This is the sort of thing I would expect from a blog or a hate-based website, not from a family-friendly and '''trustworthy''' encyclopedia. This sort of thing is making Conservapedia look ridiculous. Or would you like articles on [[Doctor values]], [[Taxi-driver values]] and [[Lawyer values]] as well? If so, I'd be happy to draft them for you! There must be lots to be said about the misdemeanors of all sorts of groups. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:15, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

: I agree that this kind of article could bring legitimate criticism against CP. The major premises are not documented. While some contributers to this article, including those who have made those assertions, say that it is a work in progress and welcome others to document the supposed many examples, there are a pitiful few, some old, some from other countries, and some for extremely prevalent crimes of marijuana possession. I took a long time to find the best possible supporting source for educational stats, and my guess is that the more than 1,200,000 professors currently working in colleges and universities are responsible for a disproportionately SMALL number of crimes. Until I find statistical support for that statement, I won't post it in the article.

: For a collaborative resource like this, I believe it is imperative that any contributor making an assertion, especially critical ones (as opposed to trivia, added dates, etc. -- which ideally should be supported, too), document them appropriately. If not, that sends a poor message to other contributors, editors, and sysops -- to say nothing of users, potential users, and CP critics. It is hardly the kind of example to provide for home-schooled kids learning about proper scholarship. I have looked and looked and find no reliable studies that support the argument that professors are more likely than anybody else to do bad things. Also, no evidence that liberal professors are worse than conservative ones. There are news and blog reports that repeat certain cases, but unless one does an exhaustive search, no conclusions can be drawn. If this article remains, then there should be additional coverage for politicians, clergy, other professions, etc. and they should include misdeeds by conservatives and liberals alike, according to the actual data. Leaving out crimes by conservatives does no one a service. I understand that this is a conservative encyclopedia, but some traits of it purportedly include truthfulness (I'd argue that it is dishonest to tell only partial truths), and to avoid misrepresentation and sensationalism. [[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 8:26, 27 March 2008 (CDT)

== Head's up - this isn't as simple as it may seem ==

As I was doing some admittedly "Google-esque" research, I did find that there are well over 4000 colleges and universities and probably many more than 1,250,000 current faculty. If we work backwards a generation or two, the number increases, of course, which makes it difficult to substantiate the claim that professors are disproportionately likely to commit crimes or other misdeeds, especially if all we cite are fewer than 20 examples of such misdeeds. Looking at campus statistics, many more campus crimes (by far) were committed by students, to say nothing about the many thousands of crimes committed by the general public. So I started doing some informal Google searches for crimes committed by different professions, using -- for lack of a more efficient search method -- "professor arrested," "faculty arrested," etc. along with other professional categories. Combining "faculty" or "professor" and "crime" didn't work well (too many useless hits).
The highest, in that combination alone, was "teacher" (over 190,000 hits), but "mayor" still had more hits (over 27,000) than "faculty" or "professor" (about 14,000). Unfortunately, hits for "pastor," "minister," and "priest," added up to an uncomfortably high number, over 100,000, but then again, if we don't know how many pastors, etc. are out there, we have no percentage to compare them with faculty or other groups. My methodology is rudimentary, but I didn't see any demographic or statistical reports that covered this topic. So, unless we can document this so-called high rate of crime among faculty, perhaps the article should remain mute on the number, relative to other professions. After seeing some statistics about the correlation between educational level and prison population, it also seems like the prison population is much more likely to have no or little education. There are very few PhDs in prisons. Likewise, after seeing these figures, I would guess that the more one is educated, the less likely one is to get felonies or misdemeanors.

So, my question is: do any other contributors to this article have any data at all on this? Is it only anecdotal? If facts can't be documented, then they don't belong in these articles. Especially if the article is questioning the integrity of professors, including their intellectual integrity (like the Korean scientist who established his reputation on cooked data - about which I can find documentation), this article's information should be sound. It is still full of undocumented assertions and sensationalism. [[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 8:01, 27 March 2008 (CDT)

== Tony Blair ==

Huh? How is this not relevant to the article? He has no doctorate, he has been appointed to teach at Yale and he is a liberal politician. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:19, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

: That appears simply to be a guest lecture appointment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:42, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:: You mean just like Al Gore?--[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:54, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::: Since you don't seem to mind guest lecturers being added to this list, I will put Tony Blair back.

:::Maybe it was Blair's suppoort for the Iraq War that got him his lecturing position. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 19:46, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Really? ==

I just did a google search, and the first few pages of the 735 results don't have any signinifigance to subject at hand. So, here's my question: Did you just make this term up Andy? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 12:07, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

: There's a great deal of bias out there, DLerner. That's a reason why we're here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:10, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:: Yes, Andy. But the problem is, there's a great deal of bias here too. Are there any articles critical of conservatives on this site? Believe me conservatives aren't perfect. You didn't answer my question, where is the term "Professor values" from? I know there are a lot of stupid people/policies on colleges (just watch the Penn & Teller episode on [[censorship]]) but that isn't the point. Where is the term from? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 12:16, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Why are you critical of a neologism which points out a legitimate area of concern, DLerner? Examine the case studies, and perhaps you will appreciate why this article is a necessary one. [[User:Koba|Koba]] 12:34, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

::::Koba, the problem with making up a phrase like this is that it's really not meaningful, unless backed up by statistically valid evidence to justify it. Do Charlton Heston and John Wayne fit the profile of "Hollywood Values" as defined here? The examples mentioned in this article are as representative of professors as a category (i.e. a few out of thousands around the world), as they are of males. If this is the encyclopedic standard CP holds to, then I can create a page called "Right-handed values", describing the bad traits of right-handed people and backed by examples of the criminal behavior of some cherry-picked right-handed people, and it would pass muster based on examples like this page that ASchafly endorses.--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:31, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

''The phrase Professor values refers to the lack of morals and values in the culture of college faculties, which is characterized by atheism, censorship, socialism, unjustified claims of expertise and knowledge, advocacy of liberal beliefs, liberal grading, liberal bias, anti-patriotism, plagiarism, false claims of credentials, lack of productivity, and promotion of sexual immorality.''

Has anyone else seen this "phrase" before? I looked for it. If it's a study, it belongs in an essay not in a article. Personally, I think Andy made it up. (It's a nice slogan though...)

If anyone can make up a term then write an article about it, how's this? "The phrase '''Criminal values''' refers to the lack of respect for the law..." [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 12:59, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:Indeed - see my comment under "What is this about?", above - which nobody has seen fit to reply to. The proliferation of these flimsy articles is making a mockery of Conservapedia. The latest such nonsense is [[Liberal drivel]], which I assume is a parody - but it's getting harder and harder to distinguish parody from real content. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:17, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

== Um... ==
This article serves no purpose... It should be an essay or opinion at the very most --[[User:Helps|Helps]] 11:14, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

What '''statistical''' evidence is there in this article of atheism, plagiarism, socialism
, censorship etc. This article makes unfounded claims. [[User:Angband|Angband]] 13:18, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

: Help find the support for those observations. It's not difficult to find. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:47, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
:: That is the wrong way to answer a legitimate question, and does a disservice to the students you want using Conservapedia as a legitimate reference source. When a so-called encyclopedic article makes irrational assertions and offers no cited evidence to support them, people are going to question its validity. Your response, "The supporting evidence is out there, help us to find it.", is basically an endorsement of unacademic postings by biased individuals as long as the bias is conservative, and an insult to the moderates who want a Conservative Encyclopedia to be, well, encyclopedic. My suggestion is that if it's not that hard to find the supporting evidence, then the page should be removed until the author can find it him/herself and post it. I'm sure I'll be accused of "Liberal Denial" or "Liberal Apology", or some other "Liberal ---" behavior that's used in place of an academic response, but fair-minded people need to speak up about this.--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:31, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:I've never been to College in my long life but I must agree. This article is sensationalist tabloidism at its very best. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 13:49, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

== First paragraph of article is not adequately supported ==

I do think the listing of the growing problem of professors misdeeds section in the latter part of the article was very informative.

However, I don't think the footnote in the first paragraph adequately supports the first paragraphs contentions. Is plagiarism truly a professor value? If it is, there is absolutely no support for the contention. I don't think that plagiarism is a common value of professor although there may be certainly instances of it. I have read the scientific fraud in the way of fudging experimental results is a significant problem but I have not heard the same regarding plagiarism. I do know that puffing up ones resume is a significant problem in the USA, however, the contention that professors often do it was not supported.

In short, I think the initial paragraph does not follow the conservapedia commandments in regards to proper citation and support. I don't think it is reasonable to ask the reader to do the research for that is getting the cart before the horse. It is the writers job to support the material.

I do recommend the following conservative website in order to help provide adequate support for the article: Accuracy in Academia at http://www.academia.org/

In the meantime, I suggest the article to be pulled from the popular articles at Conservapedia until adequate support is given and that the article have a citation template put on it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:16, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

: This is a work-in-progress with 24 references already. There have been numerous instances of plagiarism by professors without any punishment, and those citations will be easy to fill in, and I welcome assistance. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:57, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:::It does appear as if liberals are over represented in academia with 90% of professors describing themselves as being liberals or moderates. [http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=s1153nnhjkhr407r6ng6gjg8pvc8g2s8] Therefore, there does appear to be less conservatives in academia. So one would expect there to be more atheist in academia. At the same time , atheism is not a professor value as about 25% of philosophy professors are theist. [http://www.rzim.org/slice/slicetran.php?sliceid=880] In the business and engineering departments the percentage of professors being theist is probably higher given that they are more conservative. In regards to plagiarism being a professor value, many instances of professors committing this act does not necessarily constitute it being a professor value. There are a lot of professors in the USA and abroad so the real question what percentage of professors have engaged in plagiarism. In other words, you can can find many instances of men beating their wives in the United States but is wife beating a "male value"? I don't think it is. Again, it comes down to the percentage issue. So to sum up, I think the opening paragraph needs to be less expansive in its claims or provide additional support. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:47, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:Even if 25% of philosophy professors were theists, wouldn't this still be lower than the rate of theism in the population as a whole? I do agree with your post in that it should be examined by specific departments. At least at my school, some departments, such as Economics and Geography, do not seem particularly liberal, while a number of others clearly are. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:03, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
:::DanH, thank you for your polite and kind reply. I do think that liberal ideology and liberals are over represented in academia. However, to call something a "professor value" or "male value" while a significant portion of the population in question does not share a particular value would be over reaching in my estimation. And I do think, for example, that 25% of a given population not sharing a value would be a significant amount of people and be justification for saying a given characteristic was not a value of the population as a whole. However, you can fairly say that a certain value is over represented in a population as a whole if in fact it is. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:14, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Good cites, Conservative. I've added them. This entry is ranked #1 on Google and is emerging as a significant insight. Professors share a common value system, not unanimously, but in higher percentages of agreement than even some churches. It's enlightening to described the [[professor value]]s and note the harm caused by them. Ideas obviously do have consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
::::: I have a feeling that the majority of the professors at Liberty University might take exception to this article, since by definition these descriptors apply to them. Also, being ranked #1 in this case has more to do with the topic not being recognized as a commonly-used term. If I wrote an article titled "Liberal Klingon Values" it would rank #1 for that search in no time, without being any more relevant.--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:29, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

What constitutes "a relatively high" number of instances of crimes or other misdeeds? Compared to other professions? If so, then we'd need to document those comparisons. If there are over 1,200,000 professors currently active in the US alone, then the total cited cases here is an extremely small 0.00125% of that population, about 1.25 evildoers per 100,000 faculty -- and some cited were from former generations or from other countries. Given stats from the National Center for Educational Statistics, the total population of professors would easily be in the multiple millions (depending how far back we'd want to go), making the percentage of the population amazingly miniscule. Some of the crimes or other behavior in the list refers to things that the general public is probably even more likely to do, including stalking family, drug possession, etc. -- in other words, not things that are unique to professors at all. I'd say the % of pastors and other religious leaders who have gotten themselves into hot water is embarrassingly high (sexual immorality, misuse of church funds, etc.) and perhaps higher than that of the professoriate. Maybe comparing the professors to the general population would show that professors are more or less likely than the general population to commit crimes. Also, to be fair and honest according to the Commandments, this article should report the academic/moral/financial misdeeds -- some very high profile -- of conservative academics, including events at several Christian colleges and universities, indluding former faculty and university presidents. Making unfounded statements in an encyclopedia article, especially if the statements are inflammatory, is antithetical to the whole idea of honest scholarship -- which is ironic, considering the topic of this article! [[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 09:25, 26 March 2008 (CDT)

== Title of the article should be "liberals and academia" and not "professor values" ==

I do believe upon sound research that people are not going to find this article based on a search of "professor values".

Here are the Google results of "professor values" and you will notice that all 715 results have nothing to do with the article we have: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Professor+Values%22&hl=en&start=10&sa=N

On the other hand if you do a search on "liberals in academia" you will get 8,450 results and all are related to our article: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22liberals+in+academia%22&btnG=Search

While I do think it is great to have a #1 Google entry in terms of getting exposure to Conservapedia I do think you have to begin with the end in mind and bring people to Conservapedia who are interested in a particular issue. I do realize that it is sometimes beneficial to pursue long tail marketing and dominate less competitive search queries over a long period of time, however, it does not appear as if anyone is typing in "professor values" to find the subject material of our article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:33, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

I hesitate to point this out again (I mentioned it above), but what of crimes and other misdeeds committed by conservative academics? A number of leaders of Christian colleges and universities have, for example, abused authority, horribly misused funds for private -- and sometimes extravagant -- entertainment, travel, or shopping, or have had immoral sexual affairs. Not including information about these instances, or even acknowleding their existence, is a serious and dishonest error of omission. [[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 09:28, 25 March 2008 (CDT)

==Professor Values on Wikipedia==

Seems the article was put up on Wikipedia and is now up for deletion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor_Values

This thing really doesn't belong on an encyclopedia. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 07:18, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

:Not on wikipedia, maybe (not least, because it was ''plagiarized'' from here!) - but it seems perfectly at home in this encyclopedia. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:21, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

:: I bet you think [[Hollywood values]] should be censored also!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:12, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Actually, yeah, that's a dumb article too. --[[User:DJBlair|DJBlair]] 14:20, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

:Yes, I think any article that is just 'made up' is neither trustworthy or encyclopedic. I wouldn't let my kids near this site (or Wikipedia for that matter, but thats a story for another day) [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 20:20, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

::In a strange bout of irony the WP ''Professor Values'' article now ranks higher than the CP version. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 08:24, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

::: It didn't take long for the [[liberals]] on Wikipedia to delete its entry! It's gone.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:03, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

==Catholic schools==

Should abuse by priests in catholic schools deserve its own article entitles, [[Priest Values]]? Of course not, because the abuse committed by some priests is not indicative of the entire group. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 20:42, 25 March 2008 (EDT)
:You're making a big mistake, you think this "encyclopedia"  is governed by logic and reason, it isn't. -- '''[[user:DLerner|D L e r n e r]]''' [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DLerner Articulate] 20:48, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

:: DLerner was blocked for his repeated derogatory comments, and "LeaningRight" you should be blocked for your 90/10 [[rule]] violation against talk, talk, talk.

:: This [[professor values]] lists the commonly held values and consequences of those values. Your suggestion does not fit that model, and your suggestion is ludicrous.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:17, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

:Whatever. By the way, check my contributions, specifically to the India article. I have not broken any rules that I know of. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 13:31, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
:This is a link to my mainspace contributions: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?offset=&limit=50&target=LeaningRight&title=Special%3AContributions&namespace=0 [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 13:33, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

:: LeaningRight, you wrote, "I have not broken any rules that I know of." That is known as [[deliberate ignorance]], and it's not an excuse. Your last ten contributions have been all talk, and that violates the 90/10 [[rule]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:32, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

:Please have a little respect and don't talk to me like a child. I'm a middle aged man with children and I find that highly disrespectful. Have a glance at my contributions. I wasn't even aware of this 90/10 rule until you brought it up so its ignorance, but not 'deliberate'. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 15:26, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

:: You responded to my citation to our very simple set of [[rules]] with "Whatever" and "I have not broken any rules that I know of." Your response was ''after'' I directed you to the very simple set of rules.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:10, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

:Go and meet someone who doesn't agree with what you believe. I can guarantee you it will be quite refreshing. I'm taking a week off before I lose any faith I have ever had in the American people. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 16:15, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

::You really ought to watch how you talk to good editors, Andy. Your attitude isn't helping Conservapedia one bit. [[User:ShaggerNorris|ShaggerNorris]] 18:30, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Andy, if you hope to gain the respect of the mainstream, and avoid being an object of ridicule at RW and everywhere else, provide a solid case instead of anecdotes [[User:Innsmouth1|Innsmouth1]] 19:09, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
: What's RW? [[User:Alberti|Alberti]] 10:19, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

== Removal of bias ==
The bias that was removed should have been kept in. It was a fair point and was correct.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 17:55, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

:But it wasn't conservative. This isn't liberalpedia. Why is that so hard for you to understand? --[[User:FrankRingo|FrankRingo]] 17:59, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Are you kidding? A fact is a fact. A fair and correct point is not aligned with politcal leanings. Why is that so hard to understand?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 18:01, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

: What specifically do you think was fair? The stuff I removed was unjustified liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:02, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

"However, because the professoriate is so large and varied (more than 1,200,000 in the United States alone, in public and private institutions) it would not be valid to conclude that this group of professionals is disproportionately more likely than others groups or the general public to commit crimes or other misdeed"
Its not bias, it is fact. It is not valid that professors are more likely to commit crimes (at least the validity has not been proven here) and by removing this section it sounds more and more like opinion as opposed to an encyclopedia entry. I know you wont budge on this though and any attempt in me to argue or revert will be meet with an arbitary block so I'll turn my attention to less volitile entries.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 18:09, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

:Aden, something is not a fact just because it is written down somewhere. Liberal journalists that quote liberal studies that are furnished by liberal organizations do not produce fact - they produce nonsense. Please keep your gibberish out of this site. Perhaps you would feel more comfortable talking about your "facts" over at [[Wikipedia]]. --[[User:FrankRingo|FrankRingo]] 18:12, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

AdenJ, people sharing common values do tend to act in similar ways. Ideas do matter. Surely you don't think all the problems in Hollywood are purely coincidental with [[Hollywood values]]!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

My quibble was not whether ideas or shared values matter, it was that factual and relevant material was removed as bias.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 18:45, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

:Aden, your "facts" were discussed already. We know you can read, so quit playing stupid. --[[User:FrankRingo|FrankRingo]] 18:50, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks Frank.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 18:52, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

: AdenJ, people who disrespect the law are more likely to commit crimes. That's logic, and does not require a citation. [[Professor values]] include a disrespect for rule of law, among other things.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:02, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Again, and for the last time before I slam my head on the table, I was querying why good stats were removed from this article which show that crime amoung professors is not disproportionate. Apparently its not factual, according to you and Frank. End of discussion.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 20:08, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

: What statistics are you describing? Merely an estimate of the total number of professors? That doesn't demonstrate anything about proportionate crime.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:14, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
:: The stats I cited, which were removed by you, were from a standard statistical source (see the original citation) and the very high number of professors that exist make the isolated examples provided in the article statistically insignificant. It would be interesting to compare relative crime rates for various professions -- then we'd be able to say that professors are more likely or less likely to commit crimes. I spent a lot of time tracking down those stats and was surprised that you removed them because of "liberal" bias. As my contributions to this Talk page show, I felt uncomfortable seeing ungrounded assertions about professors being disproportionately likely to commit crimes. The few examples are incidental and anecdotal -- they are not statistically significant and one cannot use them to justify the conclusion that professors are more likely to commit crimes than others. Plenty of crimes are committed by teachers, pastors, politicians, business people, and so on -- but no evidence has been supplied to show that they commit crimes less often than professors. I believe my statement was taken away not because it is inherently liberal -- it is attitude neutral -- but rather because the data seriously challenged the validity of the premise of the whole article. After a lot of reading on this in support of my since-removed contributions, I would imagine that, taken as a group, professors are much less likely to commit crimes than many other professions. To prove that, I'd have to do more research and document it well, which I don't have the time to do. The same should be done if one wanted to document that they are MORE likely to commit crimes, but for now those assertions in the article remain unsupported except by isolated examples. That is a very bad example to set for any students, home-schooled or not. My contributions attempted to raise the research standard of the article and I believe the data I supplied were inappropriately removed. [[User:CPlantin|Cplantin] 20:48, 21 April 2008 (CDT)

: I looked for, but could not find, the edit you're describing above. But note that the frequency of crime is not the only issue; the nature of the crimes also matters. Also, it's meaningless to compare wealthy, pampered, highly educated professors to the general population in terms of crime. Any comparison would have to factor in demographic, privilege, and background info.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:56, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:: If it is, as you say, "meaningless to compare wealthy... professors to the general population in terms of crime," then we should remove the entire block of "Crimes by Professors." The number cited is incredibly small, compared with the total number of professors out there, and unless you are positing that they commit crimes with disproportionate frequency (which the article seems to be implying), then it really doesn't have a purpose. We might as well start sections with anecdotal evidence about crimes for several professions. Actually, crime would be the easiest of the categories mentioned in the article to prove. Bullying, etc. may well take place, and some professors are true jerks, but there is not official documentation about instances of promoting immorality, bias against conservatives in classrooms, etc. Anyway, the problem I see with this article is that readers may notice that there is no support of the major assertions except for a handful of examples, some from other countries, one more than 25 years old, and one about a professor being fined $50 for mooning a child. I would suggest that we find documentation to support this article's assertions, call the article an editorial, or delete it entirely. If we look at the nature of the crimes, as you suggest, there are some murders, but also marijuana possession, mooning, attempting to defraud a hospital trust, stalking, possession of child porn, and others -- but not even close to what happens in one major city in one day. Attempting to smear an entire profession based on these examples and no real data is not scholarship. Conservapedia can do better and it should, if it is to be taken seriously. [[User:CPlantin|Cplantin] 1:48, 22 April 2008 (CDT).

::: You didn't respond to my points. The nature of the crimes is as important as their volume, perhaps more so. And, no, we're not going to limit ourselves here to what is recognized by [[liberal]] newspapers and censored journals. Conservapedia reaches beyond what is already widely available, and we're not going to fall for the [[deliberate ignorance]] that plagues less useful resources.

::: Finally, your statement that "some professors are true jerks" obviously misses the point. The problem is not the "jerks", but the "values".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:56, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: I thought I'd addressed the main points you'd asked about, but I'll try again. Frequency of crime is indeed an issue if this article is trying to assert that professors commit crimes proportionally more than those in other specific professions, other professions in general, the general public -- you name it. To prove that they commit more crimes than other groups based on the tiny number of examples is ridiculous. Yes, frequency is not the only issue and the nature of the crimes also matters. But as my comment above shows, the crimes cited in the article, as bad as they are, are not all as bad as, say, murder. Besides murder, there is pot possession, the mooning of a child, stalking, possession of child porn, attempting to defraud a hospital trust. So, to the extent that all crime is bad, then all of those are bad things and I trust that the perps got their just desserts. But are those crimes any more heinous than those committed by any number of people of all kinds of professions, by the rich, by the poor, by politicians, etc. If we do factor in "demographic... and other background info," how would the picture look? Well, we don't really know, do we, because we know of no such studies, if there are any out there. So until we have some kind of actual data to go on, this article should remain silent on the issue (or not exist) or else it will look to readers more like an editorial rather than an encyclopedia article based on factual sources. You'd also asked about the source for my stats. I searched for a long time to find good, reliable numbers regarding professors and other employees in colleges and universities in the United States. Here is the quote you removed, along with the citation:
::::: "However, because the professoriate is so large and varied (more than 1,200,000 in the United States alone, in public and private institutions) it would not be valid to conclude that this group of professionals is disproportionately more likely than others groups or the general public to commit crimes or other misdeeds.<ref>National Center for Educational Statistics, "Table 178, Historical Summary of faculty, students, degrees, and finances in degree-granting institutions: Selected years, 1869-70 through 2005-06" [http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/tables/dt07_178.asp?referrer=list]</ref>"
:::: Looking at it again, I should have been clearer by adding something to the effect that "because the professoriate is so large, it would not be valid to conclude that this group of professionals is disproportionately more likely than other groups or the general public to commit crimes or other misdeeds based on a small sample of reported crimes unless the group and its crime rates are compared with those of other professionals or the general public." I also should have place the stats citation right after I mentioned the number of professors. The source supports that information and not the rest of the sentence. While I could have been clearer, the statement should not have been removed because you were "cleaning out liberal bias." What is liberal about that statement? I was trying to make the article more substantial and accurate. There are clearly claims in the article that are unsupported and therefore in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments, and I was doing research to find accurate data about the population under discussion. It was only a start and I was enjoying the research, but having my contribution yanked was like getting an unwarranted suckerpunch. In a sense, you did what you accuse professors of doing: you bullied someone you thought had an opposing point of view. Trying to verify facts and add documentation is neither liberal nor conservative - it is research. [[User:CPlantin|Cplantin] 22:51:48, 23 April 2008 (CDT)

== [[Debate:Are Liberals fundamentally evil?|Liberal]] professor [[PZ Myers]] just linked to this article ==

[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/a_temporary_palliative.php Here]. Be on the watch for vandals. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:20, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

== this article is ridiculous ==

it's kind of funny actually [[User:NRupert|NRupert]] 13:59, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

== Liberal fluff ==

The statement that "it appears that intelligent people sometimes hold these values" is [[liberal fluff]]. It's meaningless. Intelligent people "sometimes" hold almost any value, no matter how wanton or absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:57, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Young Earth Creationism

2008-06-23T22:06:28Z

Lgm: /* Scientific */

[[Image:Michelangelo creation-of-sun-and-moon.jpg|right|thumb|300px|[[Michelangelo|Michelangelo's]] painting of the creation of the [[Sun]] and [[Moon]].]]
'''Young Earth Creationism''', sometimes abbreviated ''YEC'',<ref>"YEC", can refer to Young Earth Creationist or Young Earth Creationism. "YECs" refers to Young Earth Creationists. The abbreviation was likely originally used by opponents, and possibly disparagingly, but is accepted by Young Earth Creationists, who sometimes use it of themselves.</ref> is a form of [[creationism]] which holds that the [[Earth|earth]] and the [[Universe|universe]] are approximately 6,000 years old.<ref>Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3837 Chapter 8, How old is the earth?].</ref><ref>Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836 Chapter 7, Astronomy] of Refuting Evolution.</ref>

Young earth creationists hold that both creation and evolution are at root tied to [[worldview]]s, and because they are both claims about historical (or prehistorical) events, they depend on untestable assumptions. At the same time, young earth [[Creation Science|creation scientists]] argue that the young universe view is the explanation that best fits the evidence.

Most other scientists regard young earth creationism as being unscientific. Many do so because they believe that things such as [[radiometric dating]] and [[biology|biological]] observations have disproved it, or for ideological reasons.

== Beliefs ==

=== Biblical ===
Young Earth creationism generally takes the following positions regarding the biblical book of [[Genesis]]:
* Creation took place over a period of six ordinary (solar/24-hour) days, with God then "resting" on the seventh day.
* This creation, described in Genesis as "good" and "very good", was without flaw or defect.
* All people are descended from the first couple, [[Adam]] and [[Eve]].
* Adam and Eve [[sin]]ned, leading to their expulsion from the [[Garden of Eden]].
* A global [[Great Flood|Noachian flood]] occurred, destroying all land-based, air-breathing life, except that on the [[Ark]].
* The dispersal of humanity was caused by God after the [[Tower of Babel]]. <ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/confusionoflanguages.html Is there any reference to the confusion of languages at Babel in early Mesopotamian literature?] (ChristianAnswers.Net).</ref><ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a021.html Is there archaeological evidence of the Tower of Babel?] (ChristianAnswers.Net).</ref><ref>Jackson, Wayne, [http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/babel.htm The Tower of Babel—Legend or History?] [[December 17]] [[1999]] (Christian Courier).</ref>

=== Scientific ===
Young earth creationism holds that the scientific evidence is unreasonably ''interpreted'' by evolutionists and [[atheism|atheists]]/[[naturalism|naturalists]] as supporting their point of view, but that the same evidence can be reasonably interpreted by creationists to support the creationary point of view

They further argue that the scientific evidence is more consistent with the creationary point of view than the evolutionary point of view.

Some specific arguments are as follows:

* The [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first law of thermodynamics]] and [[Second law of thermodynamics|second law of thermodynamics]] argue against an eternal universe, but they are consistent with the universe being billions of years old, and these laws point to the universe being created by [[God]].<ref>[http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php Evidences for God From Space—Laws of Science]</ref><ref>Thompson, Bert, [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329 So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!], 2001 (Apologetics Press)</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref>
* The [[theory of evolution]] is at odds with scientific evidence. They often cite secular scientific sources which agree with them on various points (for further details please see: [[theory of evolution]] and [[creationism]]).<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/21</ref>
* Both evolutionary scientists and young earth creation scientists believe that [[speciation]] occurs, however, young earth creation scientists state that speciation generally occurs at a much faster rate than evolutionary scientists believe is the case.<ref>[[Creation Ministries International]], [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3036/ Speciation: Questions and Answers]</ref>
*Many young earth creationists such as the young earth creationist at [[Creation Ministries International]] and [[CreationWiki]] assert that the [http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible contains knowledge that shows an understanding of scientific knowledge beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed].<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible Scientific Foreknowledge]</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/medicine.asp</ref>

== Biblical exegesis ==

Young earth creationism holds that the book of Genesis is historical in nature and that [[Bible exegesis]] warrants a six-day creation with each day being 24 hours.<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/Days_of_creation Days of Creation] (CreationWiki).</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/genesis.asp Genesis Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref>Niessen, Richard, [http://www.icr.org/article/164/ Theistic Evolution and the Day-Age Theory] ''Impact'' 81, March 1980.</ref>
Andrew Kulikovsky describes it as follows:
{{QuoteBox|The hermeneutic employed by most YECs is best described as the historical-grammatical method in which historical narrative (such as the book of Genesis) is interpreted as literal history, prophecy is interpreted as prophecy, poetry is interpreted as poetry, etc.
<ref>Kulikovsky, Andrew S., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/tjv16v2_forster.pdf Fostering fallacy] ''Journal of Creation'' 16(2) 2002, p.31-36.</ref>}}
{{QuoteBox|Historical-grammatical exegesis involves a systematic approach to analyzing in detail the historical situation, events and circumstances surrounding the text, and the semantics and syntactical relationships of the words which comprise the text.<ref>Kulikovsky, Andrew S., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4880/ The Bible and hermeneutics] ''Journal of Creation'' 19(3):14–20, December 2005, p.14-20.</ref>}}

== Age of the Universe and Earth - General Overview ==
Young earth creation scientists advance a number of reasons for the earth and universe being approximately 6,000 years old,<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref name="AiG Astr QA">[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp Astronomy and Astrophysics Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3040/ ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Creation Ministries International).</ref> and raise a number of objections to claims of an extremely old age for the earth and the [[universe]].<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp Radiometric Dating Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis)</ref><ref name="AiG Astr QA" /><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp</ref> In regards to the field of [[geology]] these scientists believe that the evolutionary geological timescale is in error.<ref>Woodmorappe, John, [http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp The Geologic Column: Does It Exist?] ''Journal of Creation'' 13(2):77–82, 1999 </ref><ref>Morris, Henry, [http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=54 Geology and the Flood] ''Impact'' 6, August 1973</ref><ref>[http://www.allaboutcreation.org/geologic-time-scale.htm Geologic Time Scale - The Misconceptions] (All About Creation)</ref> Young earth creationist scientists also believe that there are multiple lines of evidence from the field of [[geology]] showing that the earth is young.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp Geology Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis)</ref><ref>[http://www.creationism.org/topbar/geology.htm Geology] (Creation.org)</ref><ref>[http://www.nwcreation.net/geologylinks.html Geology Links] (Northwest Creation Network)</ref><ref>Baumgardner, John, [http://globalflood.org/ Genesis Flood] [[28 July]] [[2003]].</ref> Young earth creationist scientists use a [[geologic system|geological system]] that more heavily relies on [[Catastrophism|catastrophism]] and reject the [[uniformitarianism (science)|uniformitarian]] assumptions behind the older dates derived by secular geologists, and thus reject these dates. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/geologic-record</ref> In addition, young earth creationist scientists point out that catastrophism is increasing being accepted in the field of geology. <ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/12061.htm</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=print&ID=84</ref>

== Astronomy ==
[[Image:NGC .jpg|right|thumb|350px|The majestic spiral [[galaxy]] ''NGC 4414'', imaged by the [[Hubble Space Telescope]] in 1995.]]
The young earth creationism view is that the various astronomical bodies such as [[planet]]s, [[star]]s, and [[galaxy|galaxies]] were supernaturally created and that [[Materialism|materialistic]] explanations of the the origins of various astronomical bodies are insufficient and counter evidence.<ref>Brown, 1991, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences.html Astronomical and Physical Sciences]; Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836 Chapter 7].</ref> In addition, creationists often cite the secular scientific literature in order to make the case that materialist explanations of various astronomical bodies are inadequate:
{{cquote|...most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong.<ref>Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters,” Science, Vol. 295, 25 January 2002, p. 605, quoted by [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes42.html Brown, 2001, notes for chapter 43].</ref>}}
{{cquote|Attempts to find a plausible naturalistic explanation of the origin of the [[Solar System]] began about 350 years ago but have not yet been quantitatively successful, making this one of the oldest unsolved problems in modern science.<ref>Stephen G. Brush, A History of Modern Planetary Physics, Vol. 3 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 91, quoted by [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes42.html Brown, 2001, notes for chapter 43]).</ref>}}
{{cquote|We don’t understand how a single star forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form.<ref>Carlos Frenk, as quoted by Robert Irion, “Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep,” Science, Vol. 303, 19 March 2004, p. 1750, quoted by Brown, 1991, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes59.html Notes for chapter 61]</ref>}}
{{cquote|We cannot even show convincingly how galaxies, stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe.<ref>Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186, quoted by Brown, 1991, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes59.html Notes for chapter 62].</ref>}}

In 2001, Cristina Chiappini wrote regarding the [[Milky Way]] galaxy the following:
:". . . it is an elegant structure that shows both order and complexity. . . . The end product is especially remarkable in the light of what is believed to be the starting point: nebulous blobs of gas. How the universe made the Milky Way from such simple beginnings is not altogether clear. - Cristina Chiappini, "The Formation and Evolution of the Milky Way," [[American Scientist]] (vol. 89, Nov./Dec. 2001), p. 506. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/547/</ref>

Dr. [[Walt Brown]] provides numerous citations to the secular science literature that corroborate the failings of current old universe paradigm explanations in regards to the planets, stars, and galaxies.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes43.html</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes60.html#wp1142334</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes61.html#wp1212721</ref>

The [[Institute for Creation Research]] has a notable essay by David Coppedge entitled "Mature at Birth: Universe Discredits Evolution" which cites recent findings which challenge an old universe paradigm.<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/2946/</ref> In addition, [[Henry Morris]] has an essay regarding the subject of the failings of the old universe paradigm entitled "What Astronomers Don't Know". <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/547/</ref>

Young earth creationist scientists also contest the [[Big Bang theory]] stating that it is scientifically unsound.
<ref name="BB Critique">Thompson, Bert, Harrub, Brad, and May, Branyon [http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=22 The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique] ''Apologetics Press'', May 2003 - 23[5]:32-34,36-47.</ref>
<ref>Brown, Walt, 2001, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences16.html Big Bang?]</ref> <ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/309</ref> <ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2047</ref> <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/343/</ref>
=== Starlight and the Age of the Universe ===
{{main|Starlight problem}}

[[Image:Barry_setterfield.jpg‎|right|thumb|175px|[[Barry Setterfield]]]]
Anti-creationists often claim that [[star|starlight]] from millions of light years away demonstrates that the Biblical timescale of 6,000 years is in error, as insufficient time has passed for the light from distant stars to reach [[Earth]].
Creationists respond in part by pointing out that the popular Big Bang theory has its own star light-travel time problem (the horizon problem), citing the work of Dr. [[Charles W. Misner]]. <ref>Lisle, Jason, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/167/ Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang], Creation 25(4):48–49, September 2003.</ref>

Secondly, creationists have proposed a number of explanations for the objection, and although none are yet certain, they claim that it shows that the critics' claims that it cannot be explained is unfounded.

==== Setterfield's decay of the speed of light ====

One early explanation was that of creationist [[Barry Setterfield]], who proposed that the speed of light was faster in the past.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2551/ Speed of light slowing down after all?], Journal of Creation 16(3):7–10, December 2002.</ref>.
Critics objected to Setterfield's proposal, including on the grounds that the constancy of the speed of light is one of science's most fundamental laws.<ref name="JS">Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2430/ Have fundamental constants changed, and what would it prove?], 22nd August, 2001.</ref>
Yet in 1999, John Webb, a professor at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, and his colleagues reported astronomical observations suggesting that the value of the fine-structure constant (which is related to the speed of light) may have changed (although the size of the change was much smaller than proposed by Setterfield).
They subsequently published this in 2001 in ''[[Physical Review Letters]]''.<ref>http://www.nature.com/physics/highlights/6849-3.html#ref1</ref><ref name="JS" />
However, other problems with the proposal has led most creationists to abandon the idea.<ref>For example, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996#c_decay CMI] and [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp#c_decay AiG] say that this is an idea that should not be used.</ref>

==== Russell Humphreys' model ====

Creationary physicist Dr. [[Russell Humphreys]] proposed a model based on [[Albert Einstein|Einstein's]] law of relativity (as the Big Bang model is), but with a different starting assumption, a bounded universe.
Humphreys' model proposes that God created the universe much smaller than it is now, then expanded it, quoting the Bible saying that God "stretched out the heavens".
In such a scenario, time would pass at different rates on Earth and in outer parts of the universe, so that while 6,000 years went by on Earth, billions of years passed on the outer edge of the universe.
This model is also based on the [[Genesis]] account recording the days of creation according to time on Earth, rather than elsewhere.

==== John Hartnett's model ====

Young earth creationist scientist Dr. [[John Hartnett]] proposes a model similar to Humphreys, wherein the Earth was trapped in a time-dilation field caused by extremely strong gravitation during the first few days of creation, from Earth's point of view, while billions of years passed for the rest of the universe.
He attributes the field, it's removal and the continued balance in our solar system (after the field was removed) to divine intervention. <ref>Hartnett, John G., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_98-102.pdf A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problem] ''Journal of Creation'' 17(2):98–102, August 2003.</ref>
Whilst Humphreys' model has time dilation caused only by gravity (per [[Albert Einstein|Einstein's]] [[General Theory of Relativity]]), Hartnett's model also takes into account time dilation caused by motion (God's expansion of the universe) (per Einstein's [[Special Theory of Relativity]]).

== Biology ==

According to young-Earth creationists, God separately created each ''kind'' of living thing, or ''[[baraminology|baramin]]'', to reproduce "after its kind".
Living things had built into them a capacity for variation and adaptation, but within the limits of their ''kind''.
Genetically, in the case of sexually-reproducing species, much this is due to the [[information]] carried on each living thing's [[DNA]] being a subset of the parent's DNA, with the subset of information being selected for by the process known as natural selection (described by a creationist before Darwin wrote about it).
Mutations also play a part in this variation, but only to the extent of ''destroying'' genetic information, not ''creating'' it.

Many of the ensuing variations have been classified by science as different ''species'', but this speciation is not evolution, as it does not involve the generation of new genetic information and therefore could not have produced the evolutionary "family tree".

YECs believe that most of the world's living things were wiped out by the [[Great Flood]], but that pairs of each ''kind'' that could not survive in a flood (i.e. air-breathing, land-dwelling creatures) survived the flood on [[Noah's Ark]], and from the Flood survivors all modern species have descended.

== Geology ==

YECs believe that most rocks were laid down in two main episodes.
The first was in creation week, particularly when God caused the waters of the Earth to gather together into the sea and dry land to appear.
The second was during Noah's Flood.
The effects of a global watery catastrophe would have been enormous, with massive amounts of erosion and sedimentation.
Further, many young-Earth creationists believe that there was a single supercontinent prior to the Flood, which broke up during the Flood.
This would have further contributed to a massive reshaping of the Earth's surface.

== Anthropology ==
{{main|Biblical anthropology}}

YECs believe that all intact evidence of civilisation is evidence of post-flood civilisation, as the [[Global flood|Flood]] destroyed the pre-flood world.
God confounded man's single language at the [[Tower of Babel]], forcing different family groups to separate and spread around the world.
Most of the people groups listed in the 'Table of Nations' in {{Bible ref|Genesis|10}}, which contains a family tree of Noah's descendants, are identifiable from non-biblical records.
People enduring a forced migration will find any shelter they can, and this would explain much of the evidence of "cavemen".

== Contrasted with evolution ==

The young earth creationism view contrasts with evolution and other aspects of the old universe view in the following ways:
* According to the [[chronogenealogies]] in the Bible, the age of the [[universe]] and [[Earth]] is approximately 6,000 years. The old universe view is that the universe started about 14,000 million years ago, and Earth was formed around 4,500 million years ago.
* The creation account has everything being created over a period of six ordinary days, whereas the old universe view has things appearing over billions of years.
* The order of creation is different. The creation account has the Earth before the sun, plants before the sun, and birds before land animals, among other differences. The old universe view is the opposite order for each of these.
* The creation account records that death didn't exist prior to the [[Fall of man|Fall]], whereas the evolutionary view is that death and suffering are part of the biological process and existed for billions of years of death prior to the appearance of [[homo sapiens|man]].
* The creation account records various living things being separately created, whereas the evolutionary view has all living things being descended from the first living cell.

== Responses to criticisms ==

Young Earth creationist responses to criticisms from atheistic evolutionists, theistic evolutionists, progressive creationists, and others include the following:
* ''The young Earth view is just one interpretation of the Bible.''
: The young Earth view is the clear intention of the authors of the Bible. See [[Creation week]] for more. Also, the young Earth view was the view of most of the church throughout most of its history. That has only changed in order to accommodate non-biblical views of history.
* ''Creationists read the Bible literally, whereas parts, such as the creation account, are really metaphor.''
: Creationists reject that they read all the Bible literally, and accept that there is metaphor an other non-literal passages in the Bible. Instead, they read the Bible the way it was meant to be understood, which in the case of the creation account, is as literal history. See [[#Biblical exegesis|Biblical exegesis]] above and [[Creation week]] for more.
* ''Evolution has scientific evidence, and creationism does not.''
: Both creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence. The difference is in how that evidence is interpreted.
* ''Creation relies on faith, not evidence.''
: Both creation and evolution are faith positions based on different worldviews. Evolutionists exclude God from consideration ''a priori'', not because of the evidence.
* ''If creation had scientific merit, why don't they publish their evidence in peer-reviewed scientific papers?''
: The scientific establishment won't allow creationists to publish. See [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]].
* ''Creationists start with a preconception and try and fit the evidence to that. Evolutionists start with the evidence.''
: Both creationists and evolutionists have their worldview as a starting point. Evolutionists try and fit the evidence into their idea just as much as they accuse the creationists of doing.
* ''Because they are based on the Bible, creationists are not willing to change their views. Evolutionists will change their views as new evidence is found.''
: Creationists start with the Bible as the foundation of their views, but beyond that are willing to change their views as new evidence is found. Evolutionists are willing to change the details of how evolution works, but are not prepared to change their basic view that evolution did occur.
* ''Creationists are anti-science.''
: Many creationists are scientists and fully support science. They never reject science itself, and the criticism is bogus.

== Specific Arguments For a Young Earth and Universe ==
[[Image:Roth-01.gif|right|thumb|350px|The arrows point to [[Paraconformity|paraconformities]] at the [[Grand Canyon]].]]
[[CreationWiki]]'s article ''Young earth evidence'' stated,
:"Many arguments have been put forth that draw upon scientific evidence to support the a belief in a recent creation or young earth. Some arguments simply put an upper limit on the age of the Earth, solar system, or universe, which are inconsistent with an ancient creation. For example, Russell Humphreys' argument based on the amount of salt in the ocean is designed to show the maximum possible age of the oceans based on uniformitarian assumptions, and thus shows that the oceans could not be as old as claimed; it is not designed to show the actual age of the oceans, and as such the resulting age, although far too great for the young Earth view, is not inconsistent with it."<ref name="cwye">[http://creationwiki.org/index.php?title=Young_earth_evidence&oldid=137338 Young earth evidence - CreationWiki] ''(quotes taken from the April 18, 2008, version of the article)''</ref>

The following is a list of various scientific reasons:
# "The old-earth idea was developed historically, not from letting the physical facts speak for themselves but by imposing anti-biblical philosophical assumptions onto the geological observations. See the following [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/naturalismChurch.asp article]..."<ref name="aigcompelling">[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0303.asp What are the most compelling evidences of a young earth - AiG]</ref>
#[[William R. Corliss]] is a respected cataloger of scientific [[anomaly|anomalies]] and the science magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' had an article which focused on Mr. Corliss's career as a cataloger of scientific anomalies.<ref>Adrian Hope, ''Finding a Home for Stray Fact'', New Scientist, July 14, 1977, p. 83</ref> Mr. Corliss has cataloged scores of [[Anomaly|anomalies]] which challenge the old earth geology [[paradigm]].<ref>
* http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm
* http://www.apologeticspress.net/articles/184
</ref>
# "The radiometric dating methods are based on those same naturalistic, uniformitarian, anti-biblical assumptions and there is plenty of published evidence that they do not give valid dates. Besides the RATE research mentioned earlier, consider the well-researched arguments in ''[http://www.answersingenesis.org/p/10-3-090 The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods]''."<ref name="aigcompelling" />
# "The almost complete absence of evidence of erosion or soil layers or the activity of living things (plant roots, burrow marks, etc.) at the upper surface of the various strata (showing that the stratum did not lay there for thousands or millions of years before the next layer was deposited)."<ref name="aigcompelling" />
# "Polystrate fossils (usually trees) that cut through more than one layer of rock (even different kinds of rock supposedly deposited over thousands if not millions of years). The trees would have rotted and left no fossil evidence if the deposition rate was that slow."<ref name="aigcompelling" />
# "Soft-sediment deformation—that thousands of feet of sedimentary rocks (of various layers) are bent (like a stack of thin pancakes over the edge of a plate), as we see at the mile-deep Kaibab Upwarp in the Grand Canyon. Clearly the whole, mile-deep deposit of various kinds of sediment was still relatively soft and probably wet (not like it is today) when the earthquake occurred that uplifted one part of the series of strata."<ref name="aigcompelling" />
# "Many fossils that show (require) very rapid burial and fossilization. For example, soft parts (jellyfish, animal feces, scales and fins of fish) or whole, large, fully-articulated skeletons (e.g., whales or large dinosaurs such as T-Rex) are preserved. Or we find many creatures’ bodies contorted. All this evidence shows that these creatures were buried rapidly (in many cases even buried alive) and fossilized before scavengers, micro-decay organisms and erosional processes could erase the evidence. These are found all over the world and all through the various strata."<ref name="aigcompelling" />
# "...distant starlight is no more of a problem for young-earth creationists than it is for big bang proponents..."<ref name="aigcompelling" />
#"[[Paraconformity|Paraconformities]] challenge the old earth uniformitarian geology [[paradigm]]."<ref>
* http://www.grisda.org/georpts/36.pdf
* http://www.grisda.org/2003-FSC-open/Roth-RecentCreation.htm
* http://www.seeking-god.co.uk/id188.htm
* http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/flood.html</ref>
# '''Geomagnetic field decay'''
#:"Observations made of the strength of Earth's magnetic field over the last 150 years show that it is decaying, which puts an upper limit on the age of the Earth. If the decay is projected back 20,000 years, the heat produced by the electric current that generates the Earth's magnetic field would have liquefied the Earth. Naturally this would make life impossible. The best model for the Earth's magnetic field and observed data places the age of Earth at 6,000 – 8,700 years."<ref name="cwye" />
#:"The total energy stored in the earth's magnetic field ("dipole" and "non-dipole") is decreasing with a half-life of 1,465 (± 165) years.12 Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the earth could have maintained its magnetic field for ''billions of years'' are very complex and inadequate. A much better creationist theory exists. It is straightforward, based on sound physics, and explains many features of the field: its creation, rapid reversals during the Genesis flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then.13 This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data, most startlingly with evidence for rapid changes.14 The main result is that the field's total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than '''20,000 years''' old.15"<ref name="icrye" />
#:"Presence of magnetic fields around solar system bodies (Mercury, Jupiter's moon Ganymede, Neptune, Uranus) without an obvious internal dynamo. No natural process is known which could sustain a magnetic field around these bodies - their magnetic fields should have decayed out of existence if they ever had any."<ref name="nwcn" />
# '''Pleochroic halos'''
#:"Radioactive inclusions in rock often cause concentric spheres of discoloration due to the damage caused by alpha particles as they are emitted by the radioactive substance. Pleochroic halos are the scars of radioactive decay, particularly alpha decay. These scars appear as spheres (rings when views in cross-section) in the rock surrounding a decaying radioactive atom. The size of the halo is a signature of the energy of the emission and therefore the element and isotope involved. Creationists use these halos in several ways to suggest problems with the standard uniformitarian model."<ref name="cwye" />
# '''Helium diffusion'''
#:"One type of nuclear decay is the emission of Helium nuclei known as an alpha emission. Elements like uranium and thorium produce helium in zircons as a by-product of their radioactivity. This helium seeps out of (sic) zircons quickly over a wide range of temperatures. If the zircons really are about 1.5 billion years old (the age which conventional dating gives assuming a constant decay rate), almost all of the helium should have dissipated from the zircons long ago. But there is a significant amount of helium still inside the zircons, showing their ages to be 6000 +/- 2000 years. Accelerated decay must have produced a billion years worth of helium in that short amount of time."<ref name="cwye" />
#:"Uranium and thorium generate helium atoms as they decay to lead. A study published in the ''Journal of Geophysical Research'' showed that such helium produced in zircon crystals in deep, hot Precambrian granitic rock has not had time to escape.25 Though the rocks contain ''1.5 billion years'' worth of nuclear decay products, newly-measured rates of helium loss from zircon show that the helium has been leaking for only '''6,000''' (± 2000) '''years'''.26 This is not only evidence for the youth of the earth, but also for episodes of greatly accelerated decay rates of long half-life nuclei within thousands of years ago, compressing radioisotope timescales enormously."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''Helioseismology'''
#:"The core of the sun produces deuterium from hydrogen fusion at 5 million degrees K. The heat is transferred from the core by convection currents so it could reach surface in days, not a million years. It also leads to an age for the sun based on the deuterium/hydrogen ratio of the local interstellar medium of 6,000-12,857 years."<ref name="cwye" />
# '''Accelerated Nuclear Decay'''
#:"The main assumption of radiometric dating is that the decay rates are constant with time. If the decay rate has varied significantly over time then any date based on radioactive decay is worthless. However, if radioactive decay has been happening for Billions of years then there is insufficient argon diffusion, insufficient lead diffusion, insufficient helium in the air, and too much Helium in Rocks. Recent experiments commissioned by the RATE group indicate that "1.5 billion years" worth of nuclear decay has taken place, but in one or more short periods 4000 - 8000 years ago. This would shrink the alleged 4.5 billion year radioisotope age of the earth to only a few thousand years."<ref name="cwye" />
#:"Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay.21 "Squashed" Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited '''within months''' of one another, not ''hundreds of millions of years'' apart as required by the conventional time scale.22 "Orphan" Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply '''accelerated nuclear decay''' and very rapid formation of associated minerals."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.'''
#:"The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than '''a few hundred million years old''', it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.1 Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least ''10 billion years'' old. Evolutionists call this "the winding-up dilemma," which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same "winding-up" dilemma also applies to other galaxies."<ref name="icrye">[http://www.icr.org/article/1842/ Evidence for a Young World - Institute for Creation Research]</ref>
# '''Comets.'''
#:"According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about ''five billion'' years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than '''10,000 years'''.4"<ref name="icrye" />
#:"The origin of the comets in our solar system is a great mystery from an old universe perspective as they degrade rapidly. While evolutionary astronomers once thought the Oort cloud could account for all comets, the Kuiper belt has been revived to explain their existence."<ref name="nwcn" />
# '''Not enough mud on the sea floor.'''
#:"Each year, water and winds erode about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean.6 This material accumulates as loose sediment on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the sediment in the whole ocean is less than 400 meters.7 The main way known to remove the sediment from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year.7 As far as anyone knows, the other 19 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present mass of sediment in less than '''12 million years'''. Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged ''three billion years''. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with sediment dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of sediment within a short time '''about 5,000 years ago'''."<ref name="icrye" /> (some emphasis added, but not all)
#:"Present erosion rate could produce all the existing ocean sediment in only 15 million years."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Morris, J. D. 1994. The Young Earth. Master Books. pp. 90.</ref>
# '''Not enough sodium in the sea.'''
#:"Every year, rivers8 and other sources9 dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year.9,10 As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today's input and output rates.10 This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, ''three billion years''. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations that are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only '''62 million years'''.10 Calculations11 for many other seawater elements give much younger ages for the ocean."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''Many strata are too tightly bent.'''
#:"In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for ''hundreds of millions of years'' before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred '''less than thousands of years''' after deposition."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''Biological material decays too fast.'''
#:"Natural radioactivity, mutations, and decay degrade DNA and other biological material rapidly. Measurements of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of "mitochondrial Eve" from a theorized ''200,000 years'' down to possibly as low as '''6,000 years'''.17 DNA experts insist that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than '''10,000 years''', yet intact strands of DNA appear to have been recovered from fossils allegedly much older... Bacteria allegedly ''250 million years'' old apparently have been revived with no DNA damage. Soft tissue and blood cells from a dinosaur have astonished experts."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.'''
#:"With their short 5,700-year half-life, no carbon 14 atoms should exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be ''millions or billions of years'' old. Conventional carbon 14 laboratories have been aware of this anomaly since the early 1980s, have striven to eliminate it, and are unable to account for it... These constitute very strong evidence that the earth is only '''thousands''', not billions, of years old."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''Not enough Stone Age skeletons.'''
#:"Evolutionary anthropologists now say that ''Homo sapiens'' existed for at least 185,000 years before agriculture began,28 during which time the world population of humans was roughly constant, between one and ten million. All that time they were burying their dead, often with artifacts. By that scenario, they would have buried at least eight billion bodies.29 If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 200,000 years, so many of the supposed eight billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, perhaps only '''a few hundred years''' in many areas."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''Agriculture is too recent.'''
#:"The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for ''185,000 years'' during the Stone Age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago.29 Yet the archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the eight billion people mentioned in item 12 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture '''for a very short time''' after the Flood, if at all."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''History is too short.'''
#:"According to evolutionists, Stone Age ''Homo sapiens'' existed for ''190,000 years'' before beginning to make written records about '''4,000 to 5,000 years''' ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases.30 Why would he wait two thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The Biblical time scale is much more likely."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''"Existence of unstable rings around planets like Saturn. Rings are not stable and will not last."'''<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Slusher, H. S. 1980. ''Age of the Cosmos''. Institute for Creation Research. pp. 65-72.</ref>
# '''Recession of the moon from the earth'''
#:"The moon is moving away from the earth gradually due to tidal activity. This movement is too fast for the earth-moon system to be 4.6 billion years old."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Huse, S. M. 1993. ''The Collapse of Evolution''. Baker Books. pp. 41-42.</ref>
# '''Shrinking sun'''
#:"Sun may be shrinking a few feet each year. Can't extrapolate this trend back to the past very far without effecting earth's environment."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Hinderliter, H. 1989. ''The Shrinking Sun. Design and Origins in Astronomy''. Creation Research Society. pp. 107-112.</ref>
# '''Absence/shortage of solar neutrinos'''
#:"Nuclear fusion in the sun's core should give off neutrinos. Experiments have not detected an adequate number of neutrinos - this is a well known problem. Some creationists have argued that this implies solar heat is due to gravity and not fusion - this would imply a young sun."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Hinderliter, H. 1989. ''The Shrinking Sun. Design and Origins in Astronomy''. Creation Research Society. pp. 113-125.</ref>
# '''Polonium Halos'''
#:"Robert Gentry's work showed that the Earth's granite was never in a molten condition, because polonium halos survive only in solid rock and the half-life of polonium is much too short to survive a multimillion-year cooling time. His results seem to indicate that the Earth was created instantaneously, in a cool condition. If true, it is clear evidence for creation and a young earth."<ref name="nwcn" />
# '''Human population growth'''
#:"If humans had been around more than a few thousand years, they would have populated the earth more quickly."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Morris, J. D. 1994. ''The Young Earth''. Master Books. pp. 70-71.</ref>
# '''Rapid Oil Formation'''
#:"It has been claimed that oil was formed over 100 millions of years from organic remains, but recent experiments have shown that oil can be produced under the right conditions in a matter of minutes."<ref name="nwcn" />
#:"Experiments by the U.S. Bureau of mines showed that petroleum (oil) can be produced from organic material in only 20 minutes."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Hayden R. Appell, Y.C. Fu, Sam Friedman, et al, “Converting Organic Wastes to Oil,” RL-7560 (Washington, D.C., United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, 1971.)</ref>
#:"British scientists claimed to have invented a way to turn household garbage into oil suitable for home heating or power plant use. 'We are doing in 10 minutes what it has taken nature 150 million years to do', said Noel McAuliffe of Manchester University..."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Sentinel Star, 2/26/1982</ref>
#:"Bottom line - Economic accumulations of oil and gas can be generated in thousands of years in sedimentary basins that have experienced hot fluid flow for similar durations."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>The Petroleum Exploration Society of Australia No. 24, 1996, p.</ref>
# '''Rapid Wood Petrification'''
#:"Petrified wood was believed to required thousands or even millions of years, but a US patent now exists that is able to produce petrified wood rapidly."<ref name="nwcn" />
#:"A mineralized sodium silicate solution for the application to wood has a composition causing it to penetrate the wood and jell within the wood so as to give the wood the non-burning characteristics of petrified wood."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>US Patent & Trademark Office, [http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=4,612,050.PN.&OS=PN/4,612,050&RS=PN/4,612,050 Patent No. 4,612,050]</ref>
# '''Tree rings'''
#:"Tree rings, including rings on petrified forest trees, can't be traced back more than some thousands of years."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Morris, H. M. 1961. The Genesis Flood. pp. 392-393.</ref>
# '''Only recently known civilizations'''
#:"Earliest known civilizations are only a few thousand years old."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Morris, J. D. 1994. The Young Earth. Master Books. pp. 70.</ref>
# '''Niagara falls'''
#:"Erosion of the system indicates it is only a few thousand years old."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Morris, J. D. 1994. The Young Earth. Master Books. pp. 48-49.</ref>
# '''Mississippi river delta'''
#:"Erosion rate and amount of sediment accumulated indicate that it is only a few thousand years old."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Mehlert, A. W. "Another Look at the Age and History of the Mississippi River." pp. 121-123. Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1988.</ref>
# '''Lack of equilibrium of Carbon-14/Carbon-12 ratio'''
#:"This ratio should reach equilibrium in the atmosphere in only some thousands of years, but it hasn't reached that point yet."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Morris, J. D. 1994. The Young Earth. Master Books. pp. 73-74.</ref>
# '''Erosion rate of the continents'''
#:"Continental mass divided by erosion rate would wash all the continents into the ocean in about 14 million years."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Morris, J. D. 1994. The Young Earth. Master Books. pp. 88-90.</ref>

== Adherents of Young Earth Creationism ==

Young Earth Creationism is a subset of [[Creationism]] most commonly found among members of the [[Abrahamic religion]]s, especially [[Judaism]], [[Christianity]], and [[Islam]] (for details please see: [[Creationism]]). In regards to early Judaism and early Christianity,
early [[Judaism]] supported young earth creationism and a majority of the early [[church fathers]] held the young earth creationist view.<ref>
* James-Griffiths, James,[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/tradition.asp Creation days and Orthodox Jewish tradition] ''Creation'' 26(2):53–55, March 2004.
* Bradshaw, Robert I., [http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter3.htm Creationism & the Early Church, chapter 3, The Days of Genesis 1]
* http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/tjv16v2_forster.pdf</ref>

== Organizations and publications ==

=== Organizations ===

Some of the more notable young earth creationist organizations include: [[Answers in Genesis]] (America and the United Kingdom), [[Creation Ministries International]] (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, South Africa, U.S.A., and United Kingdom), [[Institute for Creation Research]] (U.S.A.), [[Creation Research Society]] (U.S.A.), and [[NorthWest Creation Network]] (Washington state, U.S.A.) which founded [[CreationWiki]].

=== Magazines and newsletters ===

The Institute for Creation Research publishes a free monthly magazine, ''Acts & Facts'', which includes news of the organization and articles.

Creation Ministries International publishes a 56-page colour magazine, ''Creation'', with no paid advertising, which is distributed to 140 countries.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3871/97</ref>

Answers in Genesis, which previously distributed ''Creation'', began their own magazine, ''Answers'', in 2006. It contains advertising and its target audience is primarily American.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am</ref>

=== Peer-reviewed journals ===

The [[Creation Research Society Quarterly]] is published quarterly by the Creation Research Society,<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html</ref> and the Journal of Creation is published three times a year by Creation Ministries International.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3873/98</ref>

==Further Reading==

*[[Duane Gish]], ''Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!'', El Cajon: [[Institute for Creation Research]], 1996 <ref>http://www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=pubs_product_book_info&products_id=2176</ref>
*[[Jonathan Sarfati]], ''Refuting Evolution'', Master Books, 1999 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4014/ (Free on-line version)]
*Jonathan Sarfati, ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Master Books, 2002, ISBN 0890513872 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4013/ (Free on-line version)]
*[[R.L. Wysong]], ''The Creation-Evolution Controversy''.<ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/05105.htm</ref><ref>http://www.wysong.net/page/WOTTPWS/PROD/EDUAIDS/ED022-S</ref>
*[[Phillip E. Johnson|Phillip Johnson]], ''Darwin on Trial''. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois. 1991 <ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/darwin.html</ref>
*[[R. C. Sproul]], ''Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology'', Baker Book House: 1994 <ref>http://www.ldolphin.org/chance.html</ref><ref>http://store.apologeticsgroup.com/product_info.php?products_id=191</ref>
* [[Walt Brown]], ''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'', 7th Edition, 2001 [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html (free online version)]

== External Links ==
Young earth creationism websites:

*[http://www.answersingenesis.org Answers in Genesis]
*[http://www.creationontheweb.com/ Creation Ministries International]
*[http://www.icr.org Institute for Creation Research]
*[http://trueorigins.org TrueOrigins.org]
*[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/index.html Center for Scientific Creation]
*[http://www.allaboutcreation.org/ AllAboutCreation.org]

Articles focusing on arguments for a young earth:

*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0303.asp What are the most compelling evidences of a young earth - AiG]
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/young.html Evidence Supporting a Recent Creation - Northwest Creation Network]
*[http://www.icr.org/article/1842/ Evidence for a Young World - Institute for Creation Research]

== See also ==
*[[Creation Science]]
*[[Christianity and Science]]
*[[History of Young Earth Creationism]]
*[[List of Young Earth Creationists]]
*[[Earth Age Opinions of Prominent Christians - Pre-1800]]
=== Alternative views===
*[[Old Earth Creationism]]
*[[Theistic evolution]]
*[[Theory of Evolution]]
*[[Gap theory]]
*[[Day age creationism]]
*[[Progressive Creationism]]

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

[[Category: Young Earth Creationism]]
[[Category: Creationism]]
[[Category:Abrahamic Religions]]

Professor values

2008-06-23T15:52:45Z

Lgm:

'''Professor values''' refer to the common value system embraced by a large percentage of [[professor]]s, just as [[Hollywood values]] refers to the common value system of many in [[Hollywood]].

An extremely high percentage of professors disagree with [[conservative]] principles.<ref>"90 percent of United States professors called themselves liberal or moderate .[http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol3/iss1/art2/]</ref><ref> [http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=s1153nnhjkhr407r6ng6gjg8pvc8g2s8]</ref> Professors' common value system typically includes [[atheism]],<ref>For example, the vast majority of philosophy professors are [[atheists]], even after an alleged uptick in [[faith]] [http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=s1153nnhjkhr407r6ng6gjg8pvc8g2s8]</ref> [[censorship]], [[socialism]], unjustified claims of expertise and knowledge (for example, the dogmatic promotion of the [[Theory of Evolution|theory of evolution]]),<ref>For example, a $100,000 "environmental" prize was awarded for work on a [[politically correct]] "theory of convergent evolution." [http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2008/4/4/briefBiologyProfAwardedEnvironmentalAchievementPrize]</ref> [[liberаl]] beliefs,<ref>"90 percent of professors called themselves liberal or moderate." [http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=s1153nnhjkhr407r6ng6gjg8pvc8g2s8]</ref> [[liberal grading]], [[liberal bias]],<ref>http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2005/08/26/johnson</ref> anti-patriotism, lack of productivity, [[bullying]] or discouraging [[conservative]] students (for example, homeschoolers),<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/21/AR2008032101451.html</ref><ref>http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/news/488/NCliberalbiasagnstcons060104.htm</ref> and promotion of sexual immorality.<ref>http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2001/oct_2001_4.html</ref><ref>http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/1998/october_1998_1.html</ref>
In a Zogby poll, 58% of [[Americans]] said that the bias of professors is a serious problem, while 39% said it is a "very serious" problem.<ref name="zogby">http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1334</ref> The survey demonstrated further that "an overwhelming majority also believe that job security for college professors leaves them less motivated to do a good job than those professors who do not enjoy a tenured status - 65% said they believe non-tenured professors are more motivated to do a good job in the classroom."<ref name="zogby" /> One study in 2008 found that "[[Texas]] university professors overwhelmingly favor
[[Democratic]] candidates in their campaign contributions."<ref>http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5753471.html</ref>

Conservatives claim that professors block the granting of a tenured professorship to anyone who:

* criticizes the [[theory of evolution]]
* criticizes [[feminism]] and/or [[abortion]]
* opposes the [[homosexual agenda]]

But there are well known tenured professors with conservative views, including
Glen Reynolds and Ann Althouse. Secretary of State Condalezza Rice was a tenured
professor and Provost of Stanford University before being called to Washington to
serve President Bush.

Professors wore white armbands to protest an award of an honorary degree to a [[conservative]].<ref>http://publicbroadcasting.net/kwmu/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=1279565&sectionID=1</ref> More than 100 professors signed a letter to protest a proposal to honor a [[conservative]]-leaning [[Nobel Prize]]-winning colleague.<ref>http://bourdaghs.com/blog.html?p=484</ref>

Politicians, especially [[liberal]] ones, are routinely given high-ranking academic positions. Examples include:

* [[Al Gore]]<ref>Beginning early in 2001, "Gore will be [at UCLA] to develop a new curriculum for family-centered community building, a multidisciplinary approach that brings together authorities from such fields as education, business and public policy to work on problems that ail our society and affect our children. ... He also will be teaching at three other universities - Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism, Middle Tennessee State University in Murfreesboro and Fisk University in Nashville - in addition to his teaching and research work at UCLA." [http://spotlight.ucla.edu/special-guests/al-gore_teach/]</ref>
*[[Michael Dukakis]]
*[[Gary Hart]]
*[[Bob Kerrey]]
* [[Tony Blair]]
*[[Tom Kean]]

`

== Crimes by Professors ==
* At Northern Kentucky University, language and literature professor Sally Jacobsen incited some of her students to vandalize a pro-life display by Northern Right to Life, the campus pro-life group. Jacobsen herself also participated in the vandalism, which involved destroying rows of white crosses symbolizing the graves of aborted children. Jacobsen justified the vandalism as free speech, stating, "I did, outside of class during the break, invite students to express their freedom-of-speech rights to destroy the display if they wished to." Jacobsen was unrepentant until given the choice of facing criminal charges of theft, criminal mischief and criminal solicitation or apologizing. Jacobsen chose the latter and also paid Northern Right to Life for damage to the display. Jacobsen was suspended by the university and subsequently retired.<ref>http://www.lifenews.com/state3207.html</ref>

* "A [[South Korea]]n court Monday sentenced a former university art professor to 18 months in jail for forging her [[US]] degree certificates, officials said. The Seoul District Criminal Court found Shin Jeong-Ah guilty of forging undergraduate and master's degrees from the [[University of Kansas]] and [[Yale University]] to secure a job at Seoul's Dongguk university."<ref>http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jCfPQ1_mqM2VaXzQUSy-mXwQIvXQ</ref>

* [[Villanova University]] professor Edward R. Ritter was arrested on March 21, 2008, and charged with selling marijuana to undercover police officers, and a subsequent search of his home uncovered 19 bags of marijuana.<ref>http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/pa/20080322_Villanova_professor_arrested_on_drug_charges.html</ref>

* Kansas State University English professor Thomas Murray was a popular teacher, but he was convicted of murdering his ex-wife with 17 stab wounds and blunt trauma to her head. She "was found dead in her bedroom atop a dresser."<ref name="ctv">http://www.courttv.com/trials/murray/backgrounder_ctv.html</ref> Professor Murray had written several books, including "The Language of Sadomasochism."<ref name="ctv" /> He did not testify in his defense and spoke only at sentencing, where he called the state's case a "fairy tale."<ref>http://www.kansaspublicradio.org/newsstory.php?itemID=5892</ref>

* Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine Anatomy associate professor Peter Alan Rogers, 59, was arrested on Apr. 21, 2008 on a charge of possession of child pornography on a school laptop computer.<ref>http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/gwinnett/stories/2008/04/24/professor_0425.html</ref>

* Shortly after the end of the school year and his contract, Marshall University Psychiatry associate professor John M. Adams burglarized and murdered Bobby Burns on July 2, 2003, and then kidnapped two women and forced them to drive him across the Ohio River.<ref>http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/07/29/loc_ohprofessor29.html</ref>

* University of South Florida professor Sami al-Arian pled guilty to "aiding a terrorist group" and was "sentenced to 57 months in prison."<ref name="nysun">http://www.nysun.com/article/72228</ref><ref>http://www.mysuncoast.com/Global/story.asp?S=7961089&nav=menu577_2_1</ref> He then "spent more than a year in civil contempt after refusing to appear before two grand juries investigating Islamic charities in Northern Virginia."<ref name="nysun">

* Claremont McKenna College visiting professor Kerri Dunn was sentenced to a year in state prison after she was found guilty of staging a phony [[hate crime]], in which she "spray-painted her car with racist and anti-Semitic slurs and then reported a hate crime on campus."<ref>http://www.knbc.com/education/3998600/detail.html</ref>

* University of Hawaii professor Marc Fossorier was arrested and later convicted and sentenced to one year in jail for attempting a sex crime with a girl apparently only 15 years old.<ref>http://kgmb9.com/main/content/view/4582/40/</ref>

* A [[New Jersey]] Cumberland County College professor "was arrested on charges of harassment, trespassing and stalking."<ref>http://www.thedailyjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080305/NEWS01/80305019/1002</ref>

* University of Central Florida political science professor Michael Shawn Reichert was arrested for having "a stash of more than 100 child pornography pictures on his work computer," "plus three pornographic movies."<ref>http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_local_orlandocrime/2007/07/ucf-professor-a.html</ref>

* [[University of Wisconsin]] adjunct professor Victor M. Zamudio-Taylor resigned after being charged with viewing child-pornography in a campus computer laboratory.<ref>http://badgerherald.com/news/2002/03/19/uwmilwaukee_professo.php</ref>

* A [[British]] university professor was jailed for ten months for plotting to defraud a hospital trust. <ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20010626/ai_n14398964</ref>

* [[French]] [[Marxist]] [[structuralist]] [[philosopher]] Professor [[Louis Althusser]] (1918-1990) killed his wife in 1980 and was afterwards confined to a psychiatric hospital.

* Professor Daniel Storm, of the University of Washington, flushed 4 litres of the flammable solvent ethyl ether down the sink, rather than pay the safe disposal fees. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jim Oesterle said that his using an axe to open the containers was particularly dangerous because a spark could easily have ignited the ether. <ref>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003607035_uwprof08m0.html</ref>

* An Associate Professor at Youngstown State University was locked up and fined $50 after baring his buttocks in front of children at a county fair. <ref>http://www.thejambar.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticlePrinterFriendly&uStory_id=38283b71-1223-4e85-929f-ba0f932d5366</ref>

* Philosophy Professor [[Abimael Guzman]] of the National University of San Cristobal de Huamanga in [[Peru]] founded the bloodthirsty [[Shining Path]] organisation, one of the most violent terrorist groups of recent decades.

== Immoral, Unethical or Bizarre Behavior ==

*Emory University History Professor of History [[Michael Bellesiles]], a [[gun control]] advocate, wrote a book entitled ''Arming America, The Origins of a National Gun Culture'' (2000). Gary Wills gave it a glowing review in ''The New York Times'', but admitted later that "I was took. The book is a fraud."<ref>Jonah Goldberg, [http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/guests/s_501644.html ''Reports of the 2nd Amendment's death have been greatly exaggerated ...''] Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Apr. 8, 2007.</ref> Bellesiles resigned from his position as Professor of History when an independent committee of scholars examined his work and concluded that "his scholarly integrity is seriously in question."<ref>http://hnn.us/articles/1069.html</ref>

*According to one columnist, 88 Duke professors -- more than 10 percent of the Duke professorial faculty - endorsed and published an advertisement hurtful to students who had been wrongly accused of rape during a lacrosse team party, which "helped create the lynch-mob atmosphere."<ref>http://www.nypost.com/seven/03232007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/duke__who_wont_pay_opedcolumnists_john_podhoretz.htm</ref>

* When student Rebecca Beach circulated an email at Warren Community College in New Jersey disclosing that decorated Iraq war hero Lt. Col. Scott Rutter would be visiting, English professor John Daly replied: "Real freedom will come when soldiers in Iraq turn their guns on their superiors."<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47461</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

== Sources ==

* [http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/tables/dt07_178.asp?referrer=list National Center for Educational Statistics, "Table 178, Historical Summary of faculty, students, degrees, and finances in degree-granting institutions: Selected years, 1869-70 through 2005-06"]

[[Category:Academics]]
[[Category:Liberals]]

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-05-07T16:31:23Z

Lgm: /* Second Picture's caption */

Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]

==Second Picture's caption==
The caption on the second picture should read "...during the national anthem." Also, I believe the picture was taken from here: http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1662530_1446035,00.html. [[User:Shiritai|Shiritai]] 08:21, 7 November 2007 (EST)

People should also be aware that placing one's hand over their heart is required only for the pledge of allegiance, it is not required when one hears the star spangled banner (the national anthem).

The part of the caption "His refusal to follow simple tradition and respect for the Anthem is the result of twenty-plus years of listening to Rev. Jeremiah Wright's anti-American sermons." is pure malicious speculation that has no place in an encyclopedia of any kind.

== Who here would mind Obama as president?==
I'll admit it, i am a moderate on the conservative slanted site. Be as my politcal views span both sides, i am hoping for Obama to win the election. I'm sure that some people here have criticisms of him, some of which may even be valid. So have at it people: Why not Obama, the man sent to lead America to greatness?--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 20:10, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I must remind you, this is a conservative encyclopedia. most conservatives can't handle the idea of a black man as superior to them! [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 21:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Ahhh, so we have a self-admitted Godless Liberal, accusing conservatives, all of them apparently, of being racists. Nice and intellectual! Once again a "mobocracy" trait shining through, ignoring all logic and putting idealogical hatred first! Nice. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:58, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::No right-thinking people could possible support having a black as President, let alone in their neighborhood. [[User:GodisGreat|GodisGreat]] 15:27, 21 March 2007 (PST).

:::I think it would be great if he won, I can't stand Hilary...--[[User:Flax+|Flax+]] 21:32, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I'm one of the most liberal people I know... and I cannot stand the woman. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 21:35, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

In that case, get to those primaries and vote (especially if you live in Iowa or NH). I believe that there are worthy candidates on the Republicans as well, but i want to ensure the best man for the job gets the democratic nomination.--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 23:26, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:To be honest... He would be better than that anti-video gaming [[fascist]]. No offense to anybody. --[[User:Eiyuu Kou|Eiyuu Kou]] 23:27, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::Personally, I feel Obama may be too inexperienced for the job. However, I still would like to see him elected. In reality, the president doesn't need to be very smart or experienced to BE president. He has a Cabinet of advisors and a whole staff to make decisions for him. Ergo, Obama doesn't really NEED the experience. He's plenty smart enough, and he come off as highly educated and eloquent. Really though, what makes him a good candidate is that he is well liked. What we need right now is a president who is willing to go around to all the European countries we have angered and make kissy-face with them, thus patching up our foreign policy. Hillary isn't going to do that, and I doubt a Republican president would. If we don't get our foreign policy out of the toilet, I think we're going to be in a lot of trouble soon.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:32, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That reminds me of Bush Jr... --[[User:Eiyuu Kou|Eiyuu Kou]] 23:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I agree completely! No person with the name hussein will become president[[User:Albobsman|Albobsman]] 12:53, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

I understand why American terrorists would want Hussein Obama to be President. How obtuse can you be not to understand he is the Al-Qaeda candidate? I will not surrender willingly to Barack Hussein Obama. [[User:GettingItRight|GettingItRight]] 22:30, 7 November 2007 (EST)
:Exactly, because obviously an American sounding name makes a great president. Look at George Walker Bush. [[User:Kip|Kip]] 07:26, 7 March 2008 (EST)
::He's not a Muslim. He became a very religious Christian in his early 20's and then he met Rev. Wright who's a racist, Afro-centrist Christian, and he's still a member of that church. [[User:Darkknight|Darkknight]] 20:30, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

In response to the original question, Obama would not be a good candidate because the only thing he has going for him is his charisma. Example: when asked, he said if elected, he would immediately pull all American troops out of Iraq. Wether you agree with the war or not doesn't matter - that would be irrisponsible. It is not a matter of race by any means - I would love to see a black president, but one who is actually qualified for the job.--[[User:Justintree|Justintree]] 14:51, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

== Sources ==

Can't we get a better source for his voting record than an opinion piece? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:12, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

*You can't turn a pigs ear into a silk purse dude......he doesn't have much of one. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 05:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I'm not saying how to judge his voting record, I'm saying that an opinion piece doesn't merit a good source. A good rule of thumb is that if there's a little picture next to an article, it's a column or an opinion piece, not an article. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:51, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Now that flew right over my head...I even heard the air noise! --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:50, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

# I asked for people who were going to discuss his voting record to use an actual source, not an opinion piece as it is now
# You made a joke about his lack of a voting record
# I said that wasn't what I was talking about, I was talking about sources. Columns, op-eds, editorials are not sources. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 20:26, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

*Oh, okay, so my cracking a joke meant I didn't understand what you meant, and might have distracted the readers, so they wouldn't know either? Got it. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 09:30, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::From the ass' butt to it's mouth, http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_109_1.htm for last session. --[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 09:39, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Recommend ==

[[Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style/Politicians]] - [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:18, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==Breaking News!!!!==

Barack has just raised 25 million dollars for his campaign making his in competiton with Hiliary Clinton!! [http:// http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17946727/25 million!!!!]

== Controversial ? ==

Why is Barack Obama's biographical entry a "controversial" topic for Conservapedia, and locked out from editing?
:Because people who don't feel like contributing useful information see fit to compare his name to those of terrorists. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 20:42, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::It was vandalized twice in 48 hours. I asked for it to be unlocked. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 20:43, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::OK. It look presentable. I left in the material about how liberal he is, though I doubt its value. At least it looks nice. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:44, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

*The political leanings of any politician are the most important of all. Their stated goals mean nothing, their idealogy everything. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 01:57, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't disagree, but I doubt the veracity of saying X is Y more liberal than Z. Liberalness is not a quanitfiable value. There are better ways to describe his political agenda than by saying "look who he is more liberal than." [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:59, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Well, Myk, it's your MSM who does it, the Liberal news organizations, lol. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 02:01, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::I don't know if I'd call the National Journal, a publication with an almost $2000 per year subscription rate, mainstream. I tend to avoid it when I hear it, just as I tend to avoid editorial commentary. A far better judge of whether or not a candidate fits your bill is to look issue by issue. And it may be the "Main Stream Media" that started it, but it was the Rocky Mountain News which reported it (in a column) and Conservapedia who repeated it. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:21, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::How is this locked? I can still edit this. Maybe that's because i have proven myself in being able to see Obama for the wonderous person he really is. Or not (since i may get banned for a comment like that, him being a non-conservative)--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 01:13, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::Things change on a wiki, dude. It got unlocked. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 09:47, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

== Goofy Article ==

I understand that B.O. hits a lot of people's hot buttons, but this article is a mess. "half-African, half-Caucasian"? What's up with that? Why not use the generally-accepted and perfectly accurate term "African-American"? Or ditch it altogether, unless we're going to start classifying all politicos by race/ethnicity ("Irish-Caucasoid Ted Kennedy", or "Texan-American George Bush"). Better still, ignore the race issue until it is relevant to the article ("Obama is the the first African-American to...").

Too, do we really need three sentences establishing Obama's exact degree of liberlosity? Can't we just say "liberal Democrat", or just describe his positions ("show, don't tell").--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 11:36, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

*I took all that away once, have been overruled by another Sysop, evidently. I changed it back once, to African-American, but some felt it important to note he was Mulatto. An archaic term, if ever there was one. Mixed-race would be acceptable today. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 02:00, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Michael Richards and Jimmy the Greek ==

Why are we discussing Michael Richards (not Kramer by the way) and Jimmy the Greek (real name Jimmy Snyder) on Barack Obama's page? The Boston Globe criticized him, black leaders criticized him... that's relevant. Imus' career and the issues surround Richards and Snyder are not. I would change this myself but it was protected again. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 13:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:And while it's still off topic here, it might be pertinent for the [[Don Imus]] article to note that CBS Radio suspended him for two weeks, not a few affiliates. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 13:07, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::TK, please tell me where Obama's intellect vs. the intellect of civil rights leaders is mentioned in the source. And please tell me why refering to the old civil rights era is not redundant as the civil rights era is generally considered to be the era of MLK, Malcolm X, and Rosa Parks. That's already old, TK. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:47, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Perhaps to you, perhaps to me, but not necessarily to readers. Our "job" is to make things clear for them, not us. I think my change to old-guard makes it much clearer. Your additions were borderline denigration, to Hill's advantage, I would say. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::So this is a wiki. We create a link for Civil Rights Era and then we make the article. His disconnection from Civil Rights figures is well publicized, just google Sharpton AND Obama. Or Obama AND black AND enough. Never is his intellect brought up. That's your opinion and is not sourced. I have no reason to want to support Hillary Clinton. Never been a fan. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:57, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Someone reading his curriculum vitae cannot escape his intellect, no? Since we currently have in place a "Civil Rights" leadership, it isn't necessairly old, is it? Jackson and Sharpton (both bigots, IMO) are from the old-guard civil rights era, and that is germain, is it not, since Obama's age was brought into the argument? Are you really incensed at that one word addition, which is sourced by the rest of the page, or that it was me adding to it? I will be happy to add a cite for what you consider an assumption, later today. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::I just think it's redundant. His disconnect is with the era. He was too young to participate in it and as he is not a descendant of slaves, he is considered to not be a part of the CRE culture. As for the intellect thing, that has no part of his disconnection. You are either saying Obama is smarter or stupider than Civil Rights Leaders, something of which you have no proof. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:09, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Myk, the "proof" that Obama is "smarter" is in the public record, IMO. Disconnect is a pejorative word, used by reporter and political scum to smear people without appearing to overtly do so. Did you not know that? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:12, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
**I read the article to say Obama wants to be known as a "national leader", not a "Black leader", to paraphrase moreless. Hence a sort of parting of the ways with traditional well known "Black civil rights leaders", so to speak. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:24, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Agreed. He views things, seemingly, unlike the older leaders, as not just black and white issues. Obviously due to his age, upbringing in a multi-cultural society, and his education....--~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:29, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Still, by referring to leadership in quotes, and comparing their intellect unfavorably to Obama's you are painting a whole bunch of folks with a wide pejorative brush. Jackson and Sharpton are not representative of the whole of the CRE activists. And, of course, the Obama entry is not the appropriate place for a broadside against JJ, AS, and so forth.--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 17:38, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Agreed, WJT, however they are allowed/painted/claimed to be "the leaders" both in the press and educational circles. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:44, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
**This is indeed an important point, Obama's greatest fear is being marginalized as just another "Black leader"; he's counting on what Republicans call the 'color blind society" to elevate him as an equal, respected national figure and leader. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:48, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Well he certainly has my attention and support in doing that, and ridding us at long last of the hobgoblins of the past, and wresting the power away from the merchants of fear and hate. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== Off Page Discussion ==

Regarding the published criticism of Barack Obama, don't you think the majority of that link would be better served in an article about Don Imus or about Racism in Broadcasting? It seems to me that the relevant bit is that the Boston Globe and some prominent black leaders question Obama's handling of the situation, not the digression towards Michael Richard and Jimmy the Greek. Myk 15:42, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

You convinced me. You wanna do it? RobS 15:43, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
It was locked last time I checked. Myk 15:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Ok, I'll unprotect you so you can fix it; but i may have to reprotect quickly cause actually I don;t know what's going on on that page. RobS 16:09, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
That you'd have to take up with TK. He thinks the candidate pages are being excessively vandalized. I have been unable to persuade him otherwise. Myk 16:15, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Done. Check it out to make sure it still fits with what you wanted to say. I am an Obama supporter so I tried to keep it to the source as much as possible. Searching for Obama AND Imus actually comes up with a lot of comments about Imus and McGuirk (sp?) making derogatory comments about Obama himself. Those weren't helpful. Myk 16:35, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Real good. Couldn't have done better myself. Say, while I got you here, would you mind discussing why you support Obama just to answer some personal curiousity. I got two questions off the top (a) what age group do you fall into (18-24, 25-30, 30-45, 45+),and (b) when and/or where did you first hear of Obama? Thanks. RobS 16:39, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm narrowly into the 30-45 category. And I first heard Obama at the 04 convention. Went out and got his first book and then Audacity when it came out. Myk 16:42, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Question 3: Do you think he can (a) defeat Hillary in the primaries and go on to win the General election, and/or (b) is just running for the VP spot? RobS 16:48, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
(Undent) I don't think people on the right fully appreciate how disenchanted a lot of Democrats are with Hillary. I think when the two of them are on the same stage in a debate the differences will become overwhelming. Obama is both charismatic and smart. As for the general... well, obviously he's going to be a polarizing figure just because of his race and his name... but far less polarizing than Clinton. I think Hillary is much more beatable in a general than Obama. Myk 16:53, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Good observations, and I agree with all of it. Hillary is the Newt Gingrich of the Democratic Party--42% will come out to vote for her, and 42% will come out to vote for whoever can beat her.
So as to the question of electability, Richardson & Obama got her beat. I just quickly reread Obama & Kerry's convention speeches, cause I recall at the time much of what Obama said was directly contradicted on successive nights by a host of successive speakers. Let's look at these two excisions:
Obama:tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America -- there’s the United States of America. [23]
Kerry:after September 11th all our people rallied to President Bush's call for unity to meet the danger. There were no Democrats. There were no Republicans. There were only Americans. And how we wish it had stayed that way. [24]
Now, is this just meaningless election rhetoric on the part of both speakers, or is there some way to reconcile these divergent passages? RobS 17:12, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
A lot comes down to genuineness (I think I just made up a word). When Obama uses rhetoric, I believe it. At least in a way that I never do from Kerry or Clinton. The position of president entails a mix of issues, ability and inspiration. Issues are always going to be split based on ideology. Ability is where Obama's going to take a hit due to his lack of national / executive experience but he clearly has the intellect. If he can handle that question, which I think he can, then his ability to inspire will make him a daunting force. Think Bill Clinton without the smarm. And hopefully without the personal problems. As it stands now, Romney and Giuliani are the only GOP candidates I see capable of taking on Obama and then only if they don't prompt a more conservative third party candidate.
The fact that Obama chose to give a unifying speech at a historically polarizing venue took a lot of courage. Compare his keynote address to Zell Miller's. Regardless of your thoughts on the issues, Miller's speech was a heckuva lot more abrasive. Myk 17:27, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Guilani doesn't have a prayer. GOP will not nominate an East Coast liberal in favor of abortion. The question is who can beat McCain? Richardson may, Hillary can't, and Obama probably can't either. (Incidentally, new item this morning says Fred Thompson has lymphoma, so that leaves Huckabee as the only other Bible-belt GOP candidate, and Bible-belt candidates, GOP or Dem, are the only ones who can win nowadays).
Let me give a gut instinct on Obama, he's probably running for VP, which is a mistake. His problem is, if he doesn't win the whole prize, which is a long shot right now, no one will ever take him serious again. He will not be viable in 2012 or ever after. (Just as Edwards doesn't have a prayer, or Gary Hart, etc. Candidates really have a short shelf life). You can't run on failure. I think he's in now for the following reason:
Both parties recognize a young person's poltical views are molded by parents & teachers, but not really hardened until they reach about age 25. So between 18-25 they are still approachable and winnable. Once they turn about 25, whatever party reaches them has a voter then for life--for the next 40 or 50 years. So there is always this sort of outreach to younger voters, to get their interest, enthusiasm, and commitment. I think Obama (a) knows he being used this way with the prospect of being a VP candidate for Hillary (b) doesn't mind the prospect that he will never get elected President in 2008 or ever after that by agreeing to this scheme. But he is getting rewarded. Ultimately in the end though, he will disappoint his followers by being a failure, which of course can always be blamed on Americans entrenched racist attitudes, and everyones's a victim.
This is how the game of politics is played. RobS 17:43, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes, that is how it is played, usually, like this, away from the article talk page, to the exclusion of those not specifically "watching" the page. :p --~ TK MyTalk 17:46, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
OK, I'll cut and paste it over there. RobS 17:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
McCain has alienated both the left and the right. I don't think he has a shot for the nomination and the only thing that can save him in the general would be an abrupt upturn in the war. Myk 18:34, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:RobS"

==Another take==
Let me give a gut instinct on Obama, he's probably running for VP, which is a mistake. His problem is, if he doesn't win the whole prize, which is a long shot right now, no one will ever take him serious again. He will not be viable in 2012 or ever after. (Just as Edwards doesn't have a prayer, or Gary Hart, etc. Candidates really have a short shelf life). You can't run on failure. I think he's in now for the following reason:

Both parties recognize a young person's poltical views are molded by parents & teachers, but not really hardened until they reach about age 25. So between 18-25 they are still approachable and winnable. Once they turn about 25, whatever party reaches them has a voter then for life--for the next 40 or 50 years. So there is always this sort of outreach to younger voters, to get their interest, enthusiasm, and commitment. I think Obama (a) knows he being used this way with the prospect of being a VP candidate for Hillary (b) doesn't mind the prospect that he will never get elected President in 2008 or ever after that by agreeing to this scheme. But he is getting rewarded. Ultimately in the end though, he will disappoint his followers by being a failure, which of course can always be blamed on America's entrenched racist attitudes, and everyones's a victim.

This is how the game of politics is played. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:52, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't think he's running for VP. I think even being elected for VP would marginalize the accomplishment. And he's certainly not fundraising like a VP. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:53, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::*One doesn't ever "run" for Vice President. However when Hillary is nominated, her asking him to take the job is pretty much a mandatory yes from him. Especially if he ever wants to run for President again. Refusing would term him out as a Senator, and strip him of any future party leadership. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:59, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:::*Libby Dole did 2000.

:::*See, now we need to understand how the fundraising law operates (which can't be briefly explained right here). He's got $20+ million; as an Illinois Senator, he's not up for another 5 years, and needs maybe 6-10 million by then. So this is one way he's being rewarded, he's basically got enough cash to hold that Senate seat for the next 24 years right now, in addition to being able to contribute to other candidates, i.e. build a politcal machine. This is how the game of politics really operates, and if you look beneath the surface, follow events, and see where Obama ends up in the next 18 to 24 months (and several decades after), you really can get some insight on the inner workings that are often hazy and mysterious. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:01, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Obama isn't Senator Dole, with her political pedigree, it is indeed apples and oranges. I do have friends who are managing Obama, since its a very small world at that level of handling, and he has a decent shot. But in my opinon, and that of Dick Morris (albeit a Hillary hater, but most certainly a FOB.) he will possibly be offered the VP shot. If not too throughly destroyed by the Clintons long before the convention. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 18:08, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
**The name of the game is beat McCain. Right now McCain beats all hands down (as he has for two years now). McCain controls big donors, party apparatcheks, old Perot & Colin Powell middle of the roaders, and a few Democrats. But the dirty little secret is GOP rank and file core constituents, the tax cutters and the religious right, are not that enthusiastic about McCain. His biggest problem is in his own party. If Hillary is the nominee, then the core rank & file will come out to vote for McCain to stop Hillary. And a VP candidate such as Obama, as the record shows, adds nothing to the ticket. This however, is where Bill Richardson can win. If it’s McCain vs Richardson, and GOP rank & file stay home, Richardson could actually pull off the win, cause he doesn’t have the “high negatives”, as they are called, that candidates like Hillary & Gingrich have. High negatives motive people to go out and vote against a candidate. This is were the polling on McCain is deceptive, if it’s McCain vs Hillary, the Republicans will come out in force to stop Hillary; if it’s McCain vs Richardson, many Republicans will stay home rather than soil their conscience by voting for someone or something they detest. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:39, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:*I look forward to beating the pants off of McCain! Newt has the hearts and minds of the GOP, and many, many Democratic voters, with his commmon-sense, almost Reagan-like approach. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:**Right now, 2008 looks like a Democratic year; the only thing that could screw it up is--Hillary Clinton. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:46, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree, again. However, have you looked at newt.org and some of the bipartisan initiatives he has launched? BTW I added some backgound on that scum reporter, some other interviews she gave and her own posts, discrediting her being bipartisan, or even fair, where Obama is concerned. I smell one of Bill's cigars at work. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 21:48, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:I'd have Newt's baby if I were a women, but he's not going anywhere. And I recently read somewhere he's not serious anyway. The mold of modern Presidents is a Southern Governor, or at least a Southerner. This has been true since Lyndon Johnson. Nixon & Reagan were from California, but the demographics of California since the Dust Bowl era have been Southern (remember, Grapes of Wrath, the Okies headed west, etc). So California is really much more like the South than it is the Midwest or the East. Southerners do not vote by party, they vote for "one of their own", i.e. one who talks and sounds like them. Easterners & Midwesterners don;t vote like this, they are more ideological of party driven the by the common culture and history that Southerners share. Ironic, even thought the South lost the Civil War, they have come to dominate the Presidency since the 60s. Bill Richardson fits this mold. So do Huckabee & McCain. Fred Thompson & the guy from Kansas also. I suspect Hillary, cosmopolitan New Yorker that she has become, along with Pennsyvlania & Chicago roots, will really resurrect her Southern drawl she gave up nearly 15 years ago now in the next coming months. This will be comical to watch, listening to her Eastern & Midwest accent when she's DC or NY, but pouring on the the good 'ol drawl when she's out on the trail, cause she smart enough to know how Presidential elections are won. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:18, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Rob, Newt is from Georgia. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 02:02, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Gingrich and Hillary have the identical problem: "high negatives". Both enjoy 42% over all support; both have 42% "unfavorable" ratings. In other words, it's a wash. +42% - 42% = 0 net positive. Neither can win.

:::What "high negatives" do is motivate voters to get out an ''vote against'' a candidate. Typically, voters a motivated by a candidates ''charisma'' so to speak, like Clinton or Reagan, where voters are motivated to ''vote for'' the candidate; when candidates fail to inspire, like Dole, Dukakis, ''et al'', voters stay home. But a candidate like Gingrich or Hillary with high negatives motivates voters to get out and defeat them by voting for whatever uninspiring, uncharismatic candidate stands the best chance to beat them. This is why uninspired Rebublicans ''will'' vote for McCain to defeat Hillary, with a high turnout, whereas in a McCain/Richardson contest, Republicans voters will stay home and a Democrat then can win. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:11, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

== Political Blog or an encyclopedia? ==

Would like to know if this is now officially an political blog, or are we still trying to make an encyclopedia? If the goal of the site hasn't changed, why are there entryes like: "Obama's image as an "articulate" spokesman came into question after his failure to state right away that he would retaliate in case of further terrorist strikes against the United States." ? Are we next going to collect President Bushes slips in his speeches and post them here under his article? Tell me if this is the new trend and ill go collect some. Would lenghten the article nicely. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 21:10, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

*Someone so obviously discontent with Conservapedia, makes one wonder why they are here at all. I mean, I am not wanting you to leave, if you think you can do productive work, most certainly. However I can only judge from my own feelings, which would mean if I was that unhappy, I wouldn't waste my breath on it. You are an extraordinary man, being able to do productive editing and be so displeased. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:06, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

::nevermind --'''''[[User:Andersmusician|Andersmusician]]''''' 23:13, 22 July 2007 (EDT)~

*Gosh, you waited all this time to respond, and had to make a sock to do it? :O --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:27, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

== GSmiley ==

Great additions here today! Thanks for your effort. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:09, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

==Gossip==

"Former House Majority leader Tom DeLay has described Obama's record in the Illinois Senate as that of a “Marxist leftist.”"

I thought Conservapedia reached its recent page view goal without indulging in the gossip common on wikipedia? This is something I have seen on a number of political biographies here, but mainly on Democrats. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 18:40, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

== Drug Use ==

I was shocked that Obama's admitted cocaine use [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/02/AR2007010201359_pf.html] isn't mentioned in this article. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 14:48, 17 December 2007 (EST)

: Our [[rules]] prohibit [[gossip]]. [[Gossip]] has zero educational value, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:10, 17 December 2007 (EST)

:: How does one define gossip? He wrote about it himself - making it not private, no? [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 15:19, 17 December 2007 (EST)

== Liberal Rankings Reference ==

I would like to see the reference for Obama being the 10th most liberal senator changed to this
http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc
because this is what the other reference refers to and because this site is very informative as it lists other senators scores and votes. Thanks! --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 18:30, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:Unprotected, so do it yourself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:31, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Done! Reprotect again if you like. Thanks! --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 18:35, 29 December 2007 (EST)

== Rumours ==
This article is somewhat sloppy in its attributions and quotes. The part about the allegations about Obama's childhood are a good case in point. Surely it should be made clear that the allegations that he attended a madrassa are lies? [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 19:18, 2 January 2008 (EST)

== Suggest Protection ==

There's a vandal who was blocked once today for targeting presidential candidate entries. Since the primary is tonight (fingers crossed for Huck!) I expect vandalism to go up on these articles, before it goes down! I would recommend protecting articles like this for a week, maybe?-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 18:11, 8 January 2008 (EST)

: No need for protection. We'll be watching.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:38, 8 January 2008 (EST)

== Affirmative action in summary ==

I'm sorry about not discussing the recent change I made- I didn't see how it was major, as MexMax suggests, or even arguable. Here's why I did it:

The summary contains an anti-Obama statement claiming he is nothing more than a black man, who gained his status due to affirmative action. I removed the section because this very article states that he not only graduated Harvard Law, but did so magna cum laude ("with highest honors"). I can understand someone having issue with the possibility of his getting accepted due to his race, but graduating at the top of his class is far from proven to be race-based.

Regarding the paper he wrote, it's just fluff. His lack of a background in physics is unrelated since he was not authoring a paper in physics. He was writing about law, using physics as an analogy of legal matters. If the editor who put this text here actually bothered to read the reference, they would have seen that the context of the quote was actually a compliment Tribe: "...he was certainly the most all-around impressive student I had seen in decades." Again, where is affirmative action in this?

Conservapedia is about truth, not spreading propaganda (correct me if my impression is mistaken). I understand that Obama does not share conservative values but lying is morally wrong as well and we should not tolerate it here.

-- [[User:NepotisMonachus|NepotisMonachus]] 12:00, 30 January 2008 (EST)

: Obama's record and support is full of puffery, preferences, and advantages based on his race. Your comments above only reinforce some of them, rather than rebut them. He was credited with analyzing a paper on physics, without any background in the topic. In fact, he apparently had no formal background in constitutional law at the time either! We're going to tell the truth here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:08, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:: You should be a bit careful, though, Andy. You don't want to get hung out to dry like you did over Dawkins. A word to the wise! [[User:MatthewHopkins|MatthewHopkins]] 15:13, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:Removed the personal opinion on Tribe's remarks regarding Obama. Tribe can state whatever he wants regarding Obama, and if it's going to be referenced, do so straight up. CP isn't the place to debate Tribe's remark as he can't respond. If we include his remark (or the reference) we shouldn't be expounding on it. I didn't think an encyclopedia should contain personal opinion. --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 15:17, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:: Accounts will be blocked if they remove facts or quotes here, or in the Dawkins entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:::How is "absurdly insisted" a fact and not an opinion? If it just said insisted, that's a fact because it was a direct quote. But to add the adverb "absurdly", that makes it opinion.--[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 15:27, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:::: You deleted the Tribe quotes also, which is unacceptable. If you want to remove "absurdly" then insert "liberal" next to Tribe's name so that readers can see for themselves how ridiculous the quotes are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:31, 30 January 2008 (EST)

::::Jdellaro's right, you know. [[User:MatthewHopkins|MatthewHopkins]] 15:29, 30 January 2008 (EST)

::::: "MatthewHopkins", you seem to love to talk, talk, talk. I'm going to check your edits now to see if there is any substance there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:31, 30 January 2008 (EST)
:::::: That's rich. Check away, old horse. You'll find good stuff there, and most of the talk is attempting to argue sense into [[Liberals]]. [[User:MatthewHopkins|MatthewHopkins]] 16:05, 30 January 2008 (EST)

::::: Aschalfly- First, we can't change things without talking, now Matt gets slammed because he tried to discuss the issue. You claim this is a meritocracy, but you push people around just because you don't know them. Your action here is that of a tyrant- threatening someone who is only trying to help the encyclopedia. I know you are concerned about liberals defacing the encyclopedia, but I don't think you've found one in this case. I've checked his edits without malice, and he seems to deserve good standing. You should be ashamed when you finish your witch hunt and apologize. [[User:NepotisMonachus|NepotisMonachus]] 07:44, 31 January 2008 (EST)

Mr. S, this is really weird. I mean, Obama might be just left of Lenin, but I don't get the affirmative action thing. Do we know his SATs, LSATs, etc? Do we have any evidence that his "achievements" are based on AA? If not, then this will look to any sane person like a racist piece of poo article. I mean, c'mon, let's get this guy on the facts, not on bizarre assumptions. Just cuz he's black doesn't mean he benefited from AA. He may have, and if he did, where's the citation? Otherwise, it's racist gossip.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 16:56, 1 February 2008 (EST)

: Agreed- this nonsense makes the article looks more like a smear campaign that a fact-based biography. Due to the absence of any evidence, I will be removing much of the AA material later this week. I am halfway through reading the law review article, and there's nothing wrong with it. You may have a different opinion, but the essay is solid- liberal in its views perhaps, but certainly not absurd. There is none of this alleged analysis of physics, only a well cited collection of the physics issues described so that a layman can understand the importance of their discovery and their effects on modern scientific thought. Note that these effects are the key point and they have more to do with the history of science than science itself, and do not require the absurd call for a background in physics. The credits cite Barack for being the last of five persons providing "analytic and research assistance", but do not specify his contribution, which could have been anywhere from analytic to gofering to the law library to make photocopies. It also mentions a Harvard physics professor as a source of technical comments, so the physics are probably sound. If Obama was a major contributor to this essay, he should be commended for a job well done, but the current evidence doesn't allow for either congratulations or condemnation. Please provide comments and present supporting evidence. If you want to comment on the article, try reading it first: Harvard Law Review- Volume 103 November 1989, Number 1. [[User:NepotisMonachus|NepotisMonachus]] 13:28, 4 February 2008 (EST)

:: Some childish heavy-handed coward anonymously and secretly blocked my account instead of using discussion to come to a conclusion on this matter. Whoever you are, you can't shut me up by clicking a check box. Give me a fair trial for violating site policy or prove me wrong. Keep blocking new accounts only proves your contempt for truth and free speech. [[User:NepotisMonachusB|NepotisMonachusB]] 08:46, 14 February 2008 (EST)

Im sorry but that AA thing is complete bigotry, you can be black and still achieve. This is very offencive , only a racist would be happy with it, no wonder only moderates and liberals will stand a chance of winning the election, be it McCain, clinton or obama, the conservative voice will never again take prominance in politics. Maybe after seeing this im quite releaved. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 12:02, 15 February 2008 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

The total number of votes cast by Obama is meaningless, since the vast majority of them would be on non-controversial issues.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:08, 30 January 2008 (EST)
:Not a problem; I was just trying to add a bit of perspective to the point. However, you might want to reconsider or reformulate the second part of the paragraph (which you also reverted). It's unclear who exactly "opponent" refers to--I understand it means Jack Ryan, but Obama's main Dem primary rival came to a similar end (dropped out of the race when details of his divorce became public). Further, readers might recall that Obama defeated Alan Keyes in the general election and wrongly believe the sexual allegations refer to him. Hence, my phrasology of "initial Republican" and "dropped out". Also, thanks for (re)clarifying the research citation.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 17:12, 30 January 2008 (EST)

== "He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action" ==

Seems a little harsh (and uncited). Could it maybe be reworded slightly? His race is perhaps one factor, but ''surely'' it's not implied that Obama's entire life has consisted of coasting on a combination of his ethnicity and [[liberal]] [[affirmative action]]. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:28, 30 January 2008 (EST)
:That's extremely harsh, I agree, and veering towards the biased. Of all the thousands of people who have voted for him, surely what he has to say, what he has written and what he has done have all had a bigger impact than affirmative action? If affirmative action was in place, then why isn't Alan Keyes the Republican front-runner? [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 10:54, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:: Republican voters do not support [[affirmative action]], and do care about military and other experience in choosing a Commander in Chief. Many (not all) Democratic voters care more about promoting [[racial quotas]]. Got it now?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:10, 1 February 2008 (EST)

::: Aschlafly- you've avoided the point with more anti-liberal statements. While I'm happy to sling those around with you, bias is the question here. I'll try to make Feebasfactor's point a little clearer for you: Is there bias in the affirmative action statement, or is the accusation verifiable? If proof cannot be provided, how are we better are than the liberals on Wikipedia, who we bash daily on their bias? Do we even care anymore or have we abandoned Conservapedia's founding principles? [[User:NepotisMonachus|NepotisMonachus]] 16:46, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:: Aschafly - If Republicans care about military experience, then why choose Reagan or G. W Bush, whose experience of warfare was minimal? And if I can point out something with my tongue firmly in my cheek, why are the current Republican candidates for the Oval Office all themselves from minorities - a Mormon, an Old Age Pensioner, an Evangelical, an African-American and a... a whatever the heck Ron Paul is? Isn't that affirmative action too? [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 19:03, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::Aschafly - Let's say all the Democratic candidates for President are black. (Bear with me here.) These are all people who graduated from a prestigious school with high honors, worked as a lawyer, and served as a Congressman, governor, or mayor. Would you then say that all of them got to where they were as a result of affirmative action and nothing else? That none of the things they accomplished came as a result of their talent, or perhaps their intelligence? That successful minorities must be viewed upon with suspicion?

:::Kinda stupid hypothetical situation, I know, but I hope it gets my point across, however stupid you think that point may be. [[User:Gillespie|Gillespie]] 20:29, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::::Let's say there's a young white guy, not bad-looking, but not all that original a thinker. His parent is a famous theocrat and a founder of the new Religious Right in the late 70s/early 80s. Despite his lack of original thinking and intelligence, he manages to get into an ivy league school, and despite that, his greatest accomplishment is a bizarre blogwiki hybrid on which he spreads hate and fear to children. Isn't that affirmative action?
::::Never mind, it's too weird to contemplate.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 20:54, 1 February 2008 (EST)

Peggy Noonan, that well-known leftist, in the well-known leftist publication The Wall Street Journal:

"He is the brilliant young black man as American dream. No consultant, no matter how opportunistic and hungry, will think it easy--or professionally desirable--to take him down in a low manner. If anything, they've learned from the Clintons in South Carolina what that gets you.
(I add that yes, there are always freelance mental cases, who exist on both sides and are empowered by modern technology. They'll make their YouTubes. But the mad are ever with us, and this year their work will likely stay subterranean.)"

Possibly she means you guys. I merely suggest. "He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action" is at least good enough to have been written by David Duke.
Archer070

I'm removing that line until a citation of some kind is given. If there was an affirmative action program for congress in place I am sure that its Conservapedia entry would be even more popular than the one on Homosexuality. [[User:NoraReed|NoraReed]] 23:49, 26 February 2008 (EST)

== African american ==

In this article is says that:"He is, as of 2007, the only African American serving in the United States Senate"
but
"Obama was born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii"
He is most certainly not african american.

He is not African American because he was born in Hawaii? You MUST be joking. O__O I mean, I have heard "He is not the descendant of African slaves, so he isn't really African American." and I have heard "Living all over the world, he surely isn't in touch with African American life." but I think you have taken the petty distinctions to a new low.[[User:ProserpinaFC|ProserpinaFC]] 12:31, 1 February 2008 (EST)

== Foreign Policy Experience ==

Found a great article while searching for W's foreign policy experience before the war. The full article is here:
<ref>http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/06/24/president.2000/foreign.policy/</ref>

Here's the relevant portions:

<blockquote>
Just how much do new presidents need to know about international affairs?

Franklin Roosevelt had experience and led successfully during World War II. But when he died, the presidency passed to Harry Truman, who was so out of things Roosevelt had never even told him about the atomic bomb. But Truman had many foreign policy successes: the end of World War II; the Marshall Plan to rebuild Western Europe; the policy of containing the Soviet Union; the Berlin airlift when the Soviets tried to cut the city off; the United Nations; and so on.

He couldn't end the Korean War, but in foreign policy, he had many more pluses than minuses. Dwight Eisenhower had lots of experience. He was the allied commander in World War II; ended the Korean War; demanded, successfully that Britain, France and Israel abandon their seizure of the Suez Canal. Successes.

John Kennedy grew up on foreign policy. His father was ambassador to Britain. And JFK wrote a study of British policy between world wars called "While England Slept."

As president, he had one big failure: the botched Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. But it was followed by a big success: resolving the Cuban missile crisis by getting Nikita Khrushchev to remove Soviet Missiles from Cuba in exchange for withdrawing U.S. missiles from Turkey.

Lyndon Johnson had no direct experience aside from Senate debates. His administration passed historic domestic legislation: the civil rights and voting rights acts. But the unresolved war in Vietnam destroyed his presidency.

Richard Nixon had experience as Eisenhower's vice president and had solid success: detente with the Soviet Union, opening relations with China after decades of silence.
Carter
Former President Jimmy Carter

Jimmy Carter had no experience, failed to free American hostages held in Iran, and said he was surprised when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.

Ronald Reagan was completely inexperienced and had great success: negotiated arms reduction with the Soviets, urged Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin wall, which actually happened during George Bush's presidency.

Does experience matter? Yes, if you look at Johnson or Carter; no, if you look at Truman or Reagan.
</blockquote>

Seems that Reagan and W had about as much experience as Obama.

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

== removed false information ==

While Obama is left of Stalin on some matters, the Affirmative Action statement is blatant racism without some example given. Further, the Harvard law Review is hardly "liberal', as it counts among it's alum Supreme Court Justice Scalia, Chief Justice Roberts, and Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. And IT DOES NOT HAVE A QUOTA!

We can disagree with his policies, but we are not going to lie about him.

Having the same issues as reported above this is the second time I've had to remove the affirmative action statement, which is completely unquantifiable. I've also made edits removing language which is somewhat misleading and gives the article a very bias anti-Obama slant. If this site is dedicated to eliminating bias, it should not turn a blind-eye to conservative bias or in this case blatant racial discrimination. I have also expanded upon the issue surrounding his voting "present" so often. As stated in the article, voting "present" is commonplace in the Illinois Senate on both sides of the aisle. I kindly ask that [[Aschlafly]] stops reverting the article back to its previous biased and misleading state. If you disagree with the edits I've made write on my talk page or respond on the article's talk page instead of simply eliminating my changes, all of which seek to further expand the information in the article and maintain neutrality as best as possible.--[[User:ElliottRosewater|ElliottRosewater]] 11:39, 17 February 2008 (EST)

: The Harvard Law review is extremely liberal, and it does have racial quotas in its admission. Your false accusation of lying are not appreciated and will not be allowed.

: The statement about [[affirmative action]] is accurate and will remain in the entry. Repeated attempts to remove it without justification will result in blocking.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:28, 17 February 2008 (EST)

Justified how? Saying that Obama's life amounts to nothing more than lucking out with affirmative action isn't a quantifiable statement...at all. It is nothing more than a completely biased statement and does in fact convey a sense of bigotry. The edits I've made to the article have not introduced some virile liberal bias, I've simply elaborated on contentious issues and removed language and phrasing which is decidedly opinionated. Just because someone disagrees with you [[Aschlafly]] does not make that person wrong. Stop using the power which you have been granted out of good faith by the rest of this site to act like the NKVD, censoring whatever you feel like, and threatening those who disagree with you through bans or some other reprimands when they have only sought to maintain neutrality and expand factuality.--[[User:ElliottRosewater|ElliottRosewater]] 15:45, 17 February 2008 (EST)

: Your racial bullying is not going to work here. [[Affirmative action]] is a big part of Obama's career and his support. Don't delete it from the entry and don't deny that the Harvard Law Review is a very liberal institution that uses [[racial quotas]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:51, 17 February 2008 (EST)

: Racial bullying? I'm sorry my defective leftist brain must not be able to comprehend your superior Divine logic. But I'm not the one throwing baseless affirmative action rants into what should be a neutral and factual article. Even Clarence Thomas would tell you just how bigoted and perposturous such a claim is.--[[User:ElliottRosewater|ElliottRosewater]] 16:03, 17 February 2008 (EST)

== Aschlafly: Enforcer of <s>Truth</s> ==

So, after having edited the Obama article for the third time to remove some of the more opinionated wording, removing the baseless affirmative action claim, and expanding on the procedures of the Illinois Senate to give people a better understanding of why Obama voted "present" 129 times, Conservapedia Fuhrer [[Aschlafly]] has threatened to ban me if I edit the article again, despite the neutrality and factuality of my edits. Does anybody else think this is somewhat of an abuse of power as well as an attempt to enforce his own opinion on the rest of the site, and, is there someway that we could replace him with someone who is not a fanatical reactionary.--[[User:ElliottRosewater|ElliottRosewater]] 16:03, 17 February 2008 (EST)
:It's Andy's site. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:49, 17 February 2008 (EST)
: :Agree it's Andy's site. Of course Andy should be ashamed of himself; but it's still his site. Andy has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of his mom's clout. ;-) [[User:Archer070]]
::: It's Andy's site?!?!?! I was under the opinion it was an encyclopedia![[User:ProserpinaFC|ProserpinaFC]] 09:57, 20 February 2008 (EST)

This is the reason liberals will win the whitehouse , people are tired of these attitudes , people need to move into the 21st century .... quickly. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 18:46, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== It's ASTOUNDING! . . . Why? Don't you people know how Congress works? ==

"For example, as a state senator in Illinois, he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" nearly an astounding 130 times."

Why is that astounding? That is an incredibly SMALL number. Congresspersons vote on thousands of issues each TERM. And for Barack Obama to have been a Senator for EIGHT YEARS and to only not vote 130 times... lol.[[User:ProserpinaFC|ProserpinaFC]]

:"As for his voting performance, Obama liked sitting on the fence. He is recalled for taking full advantage of an Illinois rule that lets you vote "present" if you don't want to commit yourself. Illinois State Senator Bill Brady recalled: "I learned very quickly that the 'present' vote, where the button you press is very appropriately coloured yellow, is the chicken's way out." ([http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=511901&in_page_id=1811 ''The Black Kennedy: But does anyone know the real Barack Obama?''])[[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:14, 20 February 2008 (EST)

: Voting "present" 130 times is NOT a small number. It is an astounding large number of times to duck important issues, so large that even [[Hillary Clinton]] has ridiculed it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:02, 23 February 2008 (EST)

::It's a fair point, but I'd suggest that the article should nonetheless give some concept of scale. 130 "present" votes translates to about 3% of the votes cast, which quite frankly isn't a lot. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 19:06, 23 February 2008 (EST)

::: It is enormous. A politician is serving only himself, and not his constituents, by ducking so many important issues. You won't find any earnest politician voting "present" so many times and ducking so many important issues.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:10, 23 February 2008 (EST)

::: But those statements that you make, Andrew, are all opinions that aren't sourced from cited sources. I'm not trying to pick a fight here, merely trying to ensure that we have the most accurately cited article we can have; all I'm saying is that in order to support the claim that voting present 3% of the time - which purely quantitatively doesn't '''seem''' like much to the average obsever - you'd actually need to give '''a solid, cited example''' of an "earnest politician" who hasn't voted present on a comparable proportion of issues. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 06:34, 29 February 2008 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

The reversion removed a silly, self-serving quote that only filled the entry with junk. This is not Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:03, 23 February 2008 (EST)

The reversion this morning reinserted a liberal deletion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:38, 23 February 2008 (EST)

== Introduction to article ==

I don't disagree with the subject matter, but I think there's a problem with the introduction. Most of the information seems to relate to his ideological/political stances, and so would be better placed in the body of the article rather than posted up front. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 18:58, 23 February 2008 (EST)

: We put the important stuff first here. But thanks for your comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:08, 23 February 2008 (EST)

Some things need altering like the affirmative action thing. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 15:22, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: What's the problem? No [[liberals]] have any problems in complaining about alleged special preferences for [[conservatives]]. When someone gets special treatment and then seeks to become president on that basis, it's fair game to criticize the special treatment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:32, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:: Maybe he DID get SOME special treatment , but the article suggests that everything he`s achieved in life is a result of AA. Maybe it needs a little tinkering with, it comes across too strongly , there is no problem saying that AA helped him but to say thats the only reason he got anywhere in life is a big jump. If he becomes president (trust me there is a good chance of it) are you going to say he only became president as a result of AA? Thats just not possible, people voted for him because they liked him and his ideas not because they felt sorry for him for past racism towards black people.--[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 06:58, 27 February 2008 (EST)

:: To be fair, "no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained ... [by] affirmative action" is a much stronger statement than, say, "he could not have achieved the heights he has in the absence of affirmative action." The former claims he has _no_ achievements of his own, which seems so exaggerated that I'd believe it was written by a troll if you weren't defending it yourself. I would never consider entering politics, and even I have what might reasonably called "personal achievements." I'm sure Obama has some too. The latter statement merely (rightly!) observes that his achievements would never have elevated him to the status he's achieved, if it were not for liberal affirmative action; isn't that more like what you mean? [[User:Coas|Coas]] 16:31, 27 February 2008 (EST)

== Needs a major overhaul... ==

On the whole, this article, I believe, needs a major overhaul. Firstly, too much of this, while true, is written in so many ways like gossip. A glaring error that any serious writer would immediatly reject is the phrase: "Obama is SO pro-abortion..." It sounds like some high-school kid exaggerating to a friend. While it may be true, to phrase it in such a way is very unprofessional, and degrades the credibility of the article.

Also, while I understand that many see this article as an outlet to vent frustration at an inexperienced, unproven candidate, to write the entire article in a highly critical light errodes the circumstantiated tone that I assume Conservapedia strives for. Those not well informed might see this article as bigoted and hateful, whith spurious and unsubstantiated claims. My advice is to write these facts in a neutral, detatched style, as is the case with most encyclopedias. To do otherwise detracts from Conservapedia as a whole.

A few suggestions just from the very beginning:

1. "Obama is so pro-abortion..." should be changed to something like: "Obama has a well-noted stance of pro-abortion, demostrated in cases such as his blocking of the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infants protection act, which was unanimously supported by the U.S. Senate."

2. "Obama has absolutely no military..." needs to be reworked into something more or less as follows: "Obama has a distinct lack of military, executive, and foreign policy experience as evidenced by..." and include some example of how he simply has not been in a position where he could gain any of this experience.

3. "Throughout his career, he has repeatedly ducked..." has too much opinion attached to it, and the "...in an apparent attempt..." part reeks of unprofessionalism. A good alternative would be "Obama has many times abstained from taking a controversial stand on certain issues, voting 'present' instead of 'aye' or 'nay' a substantial 130 times during his career as an Illinois state senator."

Much, much more needs to be done for this to sound like an authoritative encyclopedic article instead of an opinionated rant.
--[[User:Churro|Churro]] 01:18, 27 February 2008 (EST)

== Foreign Policy Experience ==
I'd like to add a few paragraphs about Obama's foreign policy experience. Any chance the article can be unprotected? --Jimmy 21:29, 4 March 2008 (EST)

: The article was unprotected for a long time, and endured repeated attempts at liberal bias. How about suggesting your edits here first?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:43, 4 March 2008 (EST)

::== Foreign Policy Experience ==
::Sen. Obama has been a member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations since his election to the Senate. <ref>http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/about.html </ref>

::He has visited many countries in his capacity as a Senator.

::Russia and former Soviet republics: Met with representatives of the International Republican Institute and National Democratic Institute to discuss democracy in the former Soviet republics. Also met with Russian military officials and visited numerous nuclear/biological weapons destruction sites in Russia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN).
::United Kingdom: Met with Prime Minister Tony Blair during visit with Sen. Lugar. <ref>http://obama.senate.gov/press/050823-obama_to_visit </ref>

::Visited South Africa, Kenya, Ethiopia, Djibouti and Chad: Discussed his tour of Robben Island prison, met with U.S. troops, visited refugee camps of the people fleeing Darfur and addressed Africa's growing AIDS epidemic. <ref>http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060906-090606_africa_t/ </ref>

::Ten day tour of the Middle East: Talked with government leaders in Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan and Israel. <ref> http://obama.senate.gov/news/060113-obama_wraps_up/ </ref>--Jimmy 22:14, 4 March 2008 (EST)

==Completely incorrect information in Foreign Policy==

The information provided is completely incorrect. Senator Obama has indeed visited Continental Europe on official business - he visited Eastern Europe in August 2005, taking in Russia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and the UK[http://obama.senate.gov/press/050823-obama_to_visit/]. Please correct the article.

Not only is the article factually incorrect, but the suggestion is made that this 'lack of travel experience' would make him unsuitable for the Presidency. To which I would point out that the current President George W. Bush, had NEVER visited Europe until a year '''after''' taking the Presidency. [[User:MakeTime|MakeTime]] 13:32, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

== Political Views section ==

I don't know whether this is a valid criticism to make, but it occurred to me while reading the article that the "Political Views" seection is rather short and vague. Although it's great to make concise comments on issues such as illegal immigration etc., it doesn't really give us a good picture of exactly what he stands for (and no jokes about not standing for anything, please!). What I mean is: the second sentence claims that Obama has the record of a Marxist leftist, but nothing after that point under that section really justifies that statement. Indeed, much of it seems to be better placed under the next section "Faith and Values". It might be pertinent to have a more detailed analysis of individual parts of his policies and stances. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 18:39, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

: Obama's stances keep changing depending on which state is next in the primaries. It's a waste of time to attach any significance to his stated positions, other than to recognize how [[liberal]] he is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:43, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:: Perhaps pointing out these changes would be a better idea, Andy. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 20:34, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't view this as a priority, as Obama's supporters only care about his positions against the war and for abortion and don't care about much else, and those positions are spelled out. I'll unlock the entry for you if you'd like to add objective material that shows how he changes his position so often. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:41, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

I know nothing of Obama's war opinion (aside troop withdrawal) and nothing of him pro-abortion position. Yet, I am still an Obama supporter, despite being non-US, as he is the only one who is not part of the great Washington machinery. It is time for change and the old stalwarts like McCain and Clinton need to go. Change can be good, not always but why not give it a chance?
Also, Bush Jnr had waaaaaaay less experience than Obama.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 21:23, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

== Can we un-lock, this artical needs to be updated ==

There is no information at all about how Obama was linked to the radical Afro-Centric "Church" in Chicago whose Pastor endorses crazy racialist theorys about Whites, the CIA did AIDS, Jews did 9/11, etcetera. ANd then of course he makes one silly speech that doesnt really say anything, and the liberal media fall over each other to praise him like the secnod coming of jesus. (btw, this isnt really my area of expertise, but I understand some American theologians have seriously considered whether he could be the anti-christ. i don't know if that's enough of a seriously taken theory but you folks should decide whether to mention it at least.

I dont understand why so many pages i try to edit are locked.

:: I think it is because reality has a well known liberal bias. (I joke, I joke) It just that liberals don't understand how to interpret reality but keep insisting that they do. It isn't like this problem is going away either.--[[User:Jroyale|Jroyale]] 21:44, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Étienne Léger
:Are you referring to Pastor Wright? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 08:16, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
::Yes Jeremiah Wright is his name, he is basically an "afro-centric" race bigot who openly associates with Louis "Hitler was a great man" Farrakhan, he was Obama's chief Spiritual Advisor for many years except now he tries to deny it.

::: Please propose an encyclopedic-like addition, with a citation. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:49, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

Agree: not sure why this article would be locked when it clearly needs to be updated to ensure the tone is encyclopedic and not simply derogatory. Otherwise, the reputation of this effort as a "trustworthy encyclopedia" will continue to be severely undermined.

: Im starting to think that it is too late to save this site. Its hard to take it seriously with articles like this . . . [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 18:16, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

OK Heres my suggestion, probably the English she needs work :) but I found lots of references and I think it's encyclopedia like. It should go under section 9 on "Faith and Values."

Although media dismissed Obama's allege "madrassa" connection, in early 2008 reports emerged that his own Trinity Church and its pastor Jeremiah Wright, proclaimed "Afrocentrism," "non negotiable committment to Africa," and "God damn America." <ref>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjZkMmI1ODIwZTgxMWQzZDg3YTM4ODk0ZTEzMjhhOWQ=</ref>

Among other hateful statements, Rev. Wright claimed that America is "fostering a social system that encourages [African-Americans] to kill off one another, placing them in concentration camps,"<ref>http://www.tucc.org/scholarship_pdf/black%20value%20system.pdf</ref> that Jesus was a Palestinian Arab, referred to Israeli Jews as "dirty," imply that Israel was responsible for 9/11 terrorist attacks, <ref>http://videos.emule.com/play/barack-obamas-mentor-jeremiah-wright---anti-israel-sermon-%28FnI431s1r6s</ref> and accuse them of using radiation weapon against Arabs. <ref>http://tucc.org/upload/tuccbulletin_june10.pdf</ref>

Despite wide reporting of Wright's extreme and antisemitic statements, Obama was able to defuse much of the anger and earn praise from mainstream media by giving a general speech on race relations, while refusing to dis-associate with Wright personally.<ref>http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/894ztiry.asp?pg=2</ref> New York Times for example likened him to Avraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy. <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/opinion/19wed1.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin</ref>

== This Article is Ridiculous ==

For God's sake, with articles like this Conservapedia is never going to be taken seriously. A “Marxist leftist"? This is just stupid, he's basically pro-life moderate conservative. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 23:19, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

: Wow, you really are in the wrong place if you think anyone here is going to be fooled by your comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:46, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::Fooled? I don't even especially like Barack Obama. Can you honestly say that Obama is a communist? [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 00:47, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Oh I see, my bad, i meant pro-choice . . . Can i change it? [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 00:49, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Could someone with access add something like "According to the Political Compass, Barack Obama would be better described as a moderate conservative <ref>http://politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008</ref>" after the Marxist comment? [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 11:05, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

::I agree that in no way can Obama be described a Marxist leftist. I've met Marxist leftists and argued with them a great deal (they tend to have very fixed ideals and observe an astonishing range of fallacies about the very unlamented Soviet Union) and compared to them Obama's a solid centrist. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 07:53, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
:::Well, he's politically 'left' of Ann Coulter. By Conservapedian standards, that makes him a bomb-throwing Bolshevik revolutionary fnord. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 12:08, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

They also tend to be communists and call each other "comrade" and call for collectivism lol. But really, that quote either needs to be removed or balanced with another. Otherwise its just libel. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 12:05, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
:It's not libel if it's a Liberal being lied about. Didn't you get the memo? That whole "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" thing only applies if thy neighbor is a Conservative. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 12:08, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

::Oh, he's a liberal? I didn't know that! I can't find on the page where it says that he is a radical Islamic terrorist<ref>Barack HUSSEIN Obama!</ref>. He also a lying homosexual right? why isn't that included? If you need a source I can start a webpage and write that for you. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 12:21, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Oh, and Obama could hardly be called our neighbor. No blacks are allowed in conservapedia's neighborhood. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 12:29, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

== Voting "present" doesn't necessarily indicate a fence-sitter... ==

Oftentimes, a vote of present indicates that the candidate generally supports a proposal in principle, but is unable to support it in its current form. It's a way of saying "I'm here, I'm interested, but we can't do it this way." Say Congressman A is a strong fiscal conservative and hates deficits. A budget bill comes before the body which cuts taxes but also provides for incremental increases in government programs which Congressman A already believes are hopelessly bloated, and in so doing increases deficit spending. That Congressman might not be able to support the bill but voting "present" would put to the record that he did not outright reject the proposal, but rather that he might be open to supporting a similar, re-worked bill.

== Required Changes ==

This article needs a lot of work to bring it up to the standards of a 'trustworthy encyclopedia'. Several claims don't pass muster.

- The claim "'''Obama has absolutely no military, executive or foreign policy experience'''" is laughingly false and makes this article look plain ignorant. There are well documented details of Obama's foreign policy experience in the article, yet this sentence remains. The reference for this claim is hopelessly incorrect. While this reference is in compliance with the commandments, it was obviously written by someone that didn't do their homework as proof of Obama's foreign policy experience is readily available. The same cannot be said of the next dubious claim.

:: You're clueless. Obama has zero military or executive experience, and his foreign policy experience is in the lowest 10% of senators. Has he made a trip to Western Europe yet???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:06, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

- "'''He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action'''." This comment is the sort of gossip that does not belong in an encyclopedia. Not only has this ridiculous claim been removed and reinserted many times, not a shred of evidence is presented to back up this basically idiotic nonsense. I'd like to think the leadership of this encyclopedia would set a good example for others to follow when writing articles, but there are way too many articles like this one that prove otherwise.

:: The evidence is overwhelming, with examples provided in the entry. All you have to do is cite some counterexamples. You can't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:06, 29 March 2008 (EDT)
::::Well, the article states that Obama graduated from Harvard Law with honors. That strikes me as a "clear personal achievement". Are you suggesting, therefore, that he didn't deserve said honors, that faculty gave him an easy ride because he's African-American? --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 17:54, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

- "'''He won a seat in the U.S. Senate after liberals obtained the release of confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records of his opponent, Jack Ryan, forcing him to resign from the race and be replaced by an out-of-state candidate, Alan Keyes'''." This claim is completely without merit. According to Fox News, Ryan was not forced out and the National Republican Senatorial Committee encouraged him to remain. The idea that '''liberals somehow obtained the release of the confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records''' is disingenuous at the least and most likely a lie. According to Fox News, the records were released when the ''Chicago Tribune'' and Chicago TV station ''WLS'' sued. Divorce proceedings are a matter of public record unless the there is a compelling interest to make them private. According to the court, relevant portions of the divorce were kept private and the remaining portions were released. Please note that I am not quoting a liberal source for this information. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123716,00.html]

:: The records were confidential and the newspaper that sued for their relief was supportive of Obama. Yes, Jack Ryan was forced out as a result of the disclosures and no one familiar with politics credibly argues otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:06, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

- This article was unlocked for a brief time a while ago until some vandals made their presence known. Even though the article was vandalized, it actually showed some signs of improvement. As it stands now, this article belongs on an Obama-hating lunatic fringe website, not part of a 'trustworthy encyclopedia'.

:: I don't expect this factual entry to persuade anyone who is a big supporter of [[affirmative action]], because they don't care what Obama stands for or what his experience is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:06, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

The above seems to be someone's comments, debated by ASchlafly? But there's no name attached to any of these comments? Can you put back the signatures of whoever wrote those suggestions?

As to the actual comments ASchlafly, it seems you haven't actually read your own article. You ask "Has he made a trip to Western Europe yet???", and the article clearly states that he has indeed been to London and met with Tony Blair. In comparison with all other candidates for the US Presidency, this leaves him "about the same". Most US Presidents do not come to the table with a huge amount of travel experience under their belts - witness the current President, who had never been out of the Continent before becoming President. No matter what you think of the candidate, the suggestion that the only things he has achieved are because of affirmative action beggars belief and doesn't even deserve a response, it's so unutterably stupid. Finally, referring to this article as a "factual entry" is revelatory. [[User:Billabong|Billabong]] 17:23, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

: "Western Europe" should be "continental Europe," because Obama did play second chair for an insignificant visit by a more experienced senator (Lugar) to Tony Blair. If that courtesy call is what you're hanging your hat on, then it merely underscores Obama's lack of experience. But I doubt you'd care anyway, as most Obama supporters don't support him for his experience or even his ever-changing or silent positions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:32, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

::I'm delighted to see that you admit you were wrong, so thank you for that - it's good to keep the record straight. Now, for comparison to the other candidates, perhaps you'd like to list the foreign travel and policy experience of your candidate of choice? John McCain is off to Israel, London and Paris I see? Obama indeed does not have the French capital in his past itineraries, but comparing his Conservapedia article to Obama's, it would seem he is FAR more widely travelled than McCain. Finally, your suggestion about affirmative action might as well be directed at Clarence Thomas, since the only requirement you seem to need to make such a comment is the colour of these gentlemen's skin?

::PS Finally, could you please put back the sigs of whoever you were responding to? it's impossible to know where these comments come from? [[User:Billabong|Billabong]] 17:43, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Mr. Schlafly: Contrary to your opinion, I am not the clueless one here. I happen to know that the United Kingdom is a part of Western Europe so therefore it can be concluded that Obama has made a trip to Western Europe since he visited London to see Tony Blair. Since you are making the claim that his foreign policy experience is the 'lowest 10% of senators', could you provide a reference please?

:::Where is this overwhelming evidence that Obama's success is explained by affirmative action? If it is so overwhelming, then you or the person that made this assertion should have absolutely no problem providing the reference. Where is the evidence in the article? I couldn't find anything. Could you provide this allegedly 'clueless' individual, as you like to call me, the specific line number?

:::Because Ryan refused to run for office after his divorce proceedings were made public, this means, using your line of reasoning, that the 'National Republican Senatorial Committee' lacks credibility. Perhaps this should be added to the article?

:::There are a lot of alleged 'facts' in this article that are nothing more than gossip and unsupported innuendo. According to the commandments that you wrote, these items should be removed. How can this article be a part of a 'trustworthy encyclopedia' if no attempt is made to follow the commandments and guidelines?

:::I happen to care what Obama, Clinton, and McCain stand for because I plan to vote and I want my vote to mean something. If someone wants to base their vote on what is written in Conservapedia, then they will be seriously misinformed. --Jimmy 21:30, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

== Law Professor ==

The sentence about Obama "falsely claiming to be a constitutional law professor" should be changed. According to the University of Chicago, he was considered to be a professor. http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html

[[User:Tordenvaer|Tordenvaer]] 19:14, 29 March 2008 (EST)

:He was actually a "senior lecturer," NOT, a professor. There's a big difference. The University of Chicago only ''considers'' Obama a professor, he wasn't actually one, as he falsely claimed to be. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 21:04, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

::You're wasting your time, Tordenvaer. Certain people on here see nothing wrong in saying someone's not a professor if it suits their purposes and/or prejudices, even when there is ample evidence otherwise. See the Richard Dawkins [[Richard_Dawkins|article]] and [[Talk:Richard_Dawkins|Talk Page]] for an extremely good example of this. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:49, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
::As an aside, Lyra, considering it is, in fact, universities that bestow the title of 'professor', if the University of Chicago basically saying that, as far as they were concerned, he was a professor, isn't 'good enough', what, precisely, is 'good enough'? You also state that there is a big difference between 'Senior Lecturer' and 'professor'. Read the link given by Tordenvaer. The University of Chicago completely disagrees with you there. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:57, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

::: In other words, if [[liberals]] like someone's ideology, ethnicity or gender, then [[liberals]] are going to call him a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work. Perhaps we should add this to [[liberal]] positions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:51, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
::::Done. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:54, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Alternatively, if [[conservatives]] dislike someone's ideology, ethnicity or gender, then [[conservatives]] are going to deny that he is a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:36, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

: Really? Perhaps you can tell us who peer-reviewed Obama's work, and when, and what the outcome was.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:44, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

::Most likely the U of C law faculty did, repeatedly throughout his time working there, as all departments do with all faculty. The outcome was that they asked him to join the faculty full-time. In addition to the statement linked above, there is [http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/701490,CST-NWS-obamaprof18.article] (para 3). They did not offer him a full-time position because they thought he was good-looking. [[User:Murray|Murray]]

:::: Well, I'll put it this way - who is more likely to be correct in who is or is not a professor? Aschlafly or the Universities of Chicago and Oxford? Personally, I'll go with the universities, and thus accept both Dawkins and Obama are professors, in one way or another. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 22:09, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

::::: Certain people can't handle the ''truth'', Urushnor. Regardless of what U-Chicago's ''feeling'' is, he's a senior lecturer, not a professor. The university never gave him that title. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 23:31, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::: 'The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer."

:::::: 'From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, '''Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School'''. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. '''Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors''', although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.'[[User:Jtimber|Jtimber]] 23:39, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Precisely. It seems that certain people cannot handle the truth, indeed - Obama made a comment, in passing, which his opponents seized upon to try to brand him as a liar, because they thought it was wrong, as his actual title was 'Senior Lecturer', but now can't handle the truth that, in fact, 'Senior Lecturers' are regarded as professors, so the comment was correct. I also note, Lyra, that you still haven't actually answered my question - given that it is universities that bestow the title of professor, if a university saying that someone is or was a professor is not 'good enough', what, precisely, is 'good enough'? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 00:25, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::::I believe I've already answered that question. My point was that he was not full-track. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 00:30, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::No, from the above, your point was quite clearly that 'he was actually a "senior lecturer," NOT, a professor', to quote you exactly. The University of Chicago says he was a 'Senior Lecturer', which is considered to be a professor. So you haven't actually answered that question at all, unless you changing your point is your way of saying, 'oops, I was wrong - he ''is'' a professor, just not a full-time or tenure-track one'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 01:18, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::Allow me to explain. When he says he is a ''professor'', many people will assume he means a full-time teaching committment, regardless of U of C's technicalities. It's a bit deceitful. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 14:20, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::During the time he worked as a senior lecturer, he was practicing law as well. I've actually read ''The Audacity of Hope''. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 14:23, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
I don't really think it's that deceitful; he's just using common parlance versus the technical term. Technically, yes, he was a senior lecturer/adjunct faculty, but I knew lecturers at the university who would hold themselves out as professors. It's not deceit, it's just simplification, I think.-[[User:DParker|DParker]] 20:21, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

: In the academic world, precise titles are actually taken ''very'' seriously. If someone like [[Dan Quayle]] had attempted Obama's self-serving "simplification", as you put it, then Quayle would have been strung up and run off the stage.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:29, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::I totally concur--what Obama should be saying is he worked as a "part-time professor," if at all. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 20:34, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Obama held the position of senior lecturer for years, and surely understood what his title was. It doesn't seem too much to expect him not to exaggerate his credential.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:38, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

''In the academic world, precise titles are actually taken ''very'' seriously...'' Yes and no. Titles are meaningful, and indicate how prestigious a position is and generally the salary level. However, titles vary dramatically across university systems. For example, in the U. of Illinois system, Adjunct Professor is the equivalent a Lecturer at U of C - it indicates someone who is a part-time faculty member, hired solely to teach classes, either because there are not enough full-time faculty or to allow the full-timers more time for research. In the U. of California system though, an Adjunct Professor is a full-time faculty member, and UC guidelines suggest that on, for example, grant applications, an Adjunct Professor use the title of Professor to avoid confusion. So an Adjunct Professor in Champaign would be stretching it to use the title of Professor, whereas someone with the same title in LA or Berkeley would not. So titles are certainly meaningful, but their specific meaning isn't always readily apparent [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:36, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

== Unlock? ==

Would someone unlock this for a brief moment? Thanks! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:29, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

== First St. Francis Assisi, then Mentang Besuki ==

There's a line in the Early Life section of the bio that gets the order of Obama's Indonesian elementary schools reversed. The Catholic one was first, for almost three years. The public one was only the last year or so. The misinformation is repeated in Faith and Values section. Says his father was a nonpracticing Muslim. Other sources say atheist. His stepfather was a practicing Muslim, however. No mention of the Afrocenric theology of TUCC. See Linda Chavez' article in NR online on this. [[User:Andyvphil|Andyvphil]] 10:29, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

== Questions about This Article ==

No offense, but this article is very biased, and much of it lacks sources. Shouldn't there be sources for it, and if there are none should it not be removed? [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 01:14, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

: 43 citations. How many more do you want?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:53, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps something to cite things that are obviously personal attacks, such as this:
"He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action.". That sounds more like an opinion than a definition of fact, and there's not citation for it anyway. Also, the lead for his article seems to be one giant summary of his political views, portrayed negatively. Very biased. Not sure how that is delt with here, but we try to keep things neutral on Wikipedia. [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 10:31, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
:Conservapedia does not require citations for statements like that. And even if they were there, they would just be links to conservative opinion pieces. Best to just leave it alone... the article as it is stands quite well as a reminder to visitors that this is a very different site from Wikipedia, for a variety of interesting reasons.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 00:57, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

== Image switch ==
I think you meant to say ''add'' placement bias. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:44, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

: Obama built his campaign on anti-American donations. A photo of his anti-patriotic posture reflects his campaign far more than a standard and unrevealing portrait photo does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:52, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

::Here are Obama's top 20 donors: Goldman Sachs, University of California, UBS, JP Morgan Chase, Lehman Brothers (investment banking firm), Citigroup, National Amusements (who own 1400 theaters), Sidney Austin (law firm), Harvard, Google, Skadden Arps (law firm), Exelon, Morgan Stanley, Time Warner, Jones Day (law firm), Wilmerhale (law firm), Latham Watkins (more lawyers), University of Chicago, Kirkland & Ellis (lawyers), Citadel Investment Group. Not exactly a list of crazy liberals. But the point was really the comparison to all the pages of other senators here, all of which (if they have an image) have an official picture at the top. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:16, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Meaningless statistic, and only a tiny fraction of Obama's fundraising. His big money source is moveon.org types, and no one can deny that he's tapping into the stridently anti-war (and often anti-American) types. People are going to Obama's entry because he's running for president, not because he's a senator, and the photo placement should reflect that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:28, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
::::"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." Furthermore, I do not see how you can call forces within America anti-American, that title used to be restricted to ''foreign'' forces. Soviet Russia was anti-American. MoveOn is not. The American Colonies were anti-British, I suppose. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 00:18, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::You might as well give it up, before you get 90/10ed. From reading this site, it's pretty clear that on Planet Conservapedia, the GOP '''is''' America, and Liberals are all mindless robot drones created by Satan himself to DESTROY AMERICA, propelled by their disgusting glandular urges, hatred for all things Good and Holy and American and Conservative (as redundant as that is), and the occasional telepathic directive from the Ghost of Charles Darwin fnord. Thus, the very concept of [[Liberal patriotism]] is an [[oxymoron]]. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 00:42, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::In Soviet Russia, rules follow you! In any case, Liberal just means willing to embrace new ideas and ''change''. More people should recogize that. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 00:52, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

I know its not really important, but the colonials mainly considered themselves British and were fighting for their British rights about up until the Decleration of Indepedence was signed. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 00:22, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:And after that, they would've all been hanged as traitors to Crown and Country if they'd lost. Got to remember that part... --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 00:42, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

::Well, the mini-series "John Adams" is very good, but the assertion that FernoKlump makes is not correct. Originally they were fighting for the rights afforded to all British subjects, but long before the Declaration of Independence was signed, most of the "heavy hitters" had long since realized there would be no reconciliation with the Crown. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:48, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Yes. The Founding Fathers must have been considered very unpatriotic by the British during the Revolution. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 00:55, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Maybe most of the "heavy hitters" had realized they were fighting for their independence, but the avererage colonial didn't really realize that until the decleration. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 10:06, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
==Category==
Put him in [[:Category:African Americans]]
-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 14:07, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

: This is absurd. [[Conservatives]] don't categorize people by race.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:49, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

::Except for segregationists [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 20:26, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Those were primarily Democrats, you realize? Racists are just that, and don't depend on idealogical labels to be so. I know so-called "liberals" and "conservatives" who often express racist thinking. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:41, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

Shall I put [[Adam Sandler]] into [[:Category:Jewish Americans]] too, Deborah? --

:Those segregationists were southern Democrats ("Dixiecrats") and were social conservatives. Status as a Democrat or Republican doesn't necessarily label people in the past as liberal or conservative. Today Republicans tend to be conservative and Democrats tend to be liberal, but the Republican party was originally established to end slavery. Abolitionism was a VERY liberal idea at the time. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 20:56, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

:: No, [[abolitionism]] came from [[Massachusetts]] [[Puritans]], and they were [[conservative]]. Southern Democrats (like [[Jimmy Carter]]) were not [[conservative]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:29, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

:::They weren't conservative if they wanted an end to slavery. Liberal, by definition, is the advocacy of change. An end to slavery would have been change. Therefore, an advocacy of the end of slavery would be liberal. Southern democrats, like Governor George Wallace, were conservatives because they sought to ''preserve'' the existing institution of segregation.

From dictionary.com:

Liberal- Favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs

Conservative- Disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

[[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 21:41, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

: Your definition is meaningless. [[Conservatives]], for example, want big change on [[abortion]]. Use the more meaningful definitions and explanations found on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:44, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

::No, Conservatives want to ''revert'' back to before abortion was legalized by Roe v. Wade. Look at that definition again. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 21:58, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

:::FernoKlump, your history at CP is one of endless talk, talk, talk, argue, argue, argue. Yet, coming here, you were told up-front, if by nothing else than the name, ''this is a conservative encyclopedia''. Somehow a very small number of users, feel they have a right or obligation to turn this encyclopedia into a debate site. I feel an obligation to point out to you CP wasn't put here to provide a debate vehicle for you and other liberals.

:::You might want to look up, while you are busy with that dictionary, the meaning of "goodbye". I have a feeling you're going to need it. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:19, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
::::TK, you probably shouldn't be indulging in personal remarks of that quality, which go against the Conservapedia Guidelines ("You must be civil. No bullying.") Your shirt is still the right color, though, so maybe you'll be okay. Just thought I'd let you know.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 22:40, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

*TomMore, please keep in mind that Conservapedia rejects the European and Wikipedia definitions of being "civil" and "bullying". Me stating facts, about arguing and endless talk, are factual, therefore conservatives do not view that as bullying, or uncivil. What is uncivil is the introduction, ''the forced introduction'', of foreign definitions that American conservatives expressly reject. Users who do nothing but post contentious comments to conservatives, and denigrate what we believe, should perhaps consider starting their own liberal encyclopedia and stop wasting time here. CP doesn't grant the right of endless arguing, talk, talk, talk. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:28, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

::Guys, this is silly. Lets end it. And he is right, this is an encyclopedia, not a debate site. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:46, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

1) I'm not a liberal.
2) I understand that this encyclopedia is supposed to have a conservative bias, but it has degenerated into a "how liberals are ruining America" encyclopedia. I really like the idea of an encyclopedia that tries to present things from a conservative view, but this site is just embarassing to the conservative cause and unrealistic (like "[[Conservatives]] don't categorize people by race", when reality says otherwise). There is a big difference between a conservative point of view and a conservative version of reality. If I deserved to be banned for fighting against the lies that make conservapedia unreliable, then ban me. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 23:09, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
:Sorry, not in the MVSN. Doesn't count.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 23:11, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
::MVSN? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:15, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
::: The blackshirts (Milizia Volontaria per la Sicurezza Nazionale) ? [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 23:17, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Don't know who they are... I looked at [[blackshirt]]s but there's nothing there. It's just a nickname :)--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 23:20, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
I didn't see anything on conservapedia about what 'MVSN' would mean, so I thought it might be a wikipedia term. I searched and got the blackshirts, which are basically Italian fascists. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 23:25, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

Alright, this obviously has nothing to do with improving the article, so lets end it. Thanks in advance, [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:27, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

== Proposed addition ==

It is seeming like this was lost due to all the chatter on the talk page, i don't know what everybody thinks of it. here is my proposal under "faith and values" section:

Although media dismissed Obama's allege "madrassa" connection, in early 2008 reports emerged that his own Trinity Church and its pastor Jeremiah Wright, proclaimed "Afrocentrism," "non negotiable committment to Africa," and "God damn America." <ref>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjZkMmI1ODIwZTgxMWQzZDg3YTM4ODk0ZTEzMjhhOWQ=</ref>

Among other hateful statements, Rev. Wright claimed that America is "fostering a social system that encourages [African-Americans] to kill off one another, placing them in concentration camps,"<ref>http://www.tucc.org/scholarship_pdf/black%20value%20system.pdf</ref> that Jesus was a Palestinian Arab, referred to Israeli Jews as "dirty," imply that Israel was responsible for 9/11 terrorist attacks, <ref>http://videos.emule.com/play/barack-obamas-mentor-jeremiah-wright---anti-israel-sermon-%28FnI431s1r6s</ref> and accuse them of using radiation weapon against Arabs. <ref>http://tucc.org/upload/tuccbulletin_june10.pdf</ref>

Despite wide reporting of Wright's extreme and antisemitic statements, Obama was able to defuse much of the anger and earn praise from mainstream media by giving a general speech on race relations, while refusing to dis-associate with Wright personally.<ref>http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/894ztiry.asp?pg=2</ref> New York Times for example likened him to Avraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy. <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/opinion/19wed1.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin</ref>

: I've unprotected the page for you to edit it as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:11, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Ideologically motivated "citation needed" insertions, for statements that are not seriously disputed, are not allowed. This is not [[Wikipedia]] where that same stunt by liberals occurs repeatedly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:53, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

:Thank-you for the explanation. My citation request was not 'ideologically motivated', it was a simple request for a reference to an 'ideologically motivated' statement. My request also follows Commandment #2, something you have been willing to overlook in many of the articles I have edited. I get the idea that I would not be afforded the same opportunity to make the same statements without references since I'm not an administrator or the founder of this encyclopedia.--Jimmy 22:17, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
::I'm reinserting the other edit since you have no objection to it, thanks. --Jimmy 22:20, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Barack Obama's actual title was Senior Lecturer, not Professor.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:23, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
: And according to his university, a senior lecturer is a professor. It's that simple. --Jimmy 22:27, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

:: You're misconstruing what the media relations department said. Rather, it merely stated what the perception is about Senior Lecturers, and not whether that perception is true (it isn't).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:25, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

I am really interested to know what you are basing your "Rather, it merely stated what the perception is about Senior Lecturers, and not whether that perception is true (it isn't)" on Aschlafly?
What info do you have to say it is the perception of the media dep. and not actually true?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:52, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

If you cannot give ANY evidence to back your claims up Aschlafly then the article should include what the university states. And, I might add, the media dep. is responsible for answering media enquiries hence the media dep. answering the query whether or not Obama is a prof. or not.
So ADD THE REFERENCE OR LOOK LIKE A FOOL. Your choice
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 06:03, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

: Your quarrel is with the dictionary, not with me, and the citations about the "professor" issue are well-supported by the entry. In case you have problems following a link, I'll quote the observation on the Democratic Underground site, which is also well-supported with cites: [http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307]

::[Obama's] publications page lists his two autobiographical books, but no academic work of any sort .... Now, given his relatively strong academic credentials and the extent of [[affirmative action]] in academic hiring, if Obama had written articles about, well, pretty much anything, he would undoubtedly have been able to get hired at an elite law school in a tenure-track position. But he didn't.

::... [H]e is not a Professor of Constitutional Law. Nor is he an assistant professor or associate professor. ...

By the way, AdenJ, any more namecalling from you in violation of our rules will result in blocking of your account.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:29, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
:Heh. We see what you did there--quoting the website Democratic Underground as if to show that even liberals think Obama's professor claim is invalid. In reality, of course, the DU item was posted by an anonymous commentator ("agdlp"), something anyone could do, and hardly a reliable cite given that said post provides no evidence, just links repeating the claim. I could go on that site and write a post saying that Obama is an alien from the planet Mar’xennui, but that wouldn't make it true or cite-able. And as to your (repetition of the) claim that "given his relatively strong academic credentials...Obama would undoubtedly have been able to get hired at an elite law school in a tenure-track position...but he didn't", please note that the UofChicago statement notes that Obama was offered a tenure-track position several times, but declined.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 12:23, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

:: Your comments don't add anything. Look, if it makes you feel better to believe that Obama is somehow a professor, then suit yourself. By objective standards, including the dictionary, he plainly is not and never was.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:45, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

:::How about we compromise? "Obama has claimed he was a constitutional law professor when he was actually a Senior Lecturer." That seems to fit with the facts better, and it circumvents what is starting to amount to a semantics debate. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 18:12, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: No, that doesn't capture the false boasting. And, by the way, your other edits to this entry also do not convey the truth, as in the boasting about the poverty bill that was a non-starter and never passed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:17, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Which edit was that? The only edits I've made to the page were the foreign policy experience one (which you've reverted) and helping organize the sections a bit. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 18:23, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

== Question about lead ==
The opening line of the third paragraph reads "Obama has absolutely no military, executive or foreign policy experience." While nobody can dispute the lack of military or executive experience, could his position on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee count as foreign policy experience? Don't get me wrong, it's still not much experience, but it would seem to be enough to remove the foreign policy part. Thoughts? --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 15:41, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

: Mere membership on a congressional committee does not constitute "foreign policy" experience.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:05, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

:: It doesn't make him a scholar or an expert on it, but I would've thought it would move him out of the category of "absolutely none". --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 18:09, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Ampersand: You are now finding out that facts are not a substitute for the world that the Conservapedia leadership has constructed. It is a fact that Obama has foreign policy experience, but that does not matter to the people in charge. I have brought up issues like this numerous times on many other articles but usually nothing happens. Nothing happens to the articles this is, but I have been blocked on numerous occasions for trying to make this encyclopedia reflect the real world. Good luck! --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 19:59, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Merely being on a committee is not foreign policy experience. That is self-evident.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:03, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:You are absolutely 100% correct. But it has been demonstrated that Obama has made overseas trips with the Foreign Affairs Committee and has discussed policy with other world leaders and diplomats. This is a fact that cannot be denied in face of the irrefutable evidence that has been provided. No matter how limited his foreign policy experience has been; the sentence in the opening paragraph (Obama has absolutely no military, executive or foreign policy experience) is laughingly false. Presenting such inaccurate information as fact only gives ammunition to Conservapedia's critics. There are plenty of other factual criticisms that can be leveled at Obama without making up dumb factoids. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 20:33, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

== Lead section question ==

In the second paragraph, this sentence "According to political expert and Republican strategist Karl Rove, became his "political mentors," and launched is state Senate campaign and subsequent national political career" seems to be missing a word. Does anyone know what it is?

== Ok, there is so much misinformation here idk where to start ==

I know you all are fundamentalist social-conservatives, but there is a ton of bad information here that really is not true and to discriminate against this man is blatently racist, especially in the way its being done: "He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action" wtf people?? First of all, generalization such as this is a breach of most online encyclopedia protocol. Second of all, the assumption that he benefited from affirmative action is nothing more than an assumption, NOT fact. He went to Harvard, thus he is a smart man. Furthermore, why should he have to provide proof in a "clear personal achievement" that he does not rely on affirmative action? Assuming that a black man cannot succeed without affirmative action is not only racist, but also untrue. Next controversial statement in this article: "Barack Obama has captivated black and educated white voters, largely because of his race". How can anyone make that assessment? It is, once again, based off pure imagination rather than fact, as is further demonstrated by the lack of any sources backing it. The author also claims that Bill Clinton dismissed Barack's claim that he was against the war from the start as a "fairy tale". I checked the source of this statement, which is in actuality a website acknowledging Clinton's apology towards the "fairy tale" comment. Furthermore we must realize that Hillary and Bill Clinton are in fact married, which might perhaps explain why Bill Clinton might want to tarnish the rep of Clinton's main opponent. Again, more BS: "Obama has absolutely no military, executive or foreign policy experience" Sure, he isn't as experienced as Hillary, but generally, when a candidate runs for the presidency, they do not have experience in being president. Another ridiculous claim here: Some examples border on the absurd: Obama has no background in physics, yet it is claimed that "Obama analyzed and integrated Einstein's theory of relativity, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, as well as the concept of curved space as an alternative to gravity, for a Law Review article that Tribe [for whom Obama worked as a research assistant] wrote titled, 'The Curvature of Constitutional Space'." I checked up on this source as well, which has been misinterpreted by the author of this page here. Obama wrote a paper on the constitution, to which he used an analogy of space-time physics. In much the same way George Orwell's animal farm uses a farm to relate to communism. Orwell didn't have to be a farmer to write the book, and Obama doesn't need to be a nuclear physicist to read up on relativity. If anything, Obama's ability to understand the basic gist of physics without taking physics courses actually lends credence to his own intellect. Something that didn't come as a result of affirmative action. AND... he can say "nuclear". Neo-cons have no right to bash intelligence. Further on in the article, the author claims that "Obama's "research" for Constitutional Law Professor Tribe on this article also raises issues about preferences, as Obama had not yet even completed any law school courses[9] on the Constitution.[10]" Note the sources. They aren't sources. They don't lead anywhere or cite anything, but are just statements. AND they have nothing to do with this statement. If this encyclopedia is so trustworthy, why can't it provide proper sources for its misinformation?? Later on, the author makes the statement that Barack Obama has voted present 130 time in the IL senate and this is a reason to disbelieve him. This is in fact, true information, but I do have a problem with the heavy slant. Obama's aides say Mr. Obama cast 4,000 votes in the Illinois Senate and used the present vote to protest bills that he believed had been drafted unconstitutionally or as part of a broader legislative strategy. Also, in Illinois law it is not unusual to protest bills with a present vote. You can check up on my facts, because it is found in the same source our author used to make the claim that Throughout his career, Obama repeatedly ducked controversial stands in an apparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office. For example, as a state senator in Illinois, he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" nearly an astounding 130 times." In the second paragraph, the author says "He was "Senior Lecturer in the Law" -- not a professor-level position -- at The University of Chicago Law School as of 2004.[14] He is no longer active at the school". Whereas the same source that was cited claims that "From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School." Thus he WAS a professor after all. Check your information next time. I don't mind conservatives, in the old sense of the word. A true conservative worked to maintain the rights of business owners and left the economy alone. A true conservative kept taxes low and government spending no higher. What we get today are social conservatives. People who believe in the white christian male america. People who claim that the only way a smart, educated black man could be running for president is due to affirmative action. You criticize Reverend Wright for saying "racism is how this country was founded and how this country was run .... We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God." Look at yourselves. Give this man a chance; he did not go to Harvard because he was black nor does he recieve the support of both white and black america, red and blue america, and male and female america because he is black. This article is not trustworthy, or factual, but it is a bash. Now I am too tired to go through the remaining half of the article. Time to get a kick out of the Kangaroo one.
:I stopped reading after your bigoted "''I know you all are fundamentalist social-conservatives,'''" remark. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 21:59, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:I didn't even have to read that far. The above long-winded rant, too incoherent to read, let alone understand, illustrates the [[liberal]] style. I doubt he'd even agree with a conservative who says that "2+2=4".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:06, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

== Annie Oakley ==
This one needs to be phrased a little better. Just because something is outside of one's generation doesn't mean they can't possibly know what it is. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 22:59, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

: Nothing in Obama's background suggests he would have any idea who Annie Oakley was, and all evidence (including Obama's age) suggests he wouldn't. The conclusion by USA Today is self-evident.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:03, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::I still think it's a bit of a stretch to assume that because someone was born after a certain date they're immune to cultural influences preceding them. Also, the conclusion's by a syndicated columnist, not USA Today itself. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 23:07, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::Even John McCain wasn't alive when Annie Oakley died :D . And even Obama knows that Oakley was a female gun shooter. He was using it to make it appear that Hillary exaggerated her experience with guns as a child. [[User:Darkknight|Darkknight]] 20:34, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

:::I am fifty and I know who Annie Oakley was. I just saw a PBS special on her and she is the subject of a popular musical that has been running for years. This Annie Oakley thing is just plain stupid. Makes you look like idiots. [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 17:04, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion ==

The "Choice" bill is not just "supported by" the [[abortion]] industry, but is for its direct benefit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:03, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

== Lapel pin ==
The sentence "Notice Obama's lack of an American flag lapel pin" completely ignores how he's not wearing a jacket. No lapel, no lapel pin. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 00:43, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

: Obama doesn't wear the flag when he is wearing a jacket either. By the way, I do think pins work on shirts! The caption could profitably omit the word "lapel".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:24, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:: True, and criticism of him for it is valid. I'm still uncomfortable with the sentence being there at all since it seems like kind of a weak way to attack him on it, though. A more effective attack would be to find pictures of McCain and Hillary wearing them and one of him not and putting them together side by side in a single image to illustrate him not wearing a lapel pin. That'd drive the point home more effectively, I think. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 15:49, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

'''it seems like kind of a weak way to attack him on it'''....So, is the purpose here to attack him, or to write an accurate encyclopedia article about him? And a bit off-topic, why does it matter if he wears a lapel pin or not? Maybe it didn't occur to him to do so, or maybe he thought it was tacky (all lapel pins are, IMO). It doesn't make him an evil Communist. [[User:TheNobleSith3|TheNobleSith3]] 00:01, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

== How Mike Ditka Unintentionally Boosted Obama's Rise to Prominence ==

An observation that I've not seen commented on in the press...

When scandal ridden Jack Ryan's Illinois US Senate campaign was falling apart, Obama looked like a shoe in....until ex-Bear's coach Mike Ditka seriously began considering pleas from some top Republcians that he should run for the Senate. And Ditka was doing interviews about his and his wife's thoughts on the matter, giving IL Republicans considerable hope. Suddenly, Democrats feared that even Chicago's normally reliable voters might hand the popular Ditka a landslide.

It was during this two or three week frenzy over the question of whether Ditka would run that Obama, with little seniority and experience, was picked to give a major address at the Democrat's National Convention endorsing John Kerry...a move clearly intended to give Obama a boost with Illinois voters. Obama ran with the opportunity and gave a speech that garnered lot's of favorable press and turned him into a media darling and pushed him toward a an extremely early presidential run. In my opinion, his rise to stardom was indirectly sparked by the fear that Mike Ditka might "steal" the IL senate seat out from under the Democrats. Unfortunately, Mike (apparantly at the behest of his wife) decided the Senate life wasn't for him afterall.

Without Mike's near run, Obama never would have become such a media darling...at least not so early in his career.--[[User:Billy21|Billy21]] 13:38, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

: Interesting analysis, but I doubt one evening at the Democratic National Convention had much to do with this. I'd say Hillary's electoral weakness is a bigger factor. And, of course, the [[liberal media]] has long been obsessed with race. When [[Rush Limbaugh]] commented that he felt a media focus on race influenced the choice of quarterback on an NFL team, he had to quit his job as a sports analyst.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:: I always thought the media's obsession with race and gender was incorrect in this race. From my experience, the main dividing line in the Democratic Party right now is generational. Clinton represents the baby boomers while Obama represents the youth, which is a large part of why her strength has been older voters and his strength has been younger ones. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 15:45, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

::: I think there is a higher correlation in voting based on race than on age here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:54, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: Race is definitely a factor, but within the white Democratic electorate you can see some definite splits that indicate a generational gap. The wealthier you are, the higher your education and the lower your age, the more likely you are to vote for Obama. The lower your income, the lower your education and the higher your age, the more likely you are to vote for Clinton. Now, given that many senior citizens, especially those who were blue-collar workers, are on fixed incomes and pensions, we could partially tie income into age. Education-wise, there tend to be more college graduates in the younger demographics than in the older demographics simply because young people have more educational opportunities than their parents or grandparents had. Now of course there are exceptions, just like there are exceptions to everything. But personally? I view the Democratic primary as a fight between my generation and a generation that's still in a metaphorical way fighting the Vietnam War. That's this young college liberal's take on the Democratic race. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 16:10, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

==Affirmative action==

* He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of [[affirmative action]].

Who said this? Should we endorse it? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:49, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Joseph Farah: [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=58632 The affirmative-action president]

Maybe we should give him credit; I would hate to be accused of [[plagiarism]] over this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:53, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
:Here's some things I found on the subject: [http://www.cnbc.com/id/23579121/][http://www.slate.com/id/2187718/][http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjA2MjUwZTE1MmFmMDZjMjM4YmVlZjQ1YjBjYWY1MzY=][http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070515_obama_cools_on_affirmative_action/] [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:58, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

: I think Conservapedia had the term first, see [[Affirmative Action President]], but I'm all for adding citations to others who also use it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:00, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::From a couple of the links I provided above, the remark may have come from Geraldine Ferraro. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:02, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
:::No, I think the Ferraro kerfuffle was early March. CP's article on the subject began in January. I think all of these other johnny-come-latelys need to give Andy credit.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 17:22, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::This quote comes from here [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjA2MjUwZTE1MmFmMDZjMjM4YmVlZjQ1YjBjYWY1MzY=]:
:::::''"This presents Barack Obama with unique opportunity. Having campaigned against the passage of the Michigan initiative, can he chart a new path now that he is running for president? And, having admitted he attended Harvard law school because of affirmative action, can he now say the time has come to try something different?"'' [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:25, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::: I've checked some more and apparently Conservapedia coined the term [[Affirmative Action President]] first. The uses by others were subsequent to the entry here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:19, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Congratulations Andy... I guess you coined it first! :) [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:10, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

::Clarence Thomas benefitted from affirmative action but I don't see any reference to that in the article about him. Are you claiming that Barack Obama wouldn't have excelled without affirmative action? If so, why not make that claim about Clarence Thomas? [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 17:17, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Because [[Clarence Thomas]] has real achievements and, I might add, real principles.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:59, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Would you please list some of those real achievements and clarify how they are not a product of affirmative action. Also, bear in mind that there might be real principles that are different than yours. --[[User:Faust|Faust]] 21:24, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reopening request to erase professor sentence ==

The accusation that Obama was not a professor at University of Chicago has been thoroughly debunked by the University itself. Does anyone mind if I remove the offending sentence? [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 19:32, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
: Also note the contents of source #15, which is the press release by the University of Chicago on the subject. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 19:39, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

:: Not even the media relations folks at the University of Chicago claim [[Obama]] "was a professor." He obviously does not satisfy the dictionary definition of a professor.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:03, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

:::On the contrary, they do indeed claim he was a professor- which settles the issue. Any other claim is weaseling.

:::[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html] "From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School." Actually, that seems to be exactly what the media relations folks at the University of Chicago say. [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 23:16, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, I have heard complain that liberals take thing so literally and now you splitting hairs over the dictionary definition of 'professor'. I bet that if Obama was a conservative/republican you would heaps praise on his professorship.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:42, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

: You bet wrong. Conservatives don't insist that someone was a professor when he really wasn't. As to the media relations department at the [[University of Chicago]], reread its statement again and again until you realize that not even it said Obama "was a professor." Acting or serving "as a professor" is not the same as "being a professor."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:37, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

::Yes, "serving" as a professor is the same as being a professor. (In fact, one definition of professor is "one who lectures in their field of study." This is the most pathetic use of weasel-words I have ever seen to defend the indefensible. Everyone makes a mistake- but it takes a special kind of stubborn to try and change the definition. He was paid, he was employed, he was a professor as per his employer's criteria. This is just not an honest criticism, it's weird and I just don't understand the motivation? It's time for the whining to stop and this silliness to be put to bed before we all look like fools.

I have been following the US elections very closely, through BBC, FOX, CNN etc and websites and the only place I have heard Obama's professorship is here! I think the point to peoples debate is that the want the sentence removed from the article all together, not an insistence that the article state he is a professor. Its not even relevant to his presidential campagin!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 20:40, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Circle

2007-05-07T22:14:35Z

Lgm:

why the formula for circumference is expressed as 2pi r rather than simply pi d? Anyone know?

Well, it sometimes ''is'' expressed as πD.

I'm just guessing here, but I think the radius is considered a more fundamental parameter for a circle than the diameter. The circle is the set of points that is all the same distance from a central point, and that distance is the radius. (There are, incidentally, many shapes other than the circle that have a constant ''diameter,'' but only the circle has a constant ''radius...'').

Of course, that just changes the question: why was the symbol π defined as referring to the ratio of circumference to diameter, rather than the ratio of circumference to radius, 6.28... It really should have been; when you think of it, it is really the value 2π that keeps cropping up everywhere. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:28, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:Agree with Dpbsmith - the radius is essentially part of the definition of a circle (the locus of all points...). In other words, working with abstractions one is more likely to have ''r'' defined than ''d''. Perhaps the article should list both for clarity - and mention that this is the ''definition'' of pi. And, you're right, '''''pi should be 6.28318... !!!'''''. We should bring this to the attention of the authorities. [[User:Human|Human]] 15:59, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:: The Greeks defined pi to be the ratio of the area to the radius of the unit circle. That's why it came out 3.14... instead of 6.28... . I just edited the page to correct some slight mis-statements (the circumfrence is not a line because a line is by definition straight in Euclidean geometry), but it isn't worded well. Please fix the wording.

Circle

2007-05-07T22:10:37Z

Lgm:

[[Image:265px-Circle Area svg.png|right|thumb|Area of the circle = <math>\pi</math> × area of the shaded square]]

A '''circle''' is the [[set]] of all the points in a given [[plane]] that are the same distance, called the [[radius]], ''r'', from a given [[point]] called the center.

A circle may also be defined [[algebra]]ically, as the set of solutions to an equation of the form:

:<math>(x-a)^2 + (y-b)^2 = r^2</math>,
where <math>(a,b)</math> is the center of the circle.

The distance around the circle, or circumference, is given by:

:<math>C = 2\pi*r</math>

The area inside the circle is calculated using the formula:

:<math>A = \pi*r^2</math>

A circle is a [[conic section]], the intersection of a plane with a cone such that the plane is perpendicular to the axis of the cone.

Circles can readily be constructed by using a fixed distance between a pencil point and the center. A [[compass]] is a tool for doing this easily.

A circle with <math>r = 1</math> is called the ''unit circle'', and is used extensively in [[trignometry]].

[[Category:Geometry]]
[[category:mathematics]]

Radioactive isotope

2007-05-04T22:54:45Z

Lgm: It's an estimate, not a calculation. The range of validity of carbon dating is an important thing about it, and particularly interesting for kids.

An [[atom]] whose nucleus is not stable.<ref>Wile, Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Physical Science''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1999, 2000</ref>

Radioactive isotopes have many applications in [[science]] and [[medicine]]. One application is [[radiocarbon dating|carbon 14 dating]].<ref>http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/cardat.html</ref> This allows [[scientist]]s to estimate the age of the remains of once-living things up to tens of thousands of years old.

==References==
<references/>
[[category:physics]]

Jericho

2007-04-18T02:47:09Z

Lgm:

Jericho is a city in [[Palestine]] by the [[Jordan River]], and the second oldest city that has been discoved<ref> http://www.arcl.ed.ac.uk/arch/annrept/stevens.htm </ref>.

In the book of [[Joshua]], Jericho is taken by the Israelites with the help of God. Joshua 6.20 "When the trumpets sounded, the people shouted, and at the sound of the trumpet, when the people gave a loud shout, the wall collapsed; so every man charged straight in, and they took the city." Subsequently the Israelites killed every living thing within it, "The men, the women, the young, the old, the cattle, the sheep and the donkeys" (Joshua 6:21)

The site believed to be the ruins of the City of Jericho described in the Bible has been excavated several times. Its first excavation was done in 1868, but it was not scientifically excavated until 1907. The first series of excavations, conducted by archeologists who hoped to prove the story found in the Bible to be true, failed to confirm the Biblical story of Jericho—it instead revealed that the city was unoccupied at the time the Israelites would have been invading. A second excavation, conducted between the years of 1930 and 1936, appeared to show the city was occupied at the time of the Israeli movement into the area, but this finding was based on methodology considered crude by today’s standards. A third and highly scientific dig was conducted between 1952 and 1958, this dig supported the findings of the first scientific excavation, that Jericho was unoccupied during the Biblical time period. The most recent excavation, has again cast doubt on the findings of the first and third digs, suggesting that Jericho was in fact occupied during the Biblical time frame. At the moment there is no consensus in the archeological community on when or how Jericho was destroyed. <ref> http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/sites/middle_east/jericho.html </ref>

Biblical scholars also point out that what is described in the book of Joshua is nothing less than genocidal ethnic clensing. Again and again the Chosen People are instructed to kill everyone living in a captured city, including women and children. Non Christians often refer to the Book of Joshua to make a case that the Judeo Christian religions embrace violence.
==Reference==

<references/>

[[category:cities]]

Josephus

2007-04-09T14:04:42Z

Lgm:

37 - 101 A.D. Jewish general and historian who took part in the Jewish revolt against the Romans and later worked for a Roman patron. Surviving early copies and translations of his writings make some references to the life and death of Jesus Christ and Jesus's brother James.

Some modern scholars are skeptical of the passages in Jesephus' writings that refer to Jesus. Many believe they were inserted by copyists during the middle ages.

Alice Whealey, Josephus on Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy from Late Antiquity to Modern Times,Peter Lang Publishing (2003).

[[Category:Biographies]]

Absolute value

2007-04-09T13:46:10Z

Lgm:

The absolute value of a number is a measure of the size of that number. The absolute value of <math>x</math> is written <math>|x|</math>. If <math>x</math> is a positive number, then <math>|x| = x</math>. If <math>x</math> is a negative number, then <math>|x| = -x</math>. If <math>x=0</math> then <math>|x| = 0</math>.

Absolute value has several useful properties. One is the ''multiplicative'' property. If <math>x</math> and <math>y</math> are two numbers, then <math>|xy| = |x| \times |y|</math>. Another is the ''triangle inequality'', which is the fact that <math>|x+y| \leq |x| + |y|</math>. For example, if <math>x = 3</math> and <math>y = -5</math>, then <math>|x+y| = |3 + (-5)| = |3 - 5| = |-2| = 2</math>, while <math>|x| + |y| = |-5| + |3| = 5 + 3 = 8</math>. In this case, the triangle inequality is the fact that 2 is not more than 8.

Complex numbers also have an absolute value. If <math>z = x+iy</math> is a complex number with real part <math>x</math> and imaginary part <math>y</math>, then <math>|z| = \sqrt{x^2 + y^2}</math>. If we represent <math>z</math> as a point in the complex plane with coordinates <math>(x,y)</math>, then <math>|z|</math> is the distance from this point to the origin. The absolute value of complex numbers also has the multiplicative property and satisfies the triangle inequality.

==Notes and references==
<references/>

[[Category:Algebra]]

Mutation

2007-04-07T18:10:24Z

Lgm:

{{stub}}

In [[biology]] '''mutation''' is any physical change in the [[genetic material]] of an [[organism]]. In most cases this is either the [[DNA]] or [[RNA]] in the cell [[nucleus]]. In multicellular organisms there are two primary classes of mutation, [[germline mutations]] and [[somatic mutations]]. Germline mutations are those changes that can be passed down to offspring, while somatic mutations are mutations that only alter genetic material in the mutated organism. There is some evidence that changes outside of the cell's genetic material, such as the [[cytoplasm]], [[proteins]], or the cell [[membrane]] can also be inherited.

Mutations can be caused by internal or external factors. Common external factors include [[ultraviolet]] radiation, chemical [[mutagens]], or parasitic organisms (such as [[viruses]] or [[bacteria]]). Most internal causes of mutations stem from errors in reproduction of genetic material. Most of these errors are corrected by error-correcting [[ribosomes]] but some organisms will respond to harsh environments by increasing the rate of mutations. This is known as [[hypermutation]] and is hypothesized to aid organisms by creating wider variation in the [[gene pool]] of the population, increasing the chances that at least some decedents might survive under harsh conditions.

Mutation is fundamental to the theory of evolution. According to the theory, mutations cause offspring to be slightly different from their parents. Most mutations make the organism less fit, but some make it more fit. The more fit individuals are more likely to reproduce and pass their mutated genes on to their offspring.

==References==
Biology (7th Edition). Neil A. Campbell,Jane B. Reece. http://www.amazon.com/Biology-7th-Neil-Campbell/dp/080537146X.

[[Category:Biology]]

Talk:Atom

2007-04-03T13:32:40Z

Lgm:

This entry clearly illustrates the inconsistency of the Conservapedia approach to science. The theory of evolution, which has an enormous range of experimental and observational support is reported skeptically. But the theory of quarks (QCD) is reported as simple fact though it has little experimental support. It would be easy to fill the page with quotes from quark skeptics at major universities as they do with evolution.

: Who are the quark skeptics? I never heard of any serious dispute about the theory of quarks. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:48, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:: [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-1753(198106)72%3A2%3C216%3ATHOTQ%3E2.0.CO%3B2-J] [http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3687]

::: I couldn't find anyone contradicting basic quark theory. A 1981 paper seemed to want to address some philosophical issues, I'm not sure. The 2003 story said that some observation was 10% different from what was expected, but no one is doubting quarks. Quark theory is rock solid science. (So is most of evolution, but that is for another page.) [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:58, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Most elementary particle physicists believe there are elements of truth in the quark model but none of them think its completely correct. The most serious criticisms are that (i) it has very few new experimental verifications, (ii) it is not renormalizable (the mathematics behind it don't really make sense), and (iii) it is inconsistent with Einstein's theory of gravity (general relativity).

:::: However, you and I both know that if there were something in the Bible contradicting quark theory, there would be a "Discovery Institute" dedicated to debunking it. Anyone expressing any reservations (such as lamenting the lack of experimental data) would be dragged out as a hero of the opposition.

:::::Sure, the standard model needs extended. So did Newtonian mechanics and SR. It's still rock solid in its domain of application. The part about lack of experimental verification is about as wrong as it could be; basically every particle physics experiment involving hadrons generates vast quantities of data supporting the quark model. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:24, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::: The anonymous comment is wrong on every count. QCD is renormalizable. Bible quotes about quarks would have no effect on the Discovery Institute. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:58, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::I misspoke (miswrote?). QCD is renormalizable but the need for renormalization indicates that the theory has fundamental mathematical problems. Read Feynman on this point, for example. You might like the experimental support for quark models, but observational support for evolution is ten times stronger. You insist on calling evolution "just a theory" but have no problem saying the quark model is a fact. Are you seriously saying that the funders of the Discovery Institute are not motivated by religion? Are you seriously saying that they are scientists who happen to have a different opinion about evolution? -Lgm

:::::::: You are getting way off-topic here. I have no problem saying evolution is a fact. I don't know who funds the Discovery Institute, and I wouldn't try to read their minds anyway. I am not saying that those funders are scientists; they probably are not. They do seem to have a different opinion about evolution, but so what? They are entitled to their opinions. And none of this has anything to do with atoms. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:44, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::It may have nothing to do with atoms, but it has much to do with the conservapedia. Sometimes they dredge up uncertainty where there is none (evolution). In other places, they report more certainty than there is (quarks).

::::::::At the level of support the central theories of modern science enjoy, I'm not entirely sure attempting to rank them in terms of strength is even particularly meaningful. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:30, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Associative property of multiplication

2007-04-03T13:24:14Z

Lgm:

Basic multiplication is a ''pairwise'' operation. To multiply more than two numbers, you must combine them in pairs successively until all the numbers have been used. For example, to multiply <math>X = 3 \times 4 \times 5</math> you first pick two consecutive numbers, say 3 and 4, and multiply them: <math>X = 12 \times 5</math>. Now there are just two numbers remaining, which you can multiply to get the final answer: <math>X = 60</math>.

The ''associative'' property of multiplication is the fact that the answer does not depend on how the pairings are done. For example, we could have started with <math>4 \times 5 = 20</math>, and then done <math>X = 3 \times 20 = 60</math>. We use parentheses to indicate the order of multiplication used. For example, writing <math>(3 \times 4)\times 5</math> means that you first multiply <math>3 \times 4</math> then multiply the result by 5. The associative property is expressed by the formula <math>(3\times 4) \times 5 = 3 \times(4 \times 5)</math>.

With more than three numbers, there can be many ways to do the multiplication. For example, with 4 numbers one of the ways is <math>2 \times 3 \times 4 \times 5 = ((2 \times 3) \times 4 )\times 5 = (6 \times 4 )\times 5 = 24\times 5 = 120</math>.

The associative property of multiplication is different from the commutitative property. For example, multiplication of matrices has the associative property but is not commutative. If <math>A</math>, <math>B</math>, and <math>C</math> are three matrices, then <math>A\times(B \times C)=(A\times B) \times C </math> but <math>A\times B \neq B \times A </math>.

Associative property of multiplication

2007-04-03T13:23:48Z

Lgm:

Associative property of multiplication

2007-04-03T13:20:48Z

Lgm:

Basic multiplication is a ''pairwise'' operation. To multiply more than two numbers, you must combine them in pairs successively until all the numbers have been used. For example, to multiply <math>X = 3 \times 4 \times 5</math> you first pick two consecutive numbers, say 3 and 4, and multiply them: <math>X = 12 \times 5</math>. Now there are just two numbers remaining, which you can multiply to get the final answer: <math>X = 60</math>.

The ''associative'' property of multiplication is the fact that the answer does not depend on how the pairings are done. For example, we could have started with <math>4 \times 5 = 20</math>, and then done <math>X = 3 \times 20 = 60</math>. We use parentheses to indicate the order of multiplication used. For example, writing <math>(3 \times 4)\times 5</math> means that you first multiply <math>3 \times 4</math> then multiply the result by 5. The associative property is expressed by the formula <math>(3\times 4) \times 5 = 3 \times(4 \times 5)</math>.

With more than three numbers, there can be many ways to do the multiplication. For example, with 4 numbers one of the ways is <math>2 \times 3 \times 4 \times 5 = ((2 \times 3) \times 4 )\times 5 = (6 \times 4 )\times 5 = 24\times 5 = 120</math>.

The associative property of multiplication is different from the commutitative property. For example, multiplication of matrices has the associative property but is not commutative. If <math>A</math>, <math>B</math>, and <math>C</math> are three matrices, then <math>A\times(B \times C)=(A\times B) \timesC </math> but <math>A\times \neq B \times A </math>.

Associative property of multiplication

2007-04-03T13:19:48Z

Lgm:

Basic multiplication is a ''pairwise'' operation. To multiply more than two numbers, you must combine them in pairs successively until all the numbers have been used. For example, to multiply <math>X = 3 \times 4 \times 5</math> you first pick two consecutive numbers, say 3 and 4, and multiply them: <math>X = 12 \times 5</math>. Now there are just two numbers remaining, which you can multiply to get the final answer: <math>X = 60</math>.

The ''associative'' property of multiplication is the fact that the answer does not depend on how the pairings are done. For example, we could have started with <math>4 \times 5 = 20</math>, and then done <math>X = 3 \times 20 = 60</math>. We use parentheses to indicate the order of multiplication used. For example, writing <math>(3 \times 4)\times 5</math> means that you first multiply <math>3 \times 4</math> then multiply the result by 5. The associative property is expressed by the formula <math>(3\times 4) \times 5 = 3 \times(4 \times 5)</math>.

With more than three numbers, there can be many ways to do the multiplication. For example, with 4 numbers one of the ways is <math>2 \times 3 \times 4 \times 5 = ((2 \times 3) \times 4 )\times 5 = (6 \times 4 )\times 5 = 24\times 5 = 120</math>.

The associative property of multiplication is different from the commutitative property. For example, multiplication of matrices has the associative property but is not commutative. If <math>A</math>, <math>B</math>, and <math>C</math> are three matrices, then <math>A\times(B \timesC)=(A\times B) \timesC </math> but <math>A\times \neq B \times A </math>.

Associative property of multiplication

2007-04-03T12:56:41Z

Lgm: New page: Basic multiplication is a ''pairwise'' operation. To multiply more than two numbers, you must combine them in pairs successively until all the numbers have been used. For example, to mul...

Talk:Atom

2007-03-30T01:01:25Z

Lgm:

Talk:Atom

2007-03-29T14:18:48Z

Lgm:

Talk:Atom

2007-03-29T03:32:47Z

Lgm:

Radioactive isotope

2007-03-28T22:16:14Z

Lgm:

An atom whose nucleus is not stable.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Physical Science''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1999, 2000</ref>

Radioactive isotopes have many applications in science and medicine. One application is carbon 14 dating.<ref>http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/cardat.html</ref> This allows scientists to estimate the age of remains of living things that lived more than 10,000 years ago.

==References==
<references/>

Radioactive isotope

2007-03-28T22:07:38Z

Lgm: /* References */

An atom whose nucleus is not stable.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Physical Science''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1999, 2000</ref>

==References==
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/cardat.html
<references/>

Talk:Atom

2007-03-28T13:48:57Z

Lgm: New page: This entry clearly illustrates the inconsistency of the Conservapedia approach to science. The theory of evolution, which has an enormous range of experimental and observational support i...

Acceleration

2007-03-28T13:40:35Z

Lgm:

The rate of change of an object's [[velocity]].<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Physical Science''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1999, 2000</ref>. For an object to undergo an acceleration, a [[force]] needs to be exerted on the object. An example is a falling object on [[Earth]], which is subject to a [[gravity|gravitational force]]. The resulting acceleration ''g'' is independent of the mass of the object, and is approximately 9.8 [[meter]] per [[second]] per [[second]] near the Earth's surface<ref>Marcelo Alonso and Edward J. Finn, ''Fundamental University Physics'', Addison-Wesley.</ref>.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Physics]]

Debate:God, Earth and Global Warming

2007-03-20T21:43:56Z

Lgm:

All the talk of global Warming is absolutely mind numbing. Out of nowhere, this science is out to scare us all. The fact remains, the Global Warming scientists believe that humans must take the necessary steps to avoid a meltdown. It is ignorant to think humans can save the planet. God created this world, God alone can save this world from ourselves. Plus, do these scientists understand the ramifications of their sales pitch? The people of Earth would have to give up eveything in order to succeed. By everything I mean combustion engines, factories, electricity, all meat, dairy, etc.

:That last comment is either supposed to be ironic, or from a very uninformed fundamentalist. I can't tell which.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 20:14, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

The hypocrisy on this issue is overwhelming on both sides (Left and Right). Al Gore wants everyone to reduce their carbon footprint while his home uses order(s) of magnitude electricity than an average home - Why? '''BECAUSE I CAN AFFORD IT AND BUY CARBON ALLOWANCES''' (or some such rant). The right believes that they can do anything in their own backyard, as long as they can make money, while lecturing to everyone else as to how they may be polluting God's earth (or some such rant) (it gets worse). There have been changes in the average temperature - to conclude that ALL of this can be attributed to human activity is not clear. To ignore that what we may be seeing is a 1500 (?) year cycle is irresponsible. Weather models are complex and have many parameters that are difficult to estimate or calculate and so one can get any predictions one wants by tinkering. The left wants economic progress such that only the really rich can afford it, the right wants it for themselves but would like to deny the developing countries from developing (e.g. restricting the use of freon ("destroying the ozone layer") and discouraging the increased use of oil/gas (since the prices go up for everyone). So, is there really such a thing as Global warming? Perhaps. But after listening to Michael Crichton on CSPAN (?) about how even good journals can be biased in what they publish, I have NO idea what or who to believe. Too much noise, too much politics. OK, IF Al Gore leaves his HUGE mansion and moves to the middle of the desert and forsakes ALL modern conveniences including his car, electricity and whatever the heck he wears on his face and hair and such, and lives like a hermit, I will believe in Global Warming, what say you Mr. Gore? [[User:kchittur|kchittur]]

The top comment reminds me of an oft told joke. A religious man is on the roof of a burning house. The fire company holds the trampolene and tells him to jump. He says: "No, God will save me." A helicopter and lowers a ladder to him and tells him to climb. He says: "God will save me." Then the house collapses, he dies and goes to heaven. He asks God why he didn't save him. God answers: "I sent the fire company and the helicopter. What more did you want?"

The Bible tells us that God gave man the tools to exploit the earth. It also tells what happens (the flood, the distruction of Judah, ..) when man lacks the wisdom to use those tools wisely. God gave us the brains to detect global warming in time to stop it. He gave us the means to stop it. The question is, do we have the wisdom?

World History Lecture One

2007-03-17T18:56:13Z

Lgm: /* Introduction to Ancient History */

[[World History Lecture One|1]]-[[World History Lecture Two|2]]-[[World History Lecture Three|3]]-[[World History Lecture Four|4]]-[[World History Lecture Five|5]]-[[World History Lecture Six|6]]-[[World History Lecture Seven|7]]-[[World History Lecture Eight|8]]-[[World History Lecture Nine|9]]-[[World History Lecture Ten|10]]-[[World History Lecture Eleven|11]]-[[World History Lecture Twelve|12]]-[[World History Lecture Thirteen|13]]-[[World History Lecture Fourteen|14]]

World History

First Lecture – Ancient History

Instructor, Andy Schlafly

==Introduction to the Course==

“World history” is the history of mankind. Nothing is off-limits. Every source is available to us, from the Bible to rock music. Everything mankind has ever written, invented, observed, and destroyed is part of “World history.”

Many of you have taken U.S. History, which is the story of the last 400 years in our overwhelmingly Christian country. World History is a different story: over 5000 years, much of it non-Christian. World History is not the same as Western Civilization, which consists of pre- and post-Christian Europe. World History includes Islam and Hinduism and all the forces that continue to shape our world to this day. U.S. History cannot explain 9/11, violence in the Middle East, or hostility between India and Pakistan. World history does.

I love World history for several reasons. The more we understand other religions the better we can deal with world conflicts. I also like studying the discovery of knowledge and great inventions. Do you know what civilization invented the wheel? Bread? Mathematics? Chocolate? Finally, the greatest military feats are found in World history, so if you like military history then you’ll love World history. Your challenge is to find what you like about World history, and then connect everything else to it. Find ways to relate World history to you, and enjoy it.

I like to learn how mankind progressed in understanding the unseen, such as truth and gravity and God. In mathematics, mankind progressed from the discovery of geometry (Greeks) to the concept of “zero” (Indians) to calculus (English). In economics, mankind progressed from wage and price controls (Romans) to the “invisible hand” of the free market (English), which then unleashed tremendous prosperity. Government progressed from rulers who claimed to be gods (Egyptians), to monarchies (Middle Ages), to constitutional republics (United States). What are we progressing towards now? Use history to predict the future.

World history is also fascinating because there are many mysteries and controversies about it. How did the Egyptians build the pyramids? In what language did Jesus preach? Why did Islam grow so rapidly? Who was right, the Catholics or the Protestants? Is modern Israel a fulfillment of biblical prophecy? Is democracy compatible with Islam?

Do not be misled by thinking ancient peoples were dumb or boring because they lacked the technology of modern society. True, they lacked television and the internet. Does that mean it was boring or dull in 2500 B.C.? Not at all. People were probably smarter than they are today. The Egyptians, for example, cleverly built the massive pyramids using techniques that no one to this day can figure out or duplicate. In 2600 B.C., they constructed the pyramid of Khufu containing 6 million tons of stone extending to a height of 481 feet. The workmanship was superior to what we do today: the rock base was virtually perfectly flat, not varying in elevation by more than a half-inch; its orientation is precisely aligned with the points of a compass; its stones were perfect fits. Inside was a chapel, a causeway, and a temple. It amazes architects to this day. We would not be able to duplicate it even now. Many other cultures, from Mesopotamia to Greece to Rome to India to China, invented things and discovered knowledge that no one today is smart enough to duplicate. Do you know how to bake bread from scratch?

The feats of our ancestors are one part of the study of history. Also important are the clash of ideas, values, religions, systems of government and economies. Individuals, too, make a difference in extraordinary cases. One of many debates that we will have in this class is this: why did societies rise and fall in power?

We will read and discuss societies that rose from nothing to enormous power, only to lose it and become weak again. Each time that happens, ask yourself why. Think about the unsolved mysteries of World history, such as why unrelated civilizations having no apparent connection with each other would do similar things, such as constructing ziggurats or pyramids.

Just as you use reference points like landmarks to find your way, identify historical reference points to make it easier for you to organize the many hundreds of facts you will learn in this course. For example, the exodus of the Jews from Egypt is an excellent reference point for understanding the rise and fall of Egypt. The birth of Christ is another reference point that even our calendar uses to organize dates.

Finally, let me add a few words about terminology. “B.C” means “Before (the birth of) Christ” and “A.D.” means Anno Domini (Latin for “in the year of our Lord”) or simply “After (the birth of) Christ.” The “1st century B.C.” means the 1st century before Christ, counting backwards, which are the years 1-100 B.C. The “5th century B.C.” is thus 401-500 B.C. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that the 5th century B.C. is the 500s B.C.! Likewise, the 20th century (A.D.) was the years A.D. 1901-2000. Because A.D. means “in the year of our Lord,” the proper terminology is to put the date after the A.D., as in A.D. 2006. But school textbooks rarely use “B.C.” and “A.D.” correctly anymore, instead replacing them with an anti-Christian “BCE” for “Before the Common Era” and “CE” for “Common Era.” In other words, BCE = B.C. and CE = A.D.

===Introduction to Ancient History===

Ancient history, which is everything before about A.D. 600, created or discovered all the major religions today except Islam. Ancient history created civilization and achieved many of the greatest intellectual breakthroughs of all time. Literature, drama, mathematics, philosophy, language, etc., were all created in ancient history.

When did mankind first begin? Precious few of the earliest cultural creations of mankind have survived. Paintings made 30,000 years ago in caves in Lascaux, France, show remarkable artistic technique and sensibility.

The oldest writing is a pictographic tablet called a “cuneiform” dated to about 3400 B.C. from Sumer (SOO-mur) in Southern Mesopotamia (where Iraq is today). These cuneiforms look like chicken-scratches featuring wedge-like or arrow-shaped characters. The oldest western-style script is from the Indo-Aryan language, and one dated to 1550 B.C. was found in the Sinai. The oldest verified civilization dates to about 3000 B.C. We can also extrapolate backwards from modern populations to estimate that only about 300 million people existed in the world at the time of Christ, and extrapolating backwards further yields only one family in the year 3300 B.C. Languages can be traced backwards to about 3000 B.C., and some experts reconstruct a point of origin in southeastern Europe near the Black Sea, not far from the Ararat mountain range cited in the Bible in connection with Noah. Old trees never predate this time either; the oldest sequoias, which never die of old age, are only 4000 years old.

No “civilization” has been found that is older than about 3000 B.C. By “civilization” we mean order and hierarchy in the way of life. Some type of political system or government is usually necessary to have a civilization. A structure similar to a city or town is necessary to bring together people, jobs, buildings or religious centers. Usually there are different classes of people, such as rich and poor. Some historians say there must be an agricultural surplus also: enough food to feed the people so that some workers could spend time in jobs other than farming. In a nutshell, a civilization must have cities, skilled (non-farming) workers, social and government institutions, writing to maintain records such as property ownership, and advanced technology. Memorize the oldest dates for the ancient civilizations:

Mesopotamia (Mes-uh-puh-tay-mee-uh): 3500 – 500 B.C., when conquered by Persia
Egypt: 3100 – 525 B.C., when conquered by the Hyksos (HIK-sohs)
Indus (IN-dus) Valley: beginning in 2900 B.C.
China: beginning in 2200 B.C.
Mexican Olmec (AWL-mek): 1200 – 300 B.C., the earliest known American civilization
Peru (South America): 900 B.C.

History books speculate at length about “prehistory”, which predates writing. But there is no reliable evidence to support this speculation, and not worth spending time on. There is no reason to think that man existed for thousands of years without ever expressing himself in written form. But in case you are asked, historians describe the period of time known as “prehistory” as the “Stone Age.” They divide the Stone Age into two time periods: “Paleolithic” and “Neolithic”. The Paleolithic Age is older, when man relied mostly on hunting and picking nuts and fruit to supplement his diet. The Paleolithic Age was followed by the Neolithic Age, which consisted of the rise of agriculture. The “Neolithic Revolution” means the “Agricultural Revolution,” when farming became dominant. The dates of these ages are controversial, and historians have a bias for giving them older dates than proven by archaeology.

After the Stone Age came the Bronze Age, beginning in 3500 B.C., when copper and/or bronze tools were used. That was followed by the Iron Age, which began in Turkey around 2200 B.C. and later spread to other regions. As its name suggests, it used iron for tools.

Ancient civilizations are often called “classical civilizations,” particularly when they produce intellectual advances as Ancient Greece did. Phrases like “Classical Indian Civilization” refer to Ancient India, which lasted from 300 B.C. to A.D. 500.

Two of the oldest towns were the biblical town of Jericho, located in Palestine, and Catal Huyuk, located in modern-day Turkey. Jericho was famous for its high city walls to protect against attack.

The ancient world is the source of the most basic aspects of life, such as the seven-day week and marriage. The Bible remains the best explanation for both, and many other aspects of the ancient world. All four civilizations discussed in this lecture arose in or near what we now call the “Middle East.”

==Mesopotamia==

So where did civilization begin? In a region known as Mesopotamia, which is Greek for “land between the rivers.” The “rivers” are the Tigris and Euphrates, located in Western Asia. Where, exactly? Basically, in fertile areas of Iraq northeast of the desert, known as part of the “Fertile Crescent” that extends along the coast of the Mediterranean Sea (including modern Israel, Lebanon and Syria) and the fertile valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers that run southeast into the Persian Gulf. These rivers deposited silt in the surrounding land, creating rich alluvial soil. Today the Tigris and Euphrates rivers are not far from the location of our soldiers in Iraq. However, our soldiers are mostly pictured in sandy areas, while the ancient people would have stayed close to the water. Moreover, ancient floods would have changed the landscape over time.

Genesis 2:8-17 (NAS) describes the beginning in Mesopotamia as follows: “The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed. … Now a river flowed out of Eden to water the garden; and from there it divided and became four rivers. The name of the first is Pishon; it flows around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. ... The name of the third river is Tigris; it flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.” Using the ages mentioned in the Bible and counting backwards, biblical scholars have dated this as about 6000 years ago, or about 4000 B.C. This is about 500 years before our earliest record of ancient writings.

In the fourth millennium before Christ, between about 3500 and 3000 B.C., two things happened: writing was invented and cities began to sprout up with their own political and economic systems. Both of these developments occurred in southern Mesopotamia. This was known as Sumer, and the occupants were the Sumerians.

We owe a great deal to the work of the Sumerians. They developed the first system of writing (the cuneiform), the first codes of law and the first “city-state” (essentially a nation consisting only of a large city). Their inventions were marvelous: the seed plow, the sailboat, and the potter’s wheel. (Distinguish “cuneiforms” from “ideograms”, which show ideas with symbols such as arrows for war, from “phonograms”, in which symbols represent sounds).

Most workers in Mesopotamia were farmers, but some devoted their time to trade. They had a calendar based on the moon to aid the farmers, and they developed a mathematical system using base 12. They were marvelous inventors, creating complex systems of irrigation and discovering the plow, the cart and the wheel, and used bronze (a mixture of copper and tin) to make good farming tools. Both men and women owned private property, had slaves, and were ruled by a king.

They built cities known as Eridu, Lagash, Ur, Uruk, Isin, Kish, just to name a few. They were smart, and developed Akkadian as their language. One interesting aspect of Akkadian is that it lacks any tense forms such as past or future tense. The verbs expressed the manner of an action rather than its time.

By 3000 B.C. the people had built major canals to channel water, and roads on which to travel. Shepherds had dogs to help them tend the sheep, just as we use today to help herd sheep together. Each city was surrounded by a moat and a wall of brick, with as many as 900 towers inside the city. Soldiers watched entry back and forth, and chariots and wagons carried people and goods within the city. By 3000 B.C. mankind had already built a mini-version of Manhattan, without the automobile and steel skyscrapers. But Mesopotamia (unlike Egypt and China) was not protected by geography, and would constantly face invasion by foreigners.

Do not think there was anything primitive about these ancient cities. They had shipping, fishing, brewers and bakers. They spun wool and traded fine jewelry. They discovered the Pythagorean Theorem, though it was later named after a Greek. In 2500 B.C., the queen of Ur, which was a prominent city, lived in a palace that featured harps and many servants. Slavery existed, but it was typically confined to domestic work in the cities rather than hard labor on the farm. Slaves were given a minimum standard of living and often had the opportunity to rise to freedom through diligent work.

Temples were everywhere. But the people also built stepped mountains known as ziggurats, with a temple on top, and the Bible tells how they tried to build one higher and higher. A massive ziggurat at Ur that is described in Genesis 11:1-9 as the Tower of Babel led to hundreds of different languages in the world. As we shall learn in this course, language is a central part of a society that has much to do with its success or failure. Societies with useful languages prospered; those with difficult-to-use languages failed.

Genesis Chapter 10 places the roots of modern mankind in Noah and his three sons: Shem, Ham and Japheth. The term “Semitic” means “pertaining to the descendants of Shem,” and includes Assyrians, Chaldeans, Aramaeans, Sabaeans, and Hebrews (now known as Jews). Semitic languages include Hebrew and Arabic. Semitic religions include Judaism, Christianity and Islam. One of Noah’s descendants was Abram, who later changed his name as Abraham to reflect his covenant with God.

Both the Bible and many independent sources describe a Great Flood (or “Deluge”), which historians date at about 3000 B.C. Very little of any history, including writings and civilization, has survived from before that time. The biblical account of the Flood is at Genesis 5-8, describing an ark having reasonable dimensions similar to modern ocean steamships. A non-biblical Sumerian (from Sumer in Mesopotamia) account of the Flood was found in the last hundred years, and that account was apparently written about 1600 B.C. Even better, a cuneiform tablet from Babylon was found dating from 3000 B.C., which also described a massive flood in great detail. There are many other ancient accounts of a massive flood found in most other cultures around the world. Fossils and limestone (the result of ocean sediment) are found today on mountaintops and land worldwide at all altitudes. Independent accounts of a great flood can be found in ancient works of China, India, Britain (Druid) and American Indians, all having striking similar details. See, e.g., http://www.searchgodsword.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T2631 . Recently two scientists at Columbia University published a widely praised book that proved that the Flood did occur, entitled “Noah’s Flood,” which concludes that the biblical Flood “is surely a true story of the permanent destruction of a land and its people ….” (p. 251). Yet no public school textbook ever mentions a massive flood.

The conflict between the Hebrew (Jewish) and Arab peoples in the Middle East and throughout the world is described by some as a family feud. They are descended from the same father, Abraham, as described in Genesis 16. But Jewish and Arab peoples trace their lineage from different sons of Abraham who were rivals for their father’s love. Jewish people claim to be descendants of Isaac, the child of Abraham and Sarah, while Arabs are descended from Ishmael, the son of Abraham (then Abram) and the Egyptian woman Hagar. The Old Testament teaches that Abraham offered to sacrifice Isaac to the Lord, while Islam teaches that Abraham’s sacrifice was of Ishmael. Islam teaches that Ishmael helped Abraham build a mosque in Mecca (the venerated Kaaba), and that it was Ishmael (rather than Isaac) who was nearly sacrificed. Regardless, Ishmael went a different way from the rest of Abraham’s family, and there have been hard feelings by Ishmael’s descendants ever since.

Civilization quickly prospered in Sumeria, the northwest (Akkad) was constantly fighting the southeast (Sumer), and eventually an Akkadian warrior named Sargon conquered Mesopotamia. Sargon was the first person in recorded history to create an empire or multi-ethnic state, from 2334 to 2279 B.C. His empire included the region of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, and also part of what is Turkey today. The capital of his empire was Agade in Akkad. But like many military rulers, his empire collapsed when he died. He did not have a civil (non-military) form of government to pay his soldiers and sustain his empire. Instead, he could only survive as long his soldiers continued to capture and loot. Once the empire stopped expanded upon his death, it collapsed. After Sargon’s death, the city of Ur in Sumer was the leading city.

In sum, the Sumerians established many of the things that define civilization today: buildings, engineering, legal codes, written language and a military. The Sumerians also had literature: in 2000 B.C., they wrote “The Epic of Gilgamesh,” considered to be oldest fictional story ever written. It was based on a real person, however, who ruled a city-state in Sumer. He struggles with religious issues in the form of multiple gods, and the story seems to draw on some of the wisdom of the Bible. This non-biblical source also describes a great flood.

Inventions: We can thank Mesopotamia (probably Ur) for inventing the wheel in about 3500 B.C., which is the single greatest invention of all time. It is used for much more than transportation. The wheel is essential to manufacturing and even pre-digital watches. No American civilization had the wheel until the Europeans brought it to them.

==Babylon==

Babylonia was a relatively late achiever in the Mesopotamian world, occupying southern Mesopotamia where Sumer was. Babylonia apparently did not exist before about 2300 B.C. Babylon was its main city, located about 55 miles south of Baghdad today in Iraq. It is now in ruins but thousands of years ago was a thriving city known for its “Hanging Gardens of Babylon,” which were one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. Babylon was known as a city devoted to materialism and personal pleasure. As an example of usage, the English author G.K. Chesterton once wrote, “the Babylonian halls of the big hotel.”

As a city Babylon was smaller and less important than Ur, which enjoyed several dynasties. But the constant fighting led to the fall of the 3rd dynasty of Ur, and an Amorite king named Sumuabum established a kingdom in 1894 B.C. there. His successors built it up, and then a brilliant ruler name Hammurabi took power as the sixth king of Babylon from 1792 to 1750 B.C. (That is over forty years: there were no term limits then!).

The reign of Hammurabi signaled the end of the early Mesopotamian civilization. He created a system of justice by promulgating an elaborate code of law (the Code of Hammurabi, or Hammurabi’s Code). The code imposed harsh punishment of “an eye for an eye,” and lower classes of people received harsher punishment than higher classes of people. If you broke the bone of a “free man” (non-slave), then the punishment was to break one of your bones. That was simple and effective, and the Old Testament uses a similar approach in some ways (who used this first?). The Eighth Commandment in the Old Testament states, “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” Hammurabi’s Code states if someone accuses another of doing something wrong, but cannot prove it, then the accuser shall be killed.

But Hammurabi attempted to be righteous and much of his correspondence survives to this day. He encouraged legal contracts, but he also limited the amount of interest and wages that could be earned. After 29 years of establishing order, he then conquered all of Mesopotamia, making him the first king of the Babylonian Empire. To this day Hammurabi is respected by historians as a great leader who achieved an enormous amount for all of mankind.

Chaos resulted when he died, however. The Hittites (HIT-eyets) were Indo-Europeans who migrated into Anatolia (now Turkey). The Hittites were famous for bringing iron smelting to many other groups, and using the superior iron weapons and tools. They attacked and weakened the Babylonian empire, ultimately defeating it in 1600 B.C. The Kassites, led by king Agumkakrine, then took advantage of situation and grabbed power. But they continued to honor the Code of Hammurabi during their 400 year rule of the territory.

In 1124 B.C. the first Nebuchadnezzar rose to power over the Babylonian empire. He moved its capital to Babylon, then the world’s largest city. Its spanned 10,000 hectares, which is slightly larger than San Francisco today.

The Babylonian empire acquired great power, and power corrupts. Eventually it turned against religion. That ultimately occurred in 598 through 586 B.C., but we have to build up to that first.

Much of the Bible, Old and New Testaments, is written with references to Babylon. The main reason is that Babylon rose to enormous power and captured the Hebrews, and held them in captivity. This is known as the Babylonian Exile or Babylonian Captivity.

==Israel==

While the Kassites were in control of Babylon, the oldest formed religion still active in the world began: Judaism. Descendents of Abraham, who lived in Ur around 2000 B.C., the Hebrews migrated away from Ur in Mesopotamia to Palestine, where they resided in about 1500 B.C. But they migrated over to Egypt to escape a bad famine. There they generally served as slaves for over 400 years, though they undoubtedly contributed greatly to the intellectual progress of the Egyptian culture. As described in Exodus, Moses (who had been adopted by a royal family there) ultimately led 600,000 Hebrews out of Egypt around 1250 B.C. Egyptian historians refer to slaves and captives called “Hapiru”, but it is debated whether these were the Hebrews. Regardless, the Bible contains many verified references to the Egyptian pharaohs demonstrating that the Jewish ancestors were in Egypt. The Hebrew escape from Egypt is called the “Exodus”, and is described by that book in the Old Testament. During the passage, Moses received the Ten Commandments from God on Mount Sinai. (In Manhattan today there is a famous medical school on the upper East Side named “Mount Sinai.”) Moses is also credited as the author of the first five books of the Bible (the “Pentateuch” or, in parchment scroll in the Jewish liturgy, the “Torah”).

While most ancient peoples worshiped many pagan (non-existent) gods, the Hebrews worshiped only one God (but even the Hebrews had false gods – note the Second Commandment). The Hebrews referred to God as “Yahweh” (or “Jehovah”), and to this day Jewish people who strictly observe the Old Testament consider it improper to write the name of God and instead write “G-d”. “Yahweh” simply means “I am who I am,” written in the Hebrew language (which lacks vowels) as YHWH. (“Yah” by itself means simply, “I am”.) It is the name God instructed Moses use at the encounter at the miraculous burning bush that continued to burn without destruction in Exodus 3:14: “God said to Moses, ‘I AM WHO I AM’; and He said, ‘Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”

After leaving Egypt, the Hebrews settled back in the hills of Palestine or Canaan along eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea. They quickly developed a productive society despite the barrenness of the land. They implemented a system of private property, which much sharing within the family structure. Before long, they became targets for their less sophisticated and pagan neighbors. Worst among these were the Philistines, who had iron weapons and good organization. The Hebrews, in contrast, were loosely affiliated and unprepared to defend against outside invasions. The Bible recounts many of these struggles with the Philistines.

Inevitably a Hebrew warrior, Saul, took power around 1000 B.C. and defeated the Philistines and Canaanites. The priest Samuel anointed Saul king, but many Hebrews declined to obey him. David, a shrewd fighter who had trained as a mercenary with the Philistines, became famous for defeating the Philistine giant Goliath as described in the Bible. David then built an empire for Israel that extended from Damascus, then a thriving city in the Fertile Crescent, all the way south past what is now the Gaza Strip. For its capital he built a hill city called Jerusalem, and encapsulated it within a wall. II Samuel 9-20 describes this period.

David’s son was Solomon, who ruled for forty years (965-925 B.C.) and constructed the great temple of Jerusalem. He was known for his wisdom and justice. He created two states: Israel in the north, with a capital at Samaria, and Judah in the south, with a capital at Jerusalem. But Solomon also taxed the Hebrews heavily and, after he died, the empire fell into decline. The Kingdom of Israel split after the death of Solomon. I Kings 12.

Judah in the south survived longer than Israel in the north. The southern Kingdom of Judah consisted of two of the twelve Hebrew tribes, while the northern Kingdom of Israel had the other ten Hebrew tribes. But due to its northern location, the Kingdom of Israel had to contend with Assyria, which was cruel and extremely powerful kingdom of northern Mesopotamia. It was located in present-day northern Iraq and at times controlled the northern part of present-day Syria. It became an independent state in the 14th century B.C., expanded in the 9th century B.C. and, under powerful kings like Sargon II, united most of the Middle East from Egypt to the Persian Gulf under Assyrian rule. It was finally destroyed by a Chaldean-Median coalition in 612-609 B.C.

The Assyrians defeated the Kingdom of Israel in 772 B.C, and then scattered and dispersed its ten Hebrew tribes throughout the Assyrian Kingdom. The Assyrian empire was so powerful because it is used iron weapons along with battering rams, and did not hesitate even to tunnel under enemies’ walls. The Assyrians also enslaved the peoples it captured, taking them away from their homeland. The scattering of the Hebrews by the Assyrians was the first of several “diaspora” (deye-AS-puh-ruh), which means the scattering of the Jewish people away from their homeland. In Judah, however, a young ruler known as Joshua ultimately rose to power in 640 B.C. and overthrew the Assyrian influence, which was in a state of decline then. But Judah himself ran into the merciless power of the Chaldean empire.

The Chaldean empire defeated both the Hebrews and the Assyrians. Chaldea was the region in southern Babylonia, covering what is now southern Iraq. This land borders the coast of the Persian Gulf between the Euphrates delta and the Arabian desert.

As Assyrian power began to decline, a ruler named Nabopolassar was able to establish a Chaldean dynasty beginning in 625 B.C. and extending until the Persians conquered the territory by invading in 539 B.C. from present-day Iran. But in that brief span of time an important ruler commanded the Chaldean dynasty and all of Babylonian empire: Nebuchadnezzar II (NEB-uh-kuhd-NEZ-ur), who reigned from 605 to 562 B.C.

He was a military genius who demonstrated his prowess with a massive conquest of the Egyptian army in 606 or 605 B.C., thereby gaining control of all of Syria. After his father's death, he obtained the submission of Judah and spent the next few years expanding the Babylonian empire into Palestine. Although suffering losses, he persisted and ultimately captured Jerusalem on March 16, 597, and then later again in 586, when the Chaldeans also destroyed Solomon’s temple. Nebuchadnezzar kidnapped and deported prominent Hebrews back to Babylonia, as recounted in the Bible and known as the Babylonian Exile. Nebuchadnezzar was a godless military commander who suffered from seven years of madness, but at times he protected key prophets like Jeremiah. Daniel describes seven years of madness for the ruler, but the Babylonian people did not dare criticize their own ruler. Daniel 4:34-37.

Babylon was a culture that did not have the value system of the Hebrews, and Babylonians did not accept God. The Babylonians were constantly raiding, kidnapping, killing or converting into slaves the Hebrews. Much of the Old Testament is about how the Hebrews would gain or lose favor with the Lord, and the Babylonians would prevail against the Hebrews as they lost favor with the Lord. “Babylon” is mentioned 246 times in the Old Testament!

Because he captured and exiled the Hebrews, King Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon is mentioned frequently in the Old Testament. During his second invasion of Jerusalem, the city that had been previously established as the Hebrew center by David in 1000 B.C., Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the holy Temple built by King Solomon (“Solomon’s Temple”). Nebuchadnezzar then captured the Jewish people and took them back to Babylon in what is known as the Babylonian Exile or Captivity, which lasted from 597 to 538 B.C. (beginning with his first invasion of Jerusalem). “But because our ancestors had angered the God of heaven, he gave them into the hand of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, the Chaldean, who destroyed this house and carried away the people to Babylonia.” Ezra 5:12.

The death of Nebuchadnezzar II signaled the end of the Babylonian empire, which proceeded to fall into decline. It was inevitable that Babylon itself would be conquered. Cyrus the Great was the King of Persia (the ancient name for Iran) (539-530 B.C.), who conquered Asia Minor for the Persians, including the territories of Assyria, Babylonia, Palestine and Syria. His kingdom was known as the Achaemenid (ə-kē'mə-nĭd) (or Persian) empire. He freed the Hebrews and ended the Babylonian Exile, allowing the Jewish people to return to Jerusalem and rebuild their Temple. The tomb of Cyrus the Great still exists at Pasargadae, the town that was the capital of his empire but which is now in ruins in present-day Iran.

More than a thousand years later, during the Islamic conquest of Iran, the Muslims planned to destroy the tomb as contrary to their religion. However, the possibility that the tomb was somehow built to honor the mother of King Solomon, a respected prophet in Islam, justified preserving the tomb to this day, and it is inscribed today with the following verse of the Qur’an (Koran): “Qabr-e Madar-e Sulaiman.”

The Hebrews rebuilt the Jerusalem walls and the temple, though not restoring its magnificence under Solomon. They remained under Persian rule until Alexander the Great conquered the Persians around 330 B.C. Later, when the Roman Empire rose to power, Palestine became a province to Rome, until Palestine rebelled and Rome retaliated by destroying the temple in A.D. 70, again dispersing the Jewish people to distant lands.

To what do we owe the ancient Hebrews? The concept of monotheism: one and only one God. The Hebrews established the covenant of loyalty between God and his chosen ones. Part of the covenant was the promise of a future Messiah to save the people from their sins, and it is debated whether the Messiah was supposed to establish a kingdom on earth. Later some Jewish people accepted Jesus as the Messiah, while some did not. The moral code by which the Hebrew people promised to live was set forth in the Ten Commandments, which were carved in stone and kept in the sacred Ark of the Covenant as described repeatedly in the Bible (see, e.g., Exodus 25:9-10). Highly specific requirements of daily life are also set forth in the Torah (the Pentateuch, or first five books of the Old Testament). The authorities on Jewish law are known as “rabbis”, but there is no single highest human authority like a pope. Next to the Bible, the next most authoritative Jewish work is the Talmud, which is a collection of writings by rabbis.

==Egypt==

Ancient Egypt was a tremendous civilization located in the fertile Nile Valley. Ancient Egypt existed from about 3000 B.C. up until Alexander the Great conquered it in 332 B.C. The Nile is the greatest river in the world, and is unique in flowing south-to-north, emptying into the Mediterranean Sea. It floods with great regularity each year (unlike the Tigris and Euphrates rivers), providing plentiful water for farming. Situated in a desert, Egypt developed irrigation techniques that led it to be called an “hydraulic empire.”

What is special about Egypt? Well, for starters, it is the oldest stationary civilization that remains in existence. Geography helped protect it against invaders. To its east and west are deserts, to the north is the Mediterranean Sea and to the south is the rest of Africa and the Nile. In between is the great and mighty Nile. Egypt is self-sufficient with natural resources also, having plentiful clay and stone and being able to trade for timber from nearby Lebanon and copper from Sinai. Just as the unique, closed-in geography of the island of Manhattan has encouraged the development of a powerful economy in New York City, the landscape of Egypt enhanced its independence. Even when conquered, the civilization does not shift anywhere, thanks to the natural boundaries.

Ancient Egypt was always ruled a “pharaoh” or king, who was considered to be a god and absolute owner and dictator of the country. He was worshipped by the people.

The Persians, Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, Turks and British did conquer and rule over it at some point. In that respect, the story of who ran Egypt is an account of the great world powers in history. Egypt did not have native rule between 341 B.C., when the Persians conquered the last Pharaoh (Nectanebo II), until to 1952, when the native Egyptian president Nasser overthrew a British constitutional monarchy.

Ancient Egypt is divided into three periods: Old Kingdom (3100-2200 B.C.), Middle Kingdom (2100-1650 B.C.) and New Kingdom (1550-700 B.C.). The peak in power of ancient Egypt was 1567-1085 B.C. The Old Kingdom is known for its security and prosperity, free from foreign invaders. A unique Egyptian kingship developed during this period, and they built the great pyramids, including the Great Pyramid of Giza (one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World) as built by Pharaoh Khufu or Cheops (KEE-aps). The pyramids protected and preserved pharaohs for what they expected in the after-life, and were marvelous engineering feats that cannot be duplicated even today.

The Middle Kingdom was a period during which Egyptian religion extended beyond the kings to the nobles and ordinary citizens. Pharaohs began to share power with local distinguished persons. The pharaohs were strong during this period and promoted trade by digging the Great Canal, which connected the Nile River to the Red Sea. The Middle Kingdom is best known for its cultural achievements, such as literature and artwork. During this period the Egyptians were also successful in draining parts of the Nile delta in Lower (northern) Egypt. Trade expanded, but civil war plagued the Middle Kingdom just as it was a problem in the Old Kingdom.

The New Kingdom followed a period of foreign rule for a century by the Hyksos (HIK-sohs) (from 1650 to 1580 B.C.), who were Semitic peoples invading Egypt from across the Sinai Peninsula. The Hyksos adopted much of Egyptian culture, including calling themselves pharaohs. The Hyksos introduced the horse and chariot into Egypt. Afterwards, the Egyptians extended their empire along the eastern shore of the Mediterranean into Mesopotamia, primarily under the great warrior Thutmose III. A dynasty from Upper Egypt began this period of the New Kingdom, and it extended throughout Syria, Palestine and, to the south, Nubia. Also, the pharaohs constructed large buildings and massive cities.

After the New Kingdom ended in 700 B.C., Egypt went into a decline and was subsequently conquered by the Persians in 525 B.C.

Here is a brief review of the famous Egyptian rulers. The first was Menes (or Mena). In 3100 B.C. he was already king of southern Upper Egypt, and he united it with northern Lower Egypt (note that lower Egypt is closer to the sea-level of the Mediterranean, north of Upper Egypt, as explained below). We know his name because Egyptian men, not women, wore make-up and his name was found on palettes used to apply make-up.

Though Menes is called the first “pharaoh” (Egyptian ruler), actually that term was not used until the 18th Dynasty, 1539-1292 B.C. (Egypt was organized by “dynasties”, where one family (including descendants) controlled the country.) The term “pharaoh” signifies the Egyptian custom claiming that its ruler was a god, similar to the sky god Horus and the sun gods Re, Amon and Aton. He was considered to be the preserver of a god-given order, called ma’at. Even after death the pharaoh supposedly retained divine status and magical powers. This was a theocracy (rule by a god).

The Egyptian people were divided into separate levels or classes. The highest level consisted of the priests and nobles, and below them were the peasants, and below the peasants were the slaves (which included the Hebrews until Moses led them out in the Exodus). Women were respected in their role of child-rearing and managing household finances, and there were two Egyptian queens: Queen Ahhotep and Queen Hatshepsut. Queen Ahhotep ruled in the Middle Kingdom and helped liberate Egypt from the Hyksos. Her mummy was discovered in A.D. 1859, and her tomb contained many military artifacts honoring her. Queen Hatshepsut served in the place of her young boy who was heir to the throne, and she ruled for 15 years until her death in 1458 B.C. She is known for expanding trade. Women were also included in the gods (goddesses) that Egyptians worshipped. More generally, rights of dynasty were inherited through the mother’s side, making Egypt a “matriarchal” society.
The most famous pharaoh was Pharaoh Ramses II, who served during the New Kingdom. Slavery first became widespread during the New Kingdom, probably using Hebrews as slaves. The Hebrew Exodus occurred under Ramses II, making him the last great pharaoh in the New Kingdom.

Modern discoveries shed new light on the Egyptian culture. In A.D. 1922, Howard Carter discovered in the Valley of the Kings the untouched tomb of Tutankhamen, a young pharaoh surrounded by magnificent gold and other artifacts that have been displayed around the world ever since. Tutankhamen ruled from 1361 to 1352 B.C., and very little is known about his reign.

Egyptian invented mummification, which began in the 4th Dynasty. It took the Egyptians a long time to develop this art, but they ultimately succeeded to perfection. Without going into all the gory details, it consists of removing the internal organs from a body after death, treating the body with resin, and then wrapping it tightly in linen bandages. You should consider becoming a doctor if you have an interest in this.

Religion: The ancient Egyptians worshiped many gods, often inspired by animals or aspects of nature such as the sun. Only nobles could aspire to an afterlife, and only the king himself could become unified with Osiris, a legendary king who represented the forces of agriculture. These religious views could not survive the spread of Islam and Christianity today. Now Egypt is 90% Sunnite Muslim, and the remainder mostly Christian (Copts). The Copts trace their ancestors directly to the ancient Egyptians. Unlike the Muslims in Egypt, who consider themselves Arabs, the Copts do not and still use ancient Egyptian surnames. They cite the sojourn by Jesus’ family in Egypt to escape Herod, and the proselytizing in Egypt by Saint Mark the Evangelist, who wrote the Gospel and was martyred at Alexandria, Egypt. He is considered the first leader of the Coptic Orthodox Church, followed by an unbroken line of 117 successors to the present Pope Shenouda III. A pharaoh was considered to be a sun god, and eventually monotheism (one all-powerful god) became popular in Egypt, with the sun god Aton commanding all Egyptians’ attention.

Language: The Egyptian developed a written language consisting of hieroglyphics, which are pictographs. It originated around 3100 B.C. Papyrus, a thin parchment constructed from reeds near the Nile river, was the “paper”. Historians could not understand it until the discovery of the “Rosetta Stone” by Napoleon’s troops found in 1799 near the seaside town of Rosetta, located in northern Egypt. It sits in the British Museum today. It consists of a slab of black basalt inscribing a royal decree to the king Ptolemy V, dating from 196 B.C. The Stone is marvelous in inscribing the same message three times: once in Greek, once in Demotic (a simple form of hieroglyphics used 700 B.C. to 400 A.D.), and once in hieroglyphic. This enabled a French expert in the Greek language, Jean Francois Champollion, to determine what the hieroglyphic characters mean, and build a dictionary that could be used to translate other works written in hieroglyphics.

Egypt’s complex, picture-based language probably hindered its growth. The picture-based language was not as easy to use as the alphabet-based Phoenician language later adopted by the Greeks and Romans. How would one express Christian concepts like salvation, faith, hope and redemption? It seems impossible.

Science: A magnificent city named “Alexandria” in 334 B.C. was created by Alexander the Great in Egypt, and it became a cultural center for many centuries in the future. Eventually it grew to be second only to Rome in size and wealth, but declined over a thousand years later after Islamic conquerors established Cairo as the capital of Egypt. Alexandria was best known for the Lighthouse of Alexandria, which was one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, and the Library of Alexandria, which was the largest in the world at that time and reflected the cultural leadership of the city.

In A.D. 100, while Alexandria was still a great city, a future scholar named Ptolemy (pronounced “tah-luh-mee”) (b. A.D. 100, d. A.D. 170) was born there and named after the long line of Egyptian kings. He wrote magnificent works on astronomy, optics, geography, mechanics and geometry. He is best known for his complex theory that placed planet Earth at the center of universe, since all things appeared to fall towards Earth and thus towards the center. The Ptolemaic system was the prevailing view until Copernicus proposed the sun as the center of the solar system over 1000 years later.

Culture: Egypt used slaves as most ancient cultures did. Women in Egypt had powerful rights, including the right to own property, divorce their husbands, manage businesses and even become priestesses. It was possible for poor people to rise to the upper class through talent and hard work. Taxes were a burden. The government claimed ownership of one-fifth of all produce (Genesis 47:24). The society had some ethical principles, such as the royal advice that “more acceptable is the character of one upright of heart than the ox of the evildoer.” Feeding the poor, taking care of the disadvantaged, and avoid bribes in administering justice were respected. The Egyptians learned to travel up and down the Nile River by using the current in one direction, and the Etesian winds to propel sailboats upstream into the other direction. Egyptian architecture was the pyramid and colonnaded temples like the one Karnak, using a style later copied by the Greeks.

Trade: Egypt was not as advanced as Mesopotamia in trade, though trade did improve during the New Kingdom and some commerce with Sumer was established then.

Inventions: Egyptians invented our 365-day solar calendar, based on 12 months of about 30 days each. But Mesopotamia was more advanced than Egypt. To Mesopotamia we owe our “base 60” system for our clock (60 seconds in a minute and 60 minutes in an hour). Egyptians lacked the concept of money, and relied on primitive barter (selling a good in exchange for a different good in return). The Egyptian Old Kingdom lacked the wheel.

[[Category:History]]

World History Lecture One

2007-03-17T18:46:38Z

Lgm: /* Mesopotamia */

[[World History Lecture One|1]]-[[World History Lecture Two|2]]-[[World History Lecture Three|3]]-[[World History Lecture Four|4]]-[[World History Lecture Five|5]]-[[World History Lecture Six|6]]-[[World History Lecture Seven|7]]-[[World History Lecture Eight|8]]-[[World History Lecture Nine|9]]-[[World History Lecture Ten|10]]-[[World History Lecture Eleven|11]]-[[World History Lecture Twelve|12]]-[[World History Lecture Thirteen|13]]-[[World History Lecture Fourteen|14]]

World History

First Lecture – Ancient History

Instructor, Andy Schlafly

==Introduction to the Course==

“World history” is the history of mankind. Nothing is off-limits. Every source is available to us, from the Bible to rock music. Everything mankind has ever written, invented, observed, and destroyed is part of “World history.”

Many of you have taken U.S. History, which is the story of the last 400 years in our overwhelmingly Christian country. World History is a different story: over 5000 years, much of it non-Christian. World History is not the same as Western Civilization, which consists of pre- and post-Christian Europe. World History includes Islam and Hinduism and all the forces that continue to shape our world to this day. U.S. History cannot explain 9/11, violence in the Middle East, or hostility between India and Pakistan. World history does.

I love World history for several reasons. The more we understand other religions the better we can deal with world conflicts. I also like studying the discovery of knowledge and great inventions. Do you know what civilization invented the wheel? Bread? Mathematics? Chocolate? Finally, the greatest military feats are found in World history, so if you like military history then you’ll love World history. Your challenge is to find what you like about World history, and then connect everything else to it. Find ways to relate World history to you, and enjoy it.

I like to learn how mankind progressed in understanding the unseen, such as truth and gravity and God. In mathematics, mankind progressed from the discovery of geometry (Greeks) to the concept of “zero” (Indians) to calculus (English). In economics, mankind progressed from wage and price controls (Romans) to the “invisible hand” of the free market (English), which then unleashed tremendous prosperity. Government progressed from rulers who claimed to be gods (Egyptians), to monarchies (Middle Ages), to constitutional republics (United States). What are we progressing towards now? Use history to predict the future.

World history is also fascinating because there are many mysteries and controversies about it. How did the Egyptians build the pyramids? In what language did Jesus preach? Why did Islam grow so rapidly? Who was right, the Catholics or the Protestants? Is modern Israel a fulfillment of biblical prophecy? Is democracy compatible with Islam?

Do not be misled by thinking ancient peoples were dumb or boring because they lacked the technology of modern society. True, they lacked television and the internet. Does that mean it was boring or dull in 2500 B.C.? Not at all. People were probably smarter than they are today. The Egyptians, for example, cleverly built the massive pyramids using techniques that no one to this day can figure out or duplicate. In 2600 B.C., they constructed the pyramid of Khufu containing 6 million tons of stone extending to a height of 481 feet. The workmanship was superior to what we do today: the rock base was virtually perfectly flat, not varying in elevation by more than a half-inch; its orientation is precisely aligned with the points of a compass; its stones were perfect fits. Inside was a chapel, a causeway, and a temple. It amazes architects to this day. We would not be able to duplicate it even now. Many other cultures, from Mesopotamia to Greece to Rome to India to China, invented things and discovered knowledge that no one today is smart enough to duplicate. Do you know how to bake bread from scratch?

The feats of our ancestors are one part of the study of history. Also important are the clash of ideas, values, religions, systems of government and economies. Individuals, too, make a difference in extraordinary cases. One of many debates that we will have in this class is this: why did societies rise and fall in power?

We will read and discuss societies that rose from nothing to enormous power, only to lose it and become weak again. Each time that happens, ask yourself why. Think about the unsolved mysteries of World history, such as why unrelated civilizations having no apparent connection with each other would do similar things, such as constructing ziggurats or pyramids.

Just as you use reference points like landmarks to find your way, identify historical reference points to make it easier for you to organize the many hundreds of facts you will learn in this course. For example, the exodus of the Jews from Egypt is an excellent reference point for understanding the rise and fall of Egypt. The birth of Christ is another reference point that even our calendar uses to organize dates.

Finally, let me add a few words about terminology. “B.C” means “Before (the birth of) Christ” and “A.D.” means Anno Domini (Latin for “in the year of our Lord”) or simply “After (the birth of) Christ.” The “1st century B.C.” means the 1st century before Christ, counting backwards, which are the years 1-100 B.C. The “5th century B.C.” is thus 401-500 B.C. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that the 5th century B.C. is the 500s B.C.! Likewise, the 20th century (A.D.) was the years A.D. 1901-2000. Because A.D. means “in the year of our Lord,” the proper terminology is to put the date after the A.D., as in A.D. 2006. But school textbooks rarely use “B.C.” and “A.D.” correctly anymore, instead replacing them with an anti-Christian “BCE” for “Before the Common Era” and “CE” for “Common Era.” In other words, BCE = B.C. and CE = A.D.

===Introduction to Ancient History===

Ancient history, which is everything before about A.D. 600, created or discovered all the major religions today except Islam. Ancient history created civilization and achieved many of the greatest intellectual breakthroughs of all time. Literature, drama, mathematics, philosophy, language, etc., were all created in ancient history.

When did mankind first begin? There is no reliable evidence of man existing before 3500 B.C. The oldest writing is a pictographic tablet called a “cuneiform” dated to about 3400 B.C. from Sumer (SOO-mur) in Southern Mesopotamia (where Iraq is today). These cuneiforms look like chicken-scratches featuring wedge-like or arrow-shaped characters. The oldest western-style script is from the Indo-Aryan language, and one dated to 1550 B.C. was found in the Sinai. The oldest verified civilization dates to about 3000 B.C. We can also extrapolate backwards from modern populations to estimate that only about 300 million people existed in the world at the time of Christ, and extrapolating backwards further yields only one family in the year 3300 B.C. Languages can be traced backwards to about 3000 B.C., and some experts reconstruct a point of origin in southeastern Europe near the Black Sea, not far from the Ararat mountain range cited in the Bible in connection with Noah. Old trees never predate this time either; the oldest sequoias, which never die of old age, are only 4000 years old.

No “civilization” has been found that is older than about 3000 B.C. By “civilization” we mean order and hierarchy in the way of life. Some type of political system or government is usually necessary to have a civilization. A structure similar to a city or town is necessary to bring together people, jobs, buildings or religious centers. Usually there are different classes of people, such as rich and poor. Some historians say there must be an agricultural surplus also: enough food to feed the people so that some workers could spend time in jobs other than farming. In a nutshell, a civilization must have cities, skilled (non-farming) workers, social and government institutions, writing to maintain records such as property ownership, and advanced technology. Memorize the oldest dates for the ancient civilizations:

Mesopotamia (Mes-uh-puh-tay-mee-uh): 3500 – 500 B.C., when conquered by Persia
Egypt: 3100 – 525 B.C., when conquered by the Hyksos (HIK-sohs)
Indus (IN-dus) Valley: beginning in 2900 B.C.
China: beginning in 2200 B.C.
Mexican Olmec (AWL-mek): 1200 – 300 B.C., the earliest known American civilization
Peru (South America): 900 B.C.

History books speculate at length about “prehistory”, which predates writing. But there is no reliable evidence to support this speculation, and not worth spending time on. There is no reason to think that man existed for thousands of years without ever expressing himself in written form. But in case you are asked, historians describe the period of time known as “prehistory” as the “Stone Age.” They divide the Stone Age into two time periods: “Paleolithic” and “Neolithic”. The Paleolithic Age is older, when man relied mostly on hunting and picking nuts and fruit to supplement his diet. The Paleolithic Age was followed by the Neolithic Age, which consisted of the rise of agriculture. The “Neolithic Revolution” means the “Agricultural Revolution,” when farming became dominant. The dates of these ages are controversial, and historians have a bias for giving them older dates than proven by archaeology.

After the Stone Age came the Bronze Age, beginning in 3500 B.C., when copper and/or bronze tools were used. That was followed by the Iron Age, which began in Turkey around 2200 B.C. and later spread to other regions. As its name suggests, it used iron for tools.

Ancient civilizations are often called “classical civilizations,” particularly when they produce intellectual advances as Ancient Greece did. Phrases like “Classical Indian Civilization” refer to Ancient India, which lasted from 300 B.C. to A.D. 500.

Two of the oldest towns were the biblical town of Jericho, located in Palestine, and Catal Huyuk, located in modern-day Turkey. Jericho was famous for its high city walls to protect against attack.

The ancient world is the source of the most basic aspects of life, such as the seven-day week and marriage. The Bible remains the best explanation for both, and many other aspects of the ancient world. All four civilizations discussed in this lecture arose in or near what we now call the “Middle East.”

==Mesopotamia==

So where did civilization begin? In a region known as Mesopotamia, which is Greek for “land between the rivers.” The “rivers” are the Tigris and Euphrates, located in Western Asia. Where, exactly? Basically, in fertile areas of Iraq northeast of the desert, known as part of the “Fertile Crescent” that extends along the coast of the Mediterranean Sea (including modern Israel, Lebanon and Syria) and the fertile valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers that run southeast into the Persian Gulf. These rivers deposited silt in the surrounding land, creating rich alluvial soil. Today the Tigris and Euphrates rivers are not far from the location of our soldiers in Iraq. However, our soldiers are mostly pictured in sandy areas, while the ancient people would have stayed close to the water. Moreover, ancient floods would have changed the landscape over time.

Genesis 2:8-17 (NAS) describes the beginning in Mesopotamia as follows: “The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed. … Now a river flowed out of Eden to water the garden; and from there it divided and became four rivers. The name of the first is Pishon; it flows around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. ... The name of the third river is Tigris; it flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.” Using the ages mentioned in the Bible and counting backwards, biblical scholars have dated this as about 6000 years ago, or about 4000 B.C. This is about 500 years before our earliest record of ancient writings.

In the fourth millennium before Christ, between about 3500 and 3000 B.C., two things happened: writing was invented and cities began to sprout up with their own political and economic systems. Both of these developments occurred in southern Mesopotamia. This was known as Sumer, and the occupants were the Sumerians.

We owe a great deal to the work of the Sumerians. They developed the first system of writing (the cuneiform), the first codes of law and the first “city-state” (essentially a nation consisting only of a large city). Their inventions were marvelous: the seed plow, the sailboat, and the potter’s wheel. (Distinguish “cuneiforms” from “ideograms”, which show ideas with symbols such as arrows for war, from “phonograms”, in which symbols represent sounds).

Most workers in Mesopotamia were farmers, but some devoted their time to trade. They had a calendar based on the moon to aid the farmers, and they developed a mathematical system using base 12. They were marvelous inventors, creating complex systems of irrigation and discovering the plow, the cart and the wheel, and used bronze (a mixture of copper and tin) to make good farming tools. Both men and women owned private property, had slaves, and were ruled by a king.

They built cities known as Eridu, Lagash, Ur, Uruk, Isin, Kish, just to name a few. They were smart, and developed Akkadian as their language. One interesting aspect of Akkadian is that it lacks any tense forms such as past or future tense. The verbs expressed the manner of an action rather than its time.

By 3000 B.C. the people had built major canals to channel water, and roads on which to travel. Shepherds had dogs to help them tend the sheep, just as we use today to help herd sheep together. Each city was surrounded by a moat and a wall of brick, with as many as 900 towers inside the city. Soldiers watched entry back and forth, and chariots and wagons carried people and goods within the city. By 3000 B.C. mankind had already built a mini-version of Manhattan, without the automobile and steel skyscrapers. But Mesopotamia (unlike Egypt and China) was not protected by geography, and would constantly face invasion by foreigners.

Do not think there was anything primitive about these ancient cities. They had shipping, fishing, brewers and bakers. They spun wool and traded fine jewelry. They discovered the Pythagorean Theorem, though it was later named after a Greek. In 2500 B.C., the queen of Ur, which was a prominent city, lived in a palace that featured harps and many servants. Slavery existed, but it was typically confined to domestic work in the cities rather than hard labor on the farm. Slaves were given a minimum standard of living and often had the opportunity to rise to freedom through diligent work.

Temples were everywhere. But the people also built stepped mountains known as ziggurats, with a temple on top, and the Bible tells how they tried to build one higher and higher. A massive ziggurat at Ur that is described in Genesis 11:1-9 as the Tower of Babel led to hundreds of different languages in the world. As we shall learn in this course, language is a central part of a society that has much to do with its success or failure. Societies with useful languages prospered; those with difficult-to-use languages failed.

Genesis Chapter 10 places the roots of modern mankind in Noah and his three sons: Shem, Ham and Japheth. The term “Semitic” means “pertaining to the descendants of Shem,” and includes Assyrians, Chaldeans, Aramaeans, Sabaeans, and Hebrews (now known as Jews). Semitic languages include Hebrew and Arabic. Semitic religions include Judaism, Christianity and Islam. One of Noah’s descendants was Abram, who later changed his name as Abraham to reflect his covenant with God.

Both the Bible and many independent sources describe a Great Flood (or “Deluge”), which historians date at about 3000 B.C. Very little of any history, including writings and civilization, has survived from before that time. The biblical account of the Flood is at Genesis 5-8, describing an ark having reasonable dimensions similar to modern ocean steamships. A non-biblical Sumerian (from Sumer in Mesopotamia) account of the Flood was found in the last hundred years, and that account was apparently written about 1600 B.C. Even better, a cuneiform tablet from Babylon was found dating from 3000 B.C., which also described a massive flood in great detail. There are many other ancient accounts of a massive flood found in most other cultures around the world. Fossils and limestone (the result of ocean sediment) are found today on mountaintops and land worldwide at all altitudes. Independent accounts of a great flood can be found in ancient works of China, India, Britain (Druid) and American Indians, all having striking similar details. See, e.g., http://www.searchgodsword.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T2631 . Recently two scientists at Columbia University published a widely praised book that proved that the Flood did occur, entitled “Noah’s Flood,” which concludes that the biblical Flood “is surely a true story of the permanent destruction of a land and its people ….” (p. 251). Yet no public school textbook ever mentions a massive flood.

The conflict between the Hebrew (Jewish) and Arab peoples in the Middle East and throughout the world is described by some as a family feud. They are descended from the same father, Abraham, as described in Genesis 16. But Jewish and Arab peoples trace their lineage from different sons of Abraham who were rivals for their father’s love. Jewish people claim to be descendants of Isaac, the child of Abraham and Sarah, while Arabs are descended from Ishmael, the son of Abraham (then Abram) and the Egyptian woman Hagar. The Old Testament teaches that Abraham offered to sacrifice Isaac to the Lord, while Islam teaches that Abraham’s sacrifice was of Ishmael. Islam teaches that Ishmael helped Abraham build a mosque in Mecca (the venerated Kaaba), and that it was Ishmael (rather than Isaac) who was nearly sacrificed. Regardless, Ishmael went a different way from the rest of Abraham’s family, and there have been hard feelings by Ishmael’s descendants ever since.

Civilization quickly prospered in Sumeria, the northwest (Akkad) was constantly fighting the southeast (Sumer), and eventually an Akkadian warrior named Sargon conquered Mesopotamia. Sargon was the first person in recorded history to create an empire or multi-ethnic state, from 2334 to 2279 B.C. His empire included the region of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, and also part of what is Turkey today. The capital of his empire was Agade in Akkad. But like many military rulers, his empire collapsed when he died. He did not have a civil (non-military) form of government to pay his soldiers and sustain his empire. Instead, he could only survive as long his soldiers continued to capture and loot. Once the empire stopped expanded upon his death, it collapsed. After Sargon’s death, the city of Ur in Sumer was the leading city.

In sum, the Sumerians established many of the things that define civilization today: buildings, engineering, legal codes, written language and a military. The Sumerians also had literature: in 2000 B.C., they wrote “The Epic of Gilgamesh,” considered to be oldest fictional story ever written. It was based on a real person, however, who ruled a city-state in Sumer. He struggles with religious issues in the form of multiple gods, and the story seems to draw on some of the wisdom of the Bible. This non-biblical source also describes a great flood.

Inventions: We can thank Mesopotamia (probably Ur) for inventing the wheel in about 3500 B.C., which is the single greatest invention of all time. It is used for much more than transportation. The wheel is essential to manufacturing and even pre-digital watches. No American civilization had the wheel until the Europeans brought it to them.

==Babylon==

Babylonia was a relatively late achiever in the Mesopotamian world, occupying southern Mesopotamia where Sumer was. Babylonia apparently did not exist before about 2300 B.C. Babylon was its main city, located about 55 miles south of Baghdad today in Iraq. It is now in ruins but thousands of years ago was a thriving city known for its “Hanging Gardens of Babylon,” which were one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. Babylon was known as a city devoted to materialism and personal pleasure. As an example of usage, the English author G.K. Chesterton once wrote, “the Babylonian halls of the big hotel.”

As a city Babylon was smaller and less important than Ur, which enjoyed several dynasties. But the constant fighting led to the fall of the 3rd dynasty of Ur, and an Amorite king named Sumuabum established a kingdom in 1894 B.C. there. His successors built it up, and then a brilliant ruler name Hammurabi took power as the sixth king of Babylon from 1792 to 1750 B.C. (That is over forty years: there were no term limits then!).

The reign of Hammurabi signaled the end of the early Mesopotamian civilization. He created a system of justice by promulgating an elaborate code of law (the Code of Hammurabi, or Hammurabi’s Code). The code imposed harsh punishment of “an eye for an eye,” and lower classes of people received harsher punishment than higher classes of people. If you broke the bone of a “free man” (non-slave), then the punishment was to break one of your bones. That was simple and effective, and the Old Testament uses a similar approach in some ways (who used this first?). The Eighth Commandment in the Old Testament states, “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” Hammurabi’s Code states if someone accuses another of doing something wrong, but cannot prove it, then the accuser shall be killed.

But Hammurabi attempted to be righteous and much of his correspondence survives to this day. He encouraged legal contracts, but he also limited the amount of interest and wages that could be earned. After 29 years of establishing order, he then conquered all of Mesopotamia, making him the first king of the Babylonian Empire. To this day Hammurabi is respected by historians as a great leader who achieved an enormous amount for all of mankind.

Chaos resulted when he died, however. The Hittites (HIT-eyets) were Indo-Europeans who migrated into Anatolia (now Turkey). The Hittites were famous for bringing iron smelting to many other groups, and using the superior iron weapons and tools. They attacked and weakened the Babylonian empire, ultimately defeating it in 1600 B.C. The Kassites, led by king Agumkakrine, then took advantage of situation and grabbed power. But they continued to honor the Code of Hammurabi during their 400 year rule of the territory.

In 1124 B.C. the first Nebuchadnezzar rose to power over the Babylonian empire. He moved its capital to Babylon, then the world’s largest city. Its spanned 10,000 hectares, which is slightly larger than San Francisco today.

The Babylonian empire acquired great power, and power corrupts. Eventually it turned against religion. That ultimately occurred in 598 through 586 B.C., but we have to build up to that first.

Much of the Bible, Old and New Testaments, is written with references to Babylon. The main reason is that Babylon rose to enormous power and captured the Hebrews, and held them in captivity. This is known as the Babylonian Exile or Babylonian Captivity.

==Israel==

While the Kassites were in control of Babylon, the oldest formed religion still active in the world began: Judaism. Descendents of Abraham, who lived in Ur around 2000 B.C., the Hebrews migrated away from Ur in Mesopotamia to Palestine, where they resided in about 1500 B.C. But they migrated over to Egypt to escape a bad famine. There they generally served as slaves for over 400 years, though they undoubtedly contributed greatly to the intellectual progress of the Egyptian culture. As described in Exodus, Moses (who had been adopted by a royal family there) ultimately led 600,000 Hebrews out of Egypt around 1250 B.C. Egyptian historians refer to slaves and captives called “Hapiru”, but it is debated whether these were the Hebrews. Regardless, the Bible contains many verified references to the Egyptian pharaohs demonstrating that the Jewish ancestors were in Egypt. The Hebrew escape from Egypt is called the “Exodus”, and is described by that book in the Old Testament. During the passage, Moses received the Ten Commandments from God on Mount Sinai. (In Manhattan today there is a famous medical school on the upper East Side named “Mount Sinai.”) Moses is also credited as the author of the first five books of the Bible (the “Pentateuch” or, in parchment scroll in the Jewish liturgy, the “Torah”).

While most ancient peoples worshiped many pagan (non-existent) gods, the Hebrews worshiped only one God (but even the Hebrews had false gods – note the Second Commandment). The Hebrews referred to God as “Yahweh” (or “Jehovah”), and to this day Jewish people who strictly observe the Old Testament consider it improper to write the name of God and instead write “G-d”. “Yahweh” simply means “I am who I am,” written in the Hebrew language (which lacks vowels) as YHWH. (“Yah” by itself means simply, “I am”.) It is the name God instructed Moses use at the encounter at the miraculous burning bush that continued to burn without destruction in Exodus 3:14: “God said to Moses, ‘I AM WHO I AM’; and He said, ‘Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”

After leaving Egypt, the Hebrews settled back in the hills of Palestine or Canaan along eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea. They quickly developed a productive society despite the barrenness of the land. They implemented a system of private property, which much sharing within the family structure. Before long, they became targets for their less sophisticated and pagan neighbors. Worst among these were the Philistines, who had iron weapons and good organization. The Hebrews, in contrast, were loosely affiliated and unprepared to defend against outside invasions. The Bible recounts many of these struggles with the Philistines.

Inevitably a Hebrew warrior, Saul, took power around 1000 B.C. and defeated the Philistines and Canaanites. The priest Samuel anointed Saul king, but many Hebrews declined to obey him. David, a shrewd fighter who had trained as a mercenary with the Philistines, became famous for defeating the Philistine giant Goliath as described in the Bible. David then built an empire for Israel that extended from Damascus, then a thriving city in the Fertile Crescent, all the way south past what is now the Gaza Strip. For its capital he built a hill city called Jerusalem, and encapsulated it within a wall. II Samuel 9-20 describes this period.

David’s son was Solomon, who ruled for forty years (965-925 B.C.) and constructed the great temple of Jerusalem. He was known for his wisdom and justice. He created two states: Israel in the north, with a capital at Samaria, and Judah in the south, with a capital at Jerusalem. But Solomon also taxed the Hebrews heavily and, after he died, the empire fell into decline. The Kingdom of Israel split after the death of Solomon. I Kings 12.

Judah in the south survived longer than Israel in the north. The southern Kingdom of Judah consisted of two of the twelve Hebrew tribes, while the northern Kingdom of Israel had the other ten Hebrew tribes. But due to its northern location, the Kingdom of Israel had to contend with Assyria, which was cruel and extremely powerful kingdom of northern Mesopotamia. It was located in present-day northern Iraq and at times controlled the northern part of present-day Syria. It became an independent state in the 14th century B.C., expanded in the 9th century B.C. and, under powerful kings like Sargon II, united most of the Middle East from Egypt to the Persian Gulf under Assyrian rule. It was finally destroyed by a Chaldean-Median coalition in 612-609 B.C.

The Assyrians defeated the Kingdom of Israel in 772 B.C, and then scattered and dispersed its ten Hebrew tribes throughout the Assyrian Kingdom. The Assyrian empire was so powerful because it is used iron weapons along with battering rams, and did not hesitate even to tunnel under enemies’ walls. The Assyrians also enslaved the peoples it captured, taking them away from their homeland. The scattering of the Hebrews by the Assyrians was the first of several “diaspora” (deye-AS-puh-ruh), which means the scattering of the Jewish people away from their homeland. In Judah, however, a young ruler known as Joshua ultimately rose to power in 640 B.C. and overthrew the Assyrian influence, which was in a state of decline then. But Judah himself ran into the merciless power of the Chaldean empire.

The Chaldean empire defeated both the Hebrews and the Assyrians. Chaldea was the region in southern Babylonia, covering what is now southern Iraq. This land borders the coast of the Persian Gulf between the Euphrates delta and the Arabian desert.

As Assyrian power began to decline, a ruler named Nabopolassar was able to establish a Chaldean dynasty beginning in 625 B.C. and extending until the Persians conquered the territory by invading in 539 B.C. from present-day Iran. But in that brief span of time an important ruler commanded the Chaldean dynasty and all of Babylonian empire: Nebuchadnezzar II (NEB-uh-kuhd-NEZ-ur), who reigned from 605 to 562 B.C.

He was a military genius who demonstrated his prowess with a massive conquest of the Egyptian army in 606 or 605 B.C., thereby gaining control of all of Syria. After his father's death, he obtained the submission of Judah and spent the next few years expanding the Babylonian empire into Palestine. Although suffering losses, he persisted and ultimately captured Jerusalem on March 16, 597, and then later again in 586, when the Chaldeans also destroyed Solomon’s temple. Nebuchadnezzar kidnapped and deported prominent Hebrews back to Babylonia, as recounted in the Bible and known as the Babylonian Exile. Nebuchadnezzar was a godless military commander who suffered from seven years of madness, but at times he protected key prophets like Jeremiah. Daniel describes seven years of madness for the ruler, but the Babylonian people did not dare criticize their own ruler. Daniel 4:34-37.

Babylon was a culture that did not have the value system of the Hebrews, and Babylonians did not accept God. The Babylonians were constantly raiding, kidnapping, killing or converting into slaves the Hebrews. Much of the Old Testament is about how the Hebrews would gain or lose favor with the Lord, and the Babylonians would prevail against the Hebrews as they lost favor with the Lord. “Babylon” is mentioned 246 times in the Old Testament!

Because he captured and exiled the Hebrews, King Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon is mentioned frequently in the Old Testament. During his second invasion of Jerusalem, the city that had been previously established as the Hebrew center by David in 1000 B.C., Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the holy Temple built by King Solomon (“Solomon’s Temple”). Nebuchadnezzar then captured the Jewish people and took them back to Babylon in what is known as the Babylonian Exile or Captivity, which lasted from 597 to 538 B.C. (beginning with his first invasion of Jerusalem). “But because our ancestors had angered the God of heaven, he gave them into the hand of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, the Chaldean, who destroyed this house and carried away the people to Babylonia.” Ezra 5:12.

The death of Nebuchadnezzar II signaled the end of the Babylonian empire, which proceeded to fall into decline. It was inevitable that Babylon itself would be conquered. Cyrus the Great was the King of Persia (the ancient name for Iran) (539-530 B.C.), who conquered Asia Minor for the Persians, including the territories of Assyria, Babylonia, Palestine and Syria. His kingdom was known as the Achaemenid (ə-kē'mə-nĭd) (or Persian) empire. He freed the Hebrews and ended the Babylonian Exile, allowing the Jewish people to return to Jerusalem and rebuild their Temple. The tomb of Cyrus the Great still exists at Pasargadae, the town that was the capital of his empire but which is now in ruins in present-day Iran.

More than a thousand years later, during the Islamic conquest of Iran, the Muslims planned to destroy the tomb as contrary to their religion. However, the possibility that the tomb was somehow built to honor the mother of King Solomon, a respected prophet in Islam, justified preserving the tomb to this day, and it is inscribed today with the following verse of the Qur’an (Koran): “Qabr-e Madar-e Sulaiman.”

The Hebrews rebuilt the Jerusalem walls and the temple, though not restoring its magnificence under Solomon. They remained under Persian rule until Alexander the Great conquered the Persians around 330 B.C. Later, when the Roman Empire rose to power, Palestine became a province to Rome, until Palestine rebelled and Rome retaliated by destroying the temple in A.D. 70, again dispersing the Jewish people to distant lands.

To what do we owe the ancient Hebrews? The concept of monotheism: one and only one God. The Hebrews established the covenant of loyalty between God and his chosen ones. Part of the covenant was the promise of a future Messiah to save the people from their sins, and it is debated whether the Messiah was supposed to establish a kingdom on earth. Later some Jewish people accepted Jesus as the Messiah, while some did not. The moral code by which the Hebrew people promised to live was set forth in the Ten Commandments, which were carved in stone and kept in the sacred Ark of the Covenant as described repeatedly in the Bible (see, e.g., Exodus 25:9-10). Highly specific requirements of daily life are also set forth in the Torah (the Pentateuch, or first five books of the Old Testament). The authorities on Jewish law are known as “rabbis”, but there is no single highest human authority like a pope. Next to the Bible, the next most authoritative Jewish work is the Talmud, which is a collection of writings by rabbis.

==Egypt==

Ancient Egypt was a tremendous civilization located in the fertile Nile Valley. Ancient Egypt existed from about 3000 B.C. up until Alexander the Great conquered it in 332 B.C. The Nile is the greatest river in the world, and is unique in flowing south-to-north, emptying into the Mediterranean Sea. It floods with great regularity each year (unlike the Tigris and Euphrates rivers), providing plentiful water for farming. Situated in a desert, Egypt developed irrigation techniques that led it to be called an “hydraulic empire.”

What is special about Egypt? Well, for starters, it is the oldest stationary civilization that remains in existence. Geography helped protect it against invaders. To its east and west are deserts, to the north is the Mediterranean Sea and to the south is the rest of Africa and the Nile. In between is the great and mighty Nile. Egypt is self-sufficient with natural resources also, having plentiful clay and stone and being able to trade for timber from nearby Lebanon and copper from Sinai. Just as the unique, closed-in geography of the island of Manhattan has encouraged the development of a powerful economy in New York City, the landscape of Egypt enhanced its independence. Even when conquered, the civilization does not shift anywhere, thanks to the natural boundaries.

Ancient Egypt was always ruled a “pharaoh” or king, who was considered to be a god and absolute owner and dictator of the country. He was worshipped by the people.

The Persians, Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, Turks and British did conquer and rule over it at some point. In that respect, the story of who ran Egypt is an account of the great world powers in history. Egypt did not have native rule between 341 B.C., when the Persians conquered the last Pharaoh (Nectanebo II), until to 1952, when the native Egyptian president Nasser overthrew a British constitutional monarchy.

Ancient Egypt is divided into three periods: Old Kingdom (3100-2200 B.C.), Middle Kingdom (2100-1650 B.C.) and New Kingdom (1550-700 B.C.). The peak in power of ancient Egypt was 1567-1085 B.C. The Old Kingdom is known for its security and prosperity, free from foreign invaders. A unique Egyptian kingship developed during this period, and they built the great pyramids, including the Great Pyramid of Giza (one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World) as built by Pharaoh Khufu or Cheops (KEE-aps). The pyramids protected and preserved pharaohs for what they expected in the after-life, and were marvelous engineering feats that cannot be duplicated even today.

The Middle Kingdom was a period during which Egyptian religion extended beyond the kings to the nobles and ordinary citizens. Pharaohs began to share power with local distinguished persons. The pharaohs were strong during this period and promoted trade by digging the Great Canal, which connected the Nile River to the Red Sea. The Middle Kingdom is best known for its cultural achievements, such as literature and artwork. During this period the Egyptians were also successful in draining parts of the Nile delta in Lower (northern) Egypt. Trade expanded, but civil war plagued the Middle Kingdom just as it was a problem in the Old Kingdom.

The New Kingdom followed a period of foreign rule for a century by the Hyksos (HIK-sohs) (from 1650 to 1580 B.C.), who were Semitic peoples invading Egypt from across the Sinai Peninsula. The Hyksos adopted much of Egyptian culture, including calling themselves pharaohs. The Hyksos introduced the horse and chariot into Egypt. Afterwards, the Egyptians extended their empire along the eastern shore of the Mediterranean into Mesopotamia, primarily under the great warrior Thutmose III. A dynasty from Upper Egypt began this period of the New Kingdom, and it extended throughout Syria, Palestine and, to the south, Nubia. Also, the pharaohs constructed large buildings and massive cities.

After the New Kingdom ended in 700 B.C., Egypt went into a decline and was subsequently conquered by the Persians in 525 B.C.

Here is a brief review of the famous Egyptian rulers. The first was Menes (or Mena). In 3100 B.C. he was already king of southern Upper Egypt, and he united it with northern Lower Egypt (note that lower Egypt is closer to the sea-level of the Mediterranean, north of Upper Egypt, as explained below). We know his name because Egyptian men, not women, wore make-up and his name was found on palettes used to apply make-up.

Though Menes is called the first “pharaoh” (Egyptian ruler), actually that term was not used until the 18th Dynasty, 1539-1292 B.C. (Egypt was organized by “dynasties”, where one family (including descendants) controlled the country.) The term “pharaoh” signifies the Egyptian custom claiming that its ruler was a god, similar to the sky god Horus and the sun gods Re, Amon and Aton. He was considered to be the preserver of a god-given order, called ma’at. Even after death the pharaoh supposedly retained divine status and magical powers. This was a theocracy (rule by a god).

The Egyptian people were divided into separate levels or classes. The highest level consisted of the priests and nobles, and below them were the peasants, and below the peasants were the slaves (which included the Hebrews until Moses led them out in the Exodus). Women were respected in their role of child-rearing and managing household finances, and there were two Egyptian queens: Queen Ahhotep and Queen Hatshepsut. Queen Ahhotep ruled in the Middle Kingdom and helped liberate Egypt from the Hyksos. Her mummy was discovered in A.D. 1859, and her tomb contained many military artifacts honoring her. Queen Hatshepsut served in the place of her young boy who was heir to the throne, and she ruled for 15 years until her death in 1458 B.C. She is known for expanding trade. Women were also included in the gods (goddesses) that Egyptians worshipped. More generally, rights of dynasty were inherited through the mother’s side, making Egypt a “matriarchal” society.
The most famous pharaoh was Pharaoh Ramses II, who served during the New Kingdom. Slavery first became widespread during the New Kingdom, probably using Hebrews as slaves. The Hebrew Exodus occurred under Ramses II, making him the last great pharaoh in the New Kingdom.

Modern discoveries shed new light on the Egyptian culture. In A.D. 1922, Howard Carter discovered in the Valley of the Kings the untouched tomb of Tutankhamen, a young pharaoh surrounded by magnificent gold and other artifacts that have been displayed around the world ever since. Tutankhamen ruled from 1361 to 1352 B.C., and very little is known about his reign.

Egyptian invented mummification, which began in the 4th Dynasty. It took the Egyptians a long time to develop this art, but they ultimately succeeded to perfection. Without going into all the gory details, it consists of removing the internal organs from a body after death, treating the body with resin, and then wrapping it tightly in linen bandages. You should consider becoming a doctor if you have an interest in this.

Religion: The ancient Egyptians worshiped many gods, often inspired by animals or aspects of nature such as the sun. Only nobles could aspire to an afterlife, and only the king himself could become unified with Osiris, a legendary king who represented the forces of agriculture. These religious views could not survive the spread of Islam and Christianity today. Now Egypt is 90% Sunnite Muslim, and the remainder mostly Christian (Copts). The Copts trace their ancestors directly to the ancient Egyptians. Unlike the Muslims in Egypt, who consider themselves Arabs, the Copts do not and still use ancient Egyptian surnames. They cite the sojourn by Jesus’ family in Egypt to escape Herod, and the proselytizing in Egypt by Saint Mark the Evangelist, who wrote the Gospel and was martyred at Alexandria, Egypt. He is considered the first leader of the Coptic Orthodox Church, followed by an unbroken line of 117 successors to the present Pope Shenouda III. A pharaoh was considered to be a sun god, and eventually monotheism (one all-powerful god) became popular in Egypt, with the sun god Aton commanding all Egyptians’ attention.

Language: The Egyptian developed a written language consisting of hieroglyphics, which are pictographs. It originated around 3100 B.C. Papyrus, a thin parchment constructed from reeds near the Nile river, was the “paper”. Historians could not understand it until the discovery of the “Rosetta Stone” by Napoleon’s troops found in 1799 near the seaside town of Rosetta, located in northern Egypt. It sits in the British Museum today. It consists of a slab of black basalt inscribing a royal decree to the king Ptolemy V, dating from 196 B.C. The Stone is marvelous in inscribing the same message three times: once in Greek, once in Demotic (a simple form of hieroglyphics used 700 B.C. to 400 A.D.), and once in hieroglyphic. This enabled a French expert in the Greek language, Jean Francois Champollion, to determine what the hieroglyphic characters mean, and build a dictionary that could be used to translate other works written in hieroglyphics.

Egypt’s complex, picture-based language probably hindered its growth. The picture-based language was not as easy to use as the alphabet-based Phoenician language later adopted by the Greeks and Romans. How would one express Christian concepts like salvation, faith, hope and redemption? It seems impossible.

Science: A magnificent city named “Alexandria” in 334 B.C. was created by Alexander the Great in Egypt, and it became a cultural center for many centuries in the future. Eventually it grew to be second only to Rome in size and wealth, but declined over a thousand years later after Islamic conquerors established Cairo as the capital of Egypt. Alexandria was best known for the Lighthouse of Alexandria, which was one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, and the Library of Alexandria, which was the largest in the world at that time and reflected the cultural leadership of the city.

In A.D. 100, while Alexandria was still a great city, a future scholar named Ptolemy (pronounced “tah-luh-mee”) (b. A.D. 100, d. A.D. 170) was born there and named after the long line of Egyptian kings. He wrote magnificent works on astronomy, optics, geography, mechanics and geometry. He is best known for his complex theory that placed planet Earth at the center of universe, since all things appeared to fall towards Earth and thus towards the center. The Ptolemaic system was the prevailing view until Copernicus proposed the sun as the center of the solar system over 1000 years later.

Culture: Egypt used slaves as most ancient cultures did. Women in Egypt had powerful rights, including the right to own property, divorce their husbands, manage businesses and even become priestesses. It was possible for poor people to rise to the upper class through talent and hard work. Taxes were a burden. The government claimed ownership of one-fifth of all produce (Genesis 47:24). The society had some ethical principles, such as the royal advice that “more acceptable is the character of one upright of heart than the ox of the evildoer.” Feeding the poor, taking care of the disadvantaged, and avoid bribes in administering justice were respected. The Egyptians learned to travel up and down the Nile River by using the current in one direction, and the Etesian winds to propel sailboats upstream into the other direction. Egyptian architecture was the pyramid and colonnaded temples like the one Karnak, using a style later copied by the Greeks.

Trade: Egypt was not as advanced as Mesopotamia in trade, though trade did improve during the New Kingdom and some commerce with Sumer was established then.

Inventions: Egyptians invented our 365-day solar calendar, based on 12 months of about 30 days each. But Mesopotamia was more advanced than Egypt. To Mesopotamia we owe our “base 60” system for our clock (60 seconds in a minute and 60 minutes in an hour). Egyptians lacked the concept of money, and relied on primitive barter (selling a good in exchange for a different good in return). The Egyptian Old Kingdom lacked the wheel.

[[Category:History]]

World History Lecture One

2007-03-17T18:45:39Z

Lgm: /* Mesopotamia */

[[World History Lecture One|1]]-[[World History Lecture Two|2]]-[[World History Lecture Three|3]]-[[World History Lecture Four|4]]-[[World History Lecture Five|5]]-[[World History Lecture Six|6]]-[[World History Lecture Seven|7]]-[[World History Lecture Eight|8]]-[[World History Lecture Nine|9]]-[[World History Lecture Ten|10]]-[[World History Lecture Eleven|11]]-[[World History Lecture Twelve|12]]-[[World History Lecture Thirteen|13]]-[[World History Lecture Fourteen|14]]

World History

First Lecture – Ancient History

Instructor, Andy Schlafly

==Introduction to the Course==

“World history” is the history of mankind. Nothing is off-limits. Every source is available to us, from the Bible to rock music. Everything mankind has ever written, invented, observed, and destroyed is part of “World history.”

Many of you have taken U.S. History, which is the story of the last 400 years in our overwhelmingly Christian country. World History is a different story: over 5000 years, much of it non-Christian. World History is not the same as Western Civilization, which consists of pre- and post-Christian Europe. World History includes Islam and Hinduism and all the forces that continue to shape our world to this day. U.S. History cannot explain 9/11, violence in the Middle East, or hostility between India and Pakistan. World history does.

I love World history for several reasons. The more we understand other religions the better we can deal with world conflicts. I also like studying the discovery of knowledge and great inventions. Do you know what civilization invented the wheel? Bread? Mathematics? Chocolate? Finally, the greatest military feats are found in World history, so if you like military history then you’ll love World history. Your challenge is to find what you like about World history, and then connect everything else to it. Find ways to relate World history to you, and enjoy it.

I like to learn how mankind progressed in understanding the unseen, such as truth and gravity and God. In mathematics, mankind progressed from the discovery of geometry (Greeks) to the concept of “zero” (Indians) to calculus (English). In economics, mankind progressed from wage and price controls (Romans) to the “invisible hand” of the free market (English), which then unleashed tremendous prosperity. Government progressed from rulers who claimed to be gods (Egyptians), to monarchies (Middle Ages), to constitutional republics (United States). What are we progressing towards now? Use history to predict the future.

World history is also fascinating because there are many mysteries and controversies about it. How did the Egyptians build the pyramids? In what language did Jesus preach? Why did Islam grow so rapidly? Who was right, the Catholics or the Protestants? Is modern Israel a fulfillment of biblical prophecy? Is democracy compatible with Islam?

Do not be misled by thinking ancient peoples were dumb or boring because they lacked the technology of modern society. True, they lacked television and the internet. Does that mean it was boring or dull in 2500 B.C.? Not at all. People were probably smarter than they are today. The Egyptians, for example, cleverly built the massive pyramids using techniques that no one to this day can figure out or duplicate. In 2600 B.C., they constructed the pyramid of Khufu containing 6 million tons of stone extending to a height of 481 feet. The workmanship was superior to what we do today: the rock base was virtually perfectly flat, not varying in elevation by more than a half-inch; its orientation is precisely aligned with the points of a compass; its stones were perfect fits. Inside was a chapel, a causeway, and a temple. It amazes architects to this day. We would not be able to duplicate it even now. Many other cultures, from Mesopotamia to Greece to Rome to India to China, invented things and discovered knowledge that no one today is smart enough to duplicate. Do you know how to bake bread from scratch?

The feats of our ancestors are one part of the study of history. Also important are the clash of ideas, values, religions, systems of government and economies. Individuals, too, make a difference in extraordinary cases. One of many debates that we will have in this class is this: why did societies rise and fall in power?

We will read and discuss societies that rose from nothing to enormous power, only to lose it and become weak again. Each time that happens, ask yourself why. Think about the unsolved mysteries of World history, such as why unrelated civilizations having no apparent connection with each other would do similar things, such as constructing ziggurats or pyramids.

Just as you use reference points like landmarks to find your way, identify historical reference points to make it easier for you to organize the many hundreds of facts you will learn in this course. For example, the exodus of the Jews from Egypt is an excellent reference point for understanding the rise and fall of Egypt. The birth of Christ is another reference point that even our calendar uses to organize dates.

Finally, let me add a few words about terminology. “B.C” means “Before (the birth of) Christ” and “A.D.” means Anno Domini (Latin for “in the year of our Lord”) or simply “After (the birth of) Christ.” The “1st century B.C.” means the 1st century before Christ, counting backwards, which are the years 1-100 B.C. The “5th century B.C.” is thus 401-500 B.C. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that the 5th century B.C. is the 500s B.C.! Likewise, the 20th century (A.D.) was the years A.D. 1901-2000. Because A.D. means “in the year of our Lord,” the proper terminology is to put the date after the A.D., as in A.D. 2006. But school textbooks rarely use “B.C.” and “A.D.” correctly anymore, instead replacing them with an anti-Christian “BCE” for “Before the Common Era” and “CE” for “Common Era.” In other words, BCE = B.C. and CE = A.D.

===Introduction to Ancient History===

Ancient history, which is everything before about A.D. 600, created or discovered all the major religions today except Islam. Ancient history created civilization and achieved many of the greatest intellectual breakthroughs of all time. Literature, drama, mathematics, philosophy, language, etc., were all created in ancient history.

When did mankind first begin? There is no reliable evidence of man existing before 3500 B.C. The oldest writing is a pictographic tablet called a “cuneiform” dated to about 3400 B.C. from Sumer (SOO-mur) in Southern Mesopotamia (where Iraq is today). These cuneiforms look like chicken-scratches featuring wedge-like or arrow-shaped characters. The oldest western-style script is from the Indo-Aryan language, and one dated to 1550 B.C. was found in the Sinai. The oldest verified civilization dates to about 3000 B.C. We can also extrapolate backwards from modern populations to estimate that only about 300 million people existed in the world at the time of Christ, and extrapolating backwards further yields only one family in the year 3300 B.C. Languages can be traced backwards to about 3000 B.C., and some experts reconstruct a point of origin in southeastern Europe near the Black Sea, not far from the Ararat mountain range cited in the Bible in connection with Noah. Old trees never predate this time either; the oldest sequoias, which never die of old age, are only 4000 years old.

No “civilization” has been found that is older than about 3000 B.C. By “civilization” we mean order and hierarchy in the way of life. Some type of political system or government is usually necessary to have a civilization. A structure similar to a city or town is necessary to bring together people, jobs, buildings or religious centers. Usually there are different classes of people, such as rich and poor. Some historians say there must be an agricultural surplus also: enough food to feed the people so that some workers could spend time in jobs other than farming. In a nutshell, a civilization must have cities, skilled (non-farming) workers, social and government institutions, writing to maintain records such as property ownership, and advanced technology. Memorize the oldest dates for the ancient civilizations:

Mesopotamia (Mes-uh-puh-tay-mee-uh): 3500 – 500 B.C., when conquered by Persia
Egypt: 3100 – 525 B.C., when conquered by the Hyksos (HIK-sohs)
Indus (IN-dus) Valley: beginning in 2900 B.C.
China: beginning in 2200 B.C.
Mexican Olmec (AWL-mek): 1200 – 300 B.C., the earliest known American civilization
Peru (South America): 900 B.C.

History books speculate at length about “prehistory”, which predates writing. But there is no reliable evidence to support this speculation, and not worth spending time on. There is no reason to think that man existed for thousands of years without ever expressing himself in written form. But in case you are asked, historians describe the period of time known as “prehistory” as the “Stone Age.” They divide the Stone Age into two time periods: “Paleolithic” and “Neolithic”. The Paleolithic Age is older, when man relied mostly on hunting and picking nuts and fruit to supplement his diet. The Paleolithic Age was followed by the Neolithic Age, which consisted of the rise of agriculture. The “Neolithic Revolution” means the “Agricultural Revolution,” when farming became dominant. The dates of these ages are controversial, and historians have a bias for giving them older dates than proven by archaeology.

After the Stone Age came the Bronze Age, beginning in 3500 B.C., when copper and/or bronze tools were used. That was followed by the Iron Age, which began in Turkey around 2200 B.C. and later spread to other regions. As its name suggests, it used iron for tools.

Ancient civilizations are often called “classical civilizations,” particularly when they produce intellectual advances as Ancient Greece did. Phrases like “Classical Indian Civilization” refer to Ancient India, which lasted from 300 B.C. to A.D. 500.

Two of the oldest towns were the biblical town of Jericho, located in Palestine, and Catal Huyuk, located in modern-day Turkey. Jericho was famous for its high city walls to protect against attack.

The ancient world is the source of the most basic aspects of life, such as the seven-day week and marriage. The Bible remains the best explanation for both, and many other aspects of the ancient world. All four civilizations discussed in this lecture arose in or near what we now call the “Middle East.”

==Mesopotamia==

So where did civilization begin? In a region known as Mesopotamia, which is Greek for “land between the rivers.” The “rivers” are the Tigris and Euphrates, located in Western Asia. Where, exactly? Basically, in fertile areas of Iraq northeast of the desert, known as part of the “Fertile Crescent” that extends along the coast of the Mediterranean Sea (including modern Israel, Lebanon and Syria) and the fertile valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers that run southeast into the Persian Gulf. These rivers deposited silt in the surrounding land, creating rich alluvial soil. Today the Tigris and Euphrates rivers are not far from the location of our soldiers in Iraq. However, our soldiers are mostly pictured in sandy areas, while the ancient people would have stayed close to the water. Moreover, ancient floods would have changed the landscape over time.

Genesis 2:8-17 (NAS) describes the beginning in Mesopotamia as follows: “The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed. … Now a river flowed out of Eden to water the garden; and from there it divided and became four rivers. The name of the first is Pishon; it flows around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. ... The name of the third river is Tigris; it flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.” Using the ages mentioned in the Bible and counting backwards, biblical scholars have dated this as about 6000 years ago, or about 4000 B.C. This is about 500 years before our earliest record of ancient writings.

In the fourth millennium before Christ, between about 3500 and 3000 B.C., two things happened: writing was invented and cities began to sprout up with their own political and economic systems. Both of these developments occurred in southern Mesopotamia. This was known as Sumer, and the occupants were the Sumerians.

We owe a great deal to the work of the Sumerians. They developed the first system of writing (the cuneiform), the first codes of law and the first “city-state” (essentially a nation consisting only of a large city). Their inventions were marvelous: the seed plow, the sailboat, and the potter’s wheel. (Distinguish “cuneiforms” from “ideograms”, which show ideas with symbols such as arrows for war, from “phonograms”, in which symbols represent sounds).

Most workers in Mesopotamia were farmers, but some devoted their time to trade. They had a calendar based on the moon to aid the farmers, and they developed a mathematical system using base 12. They were marvelous inventors, creating complex systems of irrigation and discovering the plow, the cart and the wheel, and used bronze (a mixture of copper and tin) to make good farming tools. Both men and women owned private property, had slaves, and were ruled by a king.

They built cities known as Eridu, Lagash, Ur, Uruk, Isin, Kish, just to name a few. They were smart, and developed Akkadian as their language. One interesting aspect of Akkadian is that it lacks any tense forms such as past or future tense. The verbs expressed the manner of an action rather than its time.

By 3000 B.C. the people had built major canals to channel water, and roads on which to travel. Shepherds had dogs to help them tend the sheep, just as we use today to help herd sheep together. Each city was surrounded by a moat and a wall of brick, with as many as 900 towers inside the city. Soldiers watched entry back and forth, and chariots and wagons carried people and goods within the city. By 3000 B.C. mankind had already built a mini-version of Manhattan, without the automobile and steel skyscrapers. But Mesopotamia (unlike Egypt and China) was not protected by geography, and would constantly face invasion by foreigners.

Do not think there was anything primitive about these ancient cities. They had shipping, fishing, brewers and bakers. They spun wool and traded fine jewelry. They discovered the Pythagorean Theorem, though it was later named after a Greek. In 2500 B.C., the queen of Ur, which was a prominent city, lived in a palace that featured harps and many servants. Slavery existed, but it was typically confined to domestic work in the cities rather than hard labor on the farm. Slaves were given a minimum standard of living and often had the opportunity to rise to freedom through diligent work.

Temples were everywhere. But the people also built stepped mountains known as ziggurats, with a temple on top, and the Bible tells how they tried to build one higher and higher. A massive ziggurat at Ur that is described in Genesis 11:1-9 as the Tower of Babel led to hundreds of different languages in the world. As we shall learn in this course, language is a central part of a society that has much to do with its success or failure. Societies with useful languages prospered; those with difficult-to-use languages failed.

Genesis Chapter 10 places the roots of modern mankind in Noah and his three sons: Shem, Ham and Japheth. The term “Semitic” means “pertaining to the descendants of Shem,” and includes Assyrians, Chaldeans, Aramaeans, Sabaeans, and Hebrews (now known as Jews). Semitic languages include Hebrew and Arabic. Semitic religions include Judaism, Christianity and Islam. One of Noah’s descendants was Abram, who later changed his name as Abraham to reflect his covenant with God.

Both the Bible and many independent sources describe a Great Flood (or “Deluge”), which historians date at about 3000 B.C. Very little of any history, including writings and civilization, has survived from before that time. The biblical account of the Flood is at Genesis 5-8, describing an ark having reasonable dimensions similar to modern ocean steamships. A non-biblical Sumerian (from Sumer in Mesopotamia) account of the Flood was found in the last hundred years, and that account was apparently written about 1600 B.C. Even better, a cuneiform tablet from Babylon was found dating from 3000 B.C., which also described a massive flood in great detail. There are many other ancient accounts of a massive flood found in most other cultures around the world. Fossils and limestone (the result of ocean sediment) are found today on mountaintops and land worldwide at all altitudes. Independent accounts of a great flood can be found in ancient works of China, India, Britain (Druid) and American Indians, all having striking similar details. See, e.g., http://www.searchgodsword.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T2631 . Recently two scientists at Columbia University published a widely praised book that proved that the Flood did occur, entitled “Noah’s Flood,” which concludes that the biblical Flood “is surely a true story of the permanent destruction of a land and its people ….” (p. 251). Yet no public school textbook ever mentions a massive flood.

The conflict between the Hebrew (Jewish) and Arab peoples in the Middle East and throughout the world is described by some as a family feud. They are descended from the same father, Abraham, as described in Genesis 16. But Jewish and Arab peoples trace their lineage from different sons of Abraham who were rivals for their father’s love. Jewish people claim to be descendants of Isaac, the child of Abraham and Sarah, while Arabs are descended from Ishmael, the son of Abraham (then Abram) and the Egyptian woman Hagar. The Old Testament teaches that Abraham offered to sacrifice Isaac to the Lord, while Islam teaches that Abraham’s sacrifice was of Ishmael. Islam teaches that Ishmael helped Abraham build a mosque in Mecca (the venerated Kaaba), and that it was Ishmael (rather than Isaac) who was nearly sacrificed. Regardless, Ishmael went a different way from the rest of Abraham’s family, and there have been hard feelings by Ishmael’s descendants ever since.

Civilization quickly prospered in Sumeria, the northwest (Akkad) was constantly fighting the southeast (Sumer), and eventually an Akkadian warrior named Sargon conquered Mesopotamia. Sargon was the first person in recorded history to create an empire or multi-ethnic state, from 2334 to 2279 B.C. His empire included the region of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, and also part of what is Turkey today. The capital of his empire was Agade in Akkad. But like many military rulers, his empire collapsed when he died. He did not have a civil (non-military) form of government to pay his soldiers and sustain his empire. Instead, he could only survive as long his soldiers continued to capture and loot. Once the empire stopped expanded upon his death, it collapsed. After Sargon’s death, the city of Ur in Sumer was the leading city.

In sum, the Sumerians established many of the things that define civilization today: buildings, engineering, legal codes, written language and a military. The Sumerians also had literature: in 2000 B.C., they wrote “The Epic of Gilgamesh,” considered to be oldest fictional story ever written. It was based on a real person, however, who ruled a city-state in Sumer. He struggles with religious issues in the form of multiple gods, and the story seems to draw on some of the wisdom of the Bible. This non-biblical source also describes a great flood.

Inventions: We can thank Mesopotamia (probably Ur) for inventing the wheel in about 3500 B.C., which is the single greatest invention of all time. It is used for much more than transportation. The wheel is essential to manufacturing and even pre-digital watches. No American civilization had the wheel until the Europeans brought it to them.

The dawn of culture: Precious few of the earliest cultural creations of mankind have survived. Paintings made 30,000 years ago in caves in Lascaux, France, show remarkable artistic technique and sensibility.

==Babylon==

Babylonia was a relatively late achiever in the Mesopotamian world, occupying southern Mesopotamia where Sumer was. Babylonia apparently did not exist before about 2300 B.C. Babylon was its main city, located about 55 miles south of Baghdad today in Iraq. It is now in ruins but thousands of years ago was a thriving city known for its “Hanging Gardens of Babylon,” which were one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. Babylon was known as a city devoted to materialism and personal pleasure. As an example of usage, the English author G.K. Chesterton once wrote, “the Babylonian halls of the big hotel.”

As a city Babylon was smaller and less important than Ur, which enjoyed several dynasties. But the constant fighting led to the fall of the 3rd dynasty of Ur, and an Amorite king named Sumuabum established a kingdom in 1894 B.C. there. His successors built it up, and then a brilliant ruler name Hammurabi took power as the sixth king of Babylon from 1792 to 1750 B.C. (That is over forty years: there were no term limits then!).

The reign of Hammurabi signaled the end of the early Mesopotamian civilization. He created a system of justice by promulgating an elaborate code of law (the Code of Hammurabi, or Hammurabi’s Code). The code imposed harsh punishment of “an eye for an eye,” and lower classes of people received harsher punishment than higher classes of people. If you broke the bone of a “free man” (non-slave), then the punishment was to break one of your bones. That was simple and effective, and the Old Testament uses a similar approach in some ways (who used this first?). The Eighth Commandment in the Old Testament states, “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” Hammurabi’s Code states if someone accuses another of doing something wrong, but cannot prove it, then the accuser shall be killed.

But Hammurabi attempted to be righteous and much of his correspondence survives to this day. He encouraged legal contracts, but he also limited the amount of interest and wages that could be earned. After 29 years of establishing order, he then conquered all of Mesopotamia, making him the first king of the Babylonian Empire. To this day Hammurabi is respected by historians as a great leader who achieved an enormous amount for all of mankind.

Chaos resulted when he died, however. The Hittites (HIT-eyets) were Indo-Europeans who migrated into Anatolia (now Turkey). The Hittites were famous for bringing iron smelting to many other groups, and using the superior iron weapons and tools. They attacked and weakened the Babylonian empire, ultimately defeating it in 1600 B.C. The Kassites, led by king Agumkakrine, then took advantage of situation and grabbed power. But they continued to honor the Code of Hammurabi during their 400 year rule of the territory.

In 1124 B.C. the first Nebuchadnezzar rose to power over the Babylonian empire. He moved its capital to Babylon, then the world’s largest city. Its spanned 10,000 hectares, which is slightly larger than San Francisco today.

The Babylonian empire acquired great power, and power corrupts. Eventually it turned against religion. That ultimately occurred in 598 through 586 B.C., but we have to build up to that first.

Much of the Bible, Old and New Testaments, is written with references to Babylon. The main reason is that Babylon rose to enormous power and captured the Hebrews, and held them in captivity. This is known as the Babylonian Exile or Babylonian Captivity.

==Israel==

While the Kassites were in control of Babylon, the oldest formed religion still active in the world began: Judaism. Descendents of Abraham, who lived in Ur around 2000 B.C., the Hebrews migrated away from Ur in Mesopotamia to Palestine, where they resided in about 1500 B.C. But they migrated over to Egypt to escape a bad famine. There they generally served as slaves for over 400 years, though they undoubtedly contributed greatly to the intellectual progress of the Egyptian culture. As described in Exodus, Moses (who had been adopted by a royal family there) ultimately led 600,000 Hebrews out of Egypt around 1250 B.C. Egyptian historians refer to slaves and captives called “Hapiru”, but it is debated whether these were the Hebrews. Regardless, the Bible contains many verified references to the Egyptian pharaohs demonstrating that the Jewish ancestors were in Egypt. The Hebrew escape from Egypt is called the “Exodus”, and is described by that book in the Old Testament. During the passage, Moses received the Ten Commandments from God on Mount Sinai. (In Manhattan today there is a famous medical school on the upper East Side named “Mount Sinai.”) Moses is also credited as the author of the first five books of the Bible (the “Pentateuch” or, in parchment scroll in the Jewish liturgy, the “Torah”).

While most ancient peoples worshiped many pagan (non-existent) gods, the Hebrews worshiped only one God (but even the Hebrews had false gods – note the Second Commandment). The Hebrews referred to God as “Yahweh” (or “Jehovah”), and to this day Jewish people who strictly observe the Old Testament consider it improper to write the name of God and instead write “G-d”. “Yahweh” simply means “I am who I am,” written in the Hebrew language (which lacks vowels) as YHWH. (“Yah” by itself means simply, “I am”.) It is the name God instructed Moses use at the encounter at the miraculous burning bush that continued to burn without destruction in Exodus 3:14: “God said to Moses, ‘I AM WHO I AM’; and He said, ‘Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”

After leaving Egypt, the Hebrews settled back in the hills of Palestine or Canaan along eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea. They quickly developed a productive society despite the barrenness of the land. They implemented a system of private property, which much sharing within the family structure. Before long, they became targets for their less sophisticated and pagan neighbors. Worst among these were the Philistines, who had iron weapons and good organization. The Hebrews, in contrast, were loosely affiliated and unprepared to defend against outside invasions. The Bible recounts many of these struggles with the Philistines.

Inevitably a Hebrew warrior, Saul, took power around 1000 B.C. and defeated the Philistines and Canaanites. The priest Samuel anointed Saul king, but many Hebrews declined to obey him. David, a shrewd fighter who had trained as a mercenary with the Philistines, became famous for defeating the Philistine giant Goliath as described in the Bible. David then built an empire for Israel that extended from Damascus, then a thriving city in the Fertile Crescent, all the way south past what is now the Gaza Strip. For its capital he built a hill city called Jerusalem, and encapsulated it within a wall. II Samuel 9-20 describes this period.

David’s son was Solomon, who ruled for forty years (965-925 B.C.) and constructed the great temple of Jerusalem. He was known for his wisdom and justice. He created two states: Israel in the north, with a capital at Samaria, and Judah in the south, with a capital at Jerusalem. But Solomon also taxed the Hebrews heavily and, after he died, the empire fell into decline. The Kingdom of Israel split after the death of Solomon. I Kings 12.

Judah in the south survived longer than Israel in the north. The southern Kingdom of Judah consisted of two of the twelve Hebrew tribes, while the northern Kingdom of Israel had the other ten Hebrew tribes. But due to its northern location, the Kingdom of Israel had to contend with Assyria, which was cruel and extremely powerful kingdom of northern Mesopotamia. It was located in present-day northern Iraq and at times controlled the northern part of present-day Syria. It became an independent state in the 14th century B.C., expanded in the 9th century B.C. and, under powerful kings like Sargon II, united most of the Middle East from Egypt to the Persian Gulf under Assyrian rule. It was finally destroyed by a Chaldean-Median coalition in 612-609 B.C.

The Assyrians defeated the Kingdom of Israel in 772 B.C, and then scattered and dispersed its ten Hebrew tribes throughout the Assyrian Kingdom. The Assyrian empire was so powerful because it is used iron weapons along with battering rams, and did not hesitate even to tunnel under enemies’ walls. The Assyrians also enslaved the peoples it captured, taking them away from their homeland. The scattering of the Hebrews by the Assyrians was the first of several “diaspora” (deye-AS-puh-ruh), which means the scattering of the Jewish people away from their homeland. In Judah, however, a young ruler known as Joshua ultimately rose to power in 640 B.C. and overthrew the Assyrian influence, which was in a state of decline then. But Judah himself ran into the merciless power of the Chaldean empire.

The Chaldean empire defeated both the Hebrews and the Assyrians. Chaldea was the region in southern Babylonia, covering what is now southern Iraq. This land borders the coast of the Persian Gulf between the Euphrates delta and the Arabian desert.

As Assyrian power began to decline, a ruler named Nabopolassar was able to establish a Chaldean dynasty beginning in 625 B.C. and extending until the Persians conquered the territory by invading in 539 B.C. from present-day Iran. But in that brief span of time an important ruler commanded the Chaldean dynasty and all of Babylonian empire: Nebuchadnezzar II (NEB-uh-kuhd-NEZ-ur), who reigned from 605 to 562 B.C.

He was a military genius who demonstrated his prowess with a massive conquest of the Egyptian army in 606 or 605 B.C., thereby gaining control of all of Syria. After his father's death, he obtained the submission of Judah and spent the next few years expanding the Babylonian empire into Palestine. Although suffering losses, he persisted and ultimately captured Jerusalem on March 16, 597, and then later again in 586, when the Chaldeans also destroyed Solomon’s temple. Nebuchadnezzar kidnapped and deported prominent Hebrews back to Babylonia, as recounted in the Bible and known as the Babylonian Exile. Nebuchadnezzar was a godless military commander who suffered from seven years of madness, but at times he protected key prophets like Jeremiah. Daniel describes seven years of madness for the ruler, but the Babylonian people did not dare criticize their own ruler. Daniel 4:34-37.

Babylon was a culture that did not have the value system of the Hebrews, and Babylonians did not accept God. The Babylonians were constantly raiding, kidnapping, killing or converting into slaves the Hebrews. Much of the Old Testament is about how the Hebrews would gain or lose favor with the Lord, and the Babylonians would prevail against the Hebrews as they lost favor with the Lord. “Babylon” is mentioned 246 times in the Old Testament!

Because he captured and exiled the Hebrews, King Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon is mentioned frequently in the Old Testament. During his second invasion of Jerusalem, the city that had been previously established as the Hebrew center by David in 1000 B.C., Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the holy Temple built by King Solomon (“Solomon’s Temple”). Nebuchadnezzar then captured the Jewish people and took them back to Babylon in what is known as the Babylonian Exile or Captivity, which lasted from 597 to 538 B.C. (beginning with his first invasion of Jerusalem). “But because our ancestors had angered the God of heaven, he gave them into the hand of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, the Chaldean, who destroyed this house and carried away the people to Babylonia.” Ezra 5:12.

The death of Nebuchadnezzar II signaled the end of the Babylonian empire, which proceeded to fall into decline. It was inevitable that Babylon itself would be conquered. Cyrus the Great was the King of Persia (the ancient name for Iran) (539-530 B.C.), who conquered Asia Minor for the Persians, including the territories of Assyria, Babylonia, Palestine and Syria. His kingdom was known as the Achaemenid (ə-kē'mə-nĭd) (or Persian) empire. He freed the Hebrews and ended the Babylonian Exile, allowing the Jewish people to return to Jerusalem and rebuild their Temple. The tomb of Cyrus the Great still exists at Pasargadae, the town that was the capital of his empire but which is now in ruins in present-day Iran.

More than a thousand years later, during the Islamic conquest of Iran, the Muslims planned to destroy the tomb as contrary to their religion. However, the possibility that the tomb was somehow built to honor the mother of King Solomon, a respected prophet in Islam, justified preserving the tomb to this day, and it is inscribed today with the following verse of the Qur’an (Koran): “Qabr-e Madar-e Sulaiman.”

The Hebrews rebuilt the Jerusalem walls and the temple, though not restoring its magnificence under Solomon. They remained under Persian rule until Alexander the Great conquered the Persians around 330 B.C. Later, when the Roman Empire rose to power, Palestine became a province to Rome, until Palestine rebelled and Rome retaliated by destroying the temple in A.D. 70, again dispersing the Jewish people to distant lands.

To what do we owe the ancient Hebrews? The concept of monotheism: one and only one God. The Hebrews established the covenant of loyalty between God and his chosen ones. Part of the covenant was the promise of a future Messiah to save the people from their sins, and it is debated whether the Messiah was supposed to establish a kingdom on earth. Later some Jewish people accepted Jesus as the Messiah, while some did not. The moral code by which the Hebrew people promised to live was set forth in the Ten Commandments, which were carved in stone and kept in the sacred Ark of the Covenant as described repeatedly in the Bible (see, e.g., Exodus 25:9-10). Highly specific requirements of daily life are also set forth in the Torah (the Pentateuch, or first five books of the Old Testament). The authorities on Jewish law are known as “rabbis”, but there is no single highest human authority like a pope. Next to the Bible, the next most authoritative Jewish work is the Talmud, which is a collection of writings by rabbis.

==Egypt==

Ancient Egypt was a tremendous civilization located in the fertile Nile Valley. Ancient Egypt existed from about 3000 B.C. up until Alexander the Great conquered it in 332 B.C. The Nile is the greatest river in the world, and is unique in flowing south-to-north, emptying into the Mediterranean Sea. It floods with great regularity each year (unlike the Tigris and Euphrates rivers), providing plentiful water for farming. Situated in a desert, Egypt developed irrigation techniques that led it to be called an “hydraulic empire.”

What is special about Egypt? Well, for starters, it is the oldest stationary civilization that remains in existence. Geography helped protect it against invaders. To its east and west are deserts, to the north is the Mediterranean Sea and to the south is the rest of Africa and the Nile. In between is the great and mighty Nile. Egypt is self-sufficient with natural resources also, having plentiful clay and stone and being able to trade for timber from nearby Lebanon and copper from Sinai. Just as the unique, closed-in geography of the island of Manhattan has encouraged the development of a powerful economy in New York City, the landscape of Egypt enhanced its independence. Even when conquered, the civilization does not shift anywhere, thanks to the natural boundaries.

Ancient Egypt was always ruled a “pharaoh” or king, who was considered to be a god and absolute owner and dictator of the country. He was worshipped by the people.

The Persians, Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, Turks and British did conquer and rule over it at some point. In that respect, the story of who ran Egypt is an account of the great world powers in history. Egypt did not have native rule between 341 B.C., when the Persians conquered the last Pharaoh (Nectanebo II), until to 1952, when the native Egyptian president Nasser overthrew a British constitutional monarchy.

Ancient Egypt is divided into three periods: Old Kingdom (3100-2200 B.C.), Middle Kingdom (2100-1650 B.C.) and New Kingdom (1550-700 B.C.). The peak in power of ancient Egypt was 1567-1085 B.C. The Old Kingdom is known for its security and prosperity, free from foreign invaders. A unique Egyptian kingship developed during this period, and they built the great pyramids, including the Great Pyramid of Giza (one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World) as built by Pharaoh Khufu or Cheops (KEE-aps). The pyramids protected and preserved pharaohs for what they expected in the after-life, and were marvelous engineering feats that cannot be duplicated even today.

The Middle Kingdom was a period during which Egyptian religion extended beyond the kings to the nobles and ordinary citizens. Pharaohs began to share power with local distinguished persons. The pharaohs were strong during this period and promoted trade by digging the Great Canal, which connected the Nile River to the Red Sea. The Middle Kingdom is best known for its cultural achievements, such as literature and artwork. During this period the Egyptians were also successful in draining parts of the Nile delta in Lower (northern) Egypt. Trade expanded, but civil war plagued the Middle Kingdom just as it was a problem in the Old Kingdom.

The New Kingdom followed a period of foreign rule for a century by the Hyksos (HIK-sohs) (from 1650 to 1580 B.C.), who were Semitic peoples invading Egypt from across the Sinai Peninsula. The Hyksos adopted much of Egyptian culture, including calling themselves pharaohs. The Hyksos introduced the horse and chariot into Egypt. Afterwards, the Egyptians extended their empire along the eastern shore of the Mediterranean into Mesopotamia, primarily under the great warrior Thutmose III. A dynasty from Upper Egypt began this period of the New Kingdom, and it extended throughout Syria, Palestine and, to the south, Nubia. Also, the pharaohs constructed large buildings and massive cities.

After the New Kingdom ended in 700 B.C., Egypt went into a decline and was subsequently conquered by the Persians in 525 B.C.

Here is a brief review of the famous Egyptian rulers. The first was Menes (or Mena). In 3100 B.C. he was already king of southern Upper Egypt, and he united it with northern Lower Egypt (note that lower Egypt is closer to the sea-level of the Mediterranean, north of Upper Egypt, as explained below). We know his name because Egyptian men, not women, wore make-up and his name was found on palettes used to apply make-up.

Though Menes is called the first “pharaoh” (Egyptian ruler), actually that term was not used until the 18th Dynasty, 1539-1292 B.C. (Egypt was organized by “dynasties”, where one family (including descendants) controlled the country.) The term “pharaoh” signifies the Egyptian custom claiming that its ruler was a god, similar to the sky god Horus and the sun gods Re, Amon and Aton. He was considered to be the preserver of a god-given order, called ma’at. Even after death the pharaoh supposedly retained divine status and magical powers. This was a theocracy (rule by a god).

The Egyptian people were divided into separate levels or classes. The highest level consisted of the priests and nobles, and below them were the peasants, and below the peasants were the slaves (which included the Hebrews until Moses led them out in the Exodus). Women were respected in their role of child-rearing and managing household finances, and there were two Egyptian queens: Queen Ahhotep and Queen Hatshepsut. Queen Ahhotep ruled in the Middle Kingdom and helped liberate Egypt from the Hyksos. Her mummy was discovered in A.D. 1859, and her tomb contained many military artifacts honoring her. Queen Hatshepsut served in the place of her young boy who was heir to the throne, and she ruled for 15 years until her death in 1458 B.C. She is known for expanding trade. Women were also included in the gods (goddesses) that Egyptians worshipped. More generally, rights of dynasty were inherited through the mother’s side, making Egypt a “matriarchal” society.
The most famous pharaoh was Pharaoh Ramses II, who served during the New Kingdom. Slavery first became widespread during the New Kingdom, probably using Hebrews as slaves. The Hebrew Exodus occurred under Ramses II, making him the last great pharaoh in the New Kingdom.

Modern discoveries shed new light on the Egyptian culture. In A.D. 1922, Howard Carter discovered in the Valley of the Kings the untouched tomb of Tutankhamen, a young pharaoh surrounded by magnificent gold and other artifacts that have been displayed around the world ever since. Tutankhamen ruled from 1361 to 1352 B.C., and very little is known about his reign.

Egyptian invented mummification, which began in the 4th Dynasty. It took the Egyptians a long time to develop this art, but they ultimately succeeded to perfection. Without going into all the gory details, it consists of removing the internal organs from a body after death, treating the body with resin, and then wrapping it tightly in linen bandages. You should consider becoming a doctor if you have an interest in this.

Religion: The ancient Egyptians worshiped many gods, often inspired by animals or aspects of nature such as the sun. Only nobles could aspire to an afterlife, and only the king himself could become unified with Osiris, a legendary king who represented the forces of agriculture. These religious views could not survive the spread of Islam and Christianity today. Now Egypt is 90% Sunnite Muslim, and the remainder mostly Christian (Copts). The Copts trace their ancestors directly to the ancient Egyptians. Unlike the Muslims in Egypt, who consider themselves Arabs, the Copts do not and still use ancient Egyptian surnames. They cite the sojourn by Jesus’ family in Egypt to escape Herod, and the proselytizing in Egypt by Saint Mark the Evangelist, who wrote the Gospel and was martyred at Alexandria, Egypt. He is considered the first leader of the Coptic Orthodox Church, followed by an unbroken line of 117 successors to the present Pope Shenouda III. A pharaoh was considered to be a sun god, and eventually monotheism (one all-powerful god) became popular in Egypt, with the sun god Aton commanding all Egyptians’ attention.

Language: The Egyptian developed a written language consisting of hieroglyphics, which are pictographs. It originated around 3100 B.C. Papyrus, a thin parchment constructed from reeds near the Nile river, was the “paper”. Historians could not understand it until the discovery of the “Rosetta Stone” by Napoleon’s troops found in 1799 near the seaside town of Rosetta, located in northern Egypt. It sits in the British Museum today. It consists of a slab of black basalt inscribing a royal decree to the king Ptolemy V, dating from 196 B.C. The Stone is marvelous in inscribing the same message three times: once in Greek, once in Demotic (a simple form of hieroglyphics used 700 B.C. to 400 A.D.), and once in hieroglyphic. This enabled a French expert in the Greek language, Jean Francois Champollion, to determine what the hieroglyphic characters mean, and build a dictionary that could be used to translate other works written in hieroglyphics.

Egypt’s complex, picture-based language probably hindered its growth. The picture-based language was not as easy to use as the alphabet-based Phoenician language later adopted by the Greeks and Romans. How would one express Christian concepts like salvation, faith, hope and redemption? It seems impossible.

Science: A magnificent city named “Alexandria” in 334 B.C. was created by Alexander the Great in Egypt, and it became a cultural center for many centuries in the future. Eventually it grew to be second only to Rome in size and wealth, but declined over a thousand years later after Islamic conquerors established Cairo as the capital of Egypt. Alexandria was best known for the Lighthouse of Alexandria, which was one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, and the Library of Alexandria, which was the largest in the world at that time and reflected the cultural leadership of the city.

In A.D. 100, while Alexandria was still a great city, a future scholar named Ptolemy (pronounced “tah-luh-mee”) (b. A.D. 100, d. A.D. 170) was born there and named after the long line of Egyptian kings. He wrote magnificent works on astronomy, optics, geography, mechanics and geometry. He is best known for his complex theory that placed planet Earth at the center of universe, since all things appeared to fall towards Earth and thus towards the center. The Ptolemaic system was the prevailing view until Copernicus proposed the sun as the center of the solar system over 1000 years later.

Culture: Egypt used slaves as most ancient cultures did. Women in Egypt had powerful rights, including the right to own property, divorce their husbands, manage businesses and even become priestesses. It was possible for poor people to rise to the upper class through talent and hard work. Taxes were a burden. The government claimed ownership of one-fifth of all produce (Genesis 47:24). The society had some ethical principles, such as the royal advice that “more acceptable is the character of one upright of heart than the ox of the evildoer.” Feeding the poor, taking care of the disadvantaged, and avoid bribes in administering justice were respected. The Egyptians learned to travel up and down the Nile River by using the current in one direction, and the Etesian winds to propel sailboats upstream into the other direction. Egyptian architecture was the pyramid and colonnaded temples like the one Karnak, using a style later copied by the Greeks.

Trade: Egypt was not as advanced as Mesopotamia in trade, though trade did improve during the New Kingdom and some commerce with Sumer was established then.

Inventions: Egyptians invented our 365-day solar calendar, based on 12 months of about 30 days each. But Mesopotamia was more advanced than Egypt. To Mesopotamia we owe our “base 60” system for our clock (60 seconds in a minute and 60 minutes in an hour). Egyptians lacked the concept of money, and relied on primitive barter (selling a good in exchange for a different good in return). The Egyptian Old Kingdom lacked the wheel.

[[Category:History]]