Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:MRellek

2011-08-07T01:55:31Z

MRellek: Leaving

{{welcome}}--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 19:47, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

== Image DEBT ==

Done. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 21:29, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

==Why are you here?==

Hi, MRellek. I'm wondering about your purpose of visiting our project. You said you would contribute to math and engineering, but your contribs show nothing in these areas. You've "talked" a lot, and last month you demanded more sysop accountability. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=next&oldid=893593]

What about contributor accountability? Please submite a [[Conservapedia:writing plan]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:47, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
: Unfortunately my life is extremely busy, and I haven't been able to contribute much. Most of my edits have been on the run from my phone, which has limited me primarily to reverting vandalism, and trying to be active in the community. I, dont believe anything I have contributed has been antagonistic or otherwise so I am largely confused as to why you are demanding a "writing plan". Your message comes across as rather rude, but I will understand this once given the large number of vandals which seem attracted here. Also my demand for sysop accountability is directly related to the minor annoyance I get from the intellectually offensive material featured on the main page by one user. Once I get more free time I plan on working on some of the math and engineering articles or chemistry related to my field.--[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 13:08, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
::On a side note reviewing the diff you provided does not scream me demanding sysop accountability, as I was simply commenting on an oddity in a conversation. Additionally, I made no promise to write on math and engineering exclusively, and I have made some edits to chemistry. --[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 13:30, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

== Leaving ==

Due to not having much time to devote to this project, and editorial differences with some fellow users I will be leaving for at least a bit. I may return to check in from time to time. However, at this point I do not feel as though the little time I have to edit a wiki will best be used here, as it has not been appreciated thus far. --[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 21:55, 6 August 2011 (EDT)

User:MRellek

2011-08-07T01:51:41Z

MRellek: Replaced content with "{{retired}}"

User talk:MRellek

2011-08-05T17:30:47Z

MRellek: /* Why are you here? */

User talk:MRellek

2011-08-05T17:08:35Z

MRellek: /* Why are you here? */

Homosexual Agenda

2011-08-05T04:50:48Z

MRellek: Undo revision 897556 by Aeondolphin (talk)

{{Homosexuality}}
The '''Homosexual Agenda''', or [[Homosexuality|homosexual]] ideology, consists of a set of beliefs and objectives designed to promote and even mandate acceptance and approval of homosexuality, and the strategies used to implement such. This article notes that the goals and means of this movement include indoctrinating students in [[public school]], restricting the free speech of opposition, obtaining [[special rights|special treatment]] for homosexuals, distorting Biblical teaching and science, and interfering with freedom of association. Advocates of the homosexual agenda seek special rights for [[homosexuals]] that other people don't have, such as immunity from criticism (see [[hate speech]], [[hate crime]]s). Such special rights will necessarily come [[zero-sum game|at the expense]] of the rights of broader society.

Among all the [[liberal]] belief systems, the homosexual ideology is the most self-centered or selfish. Liberals generally give much less than conservatives to charity, but gay charity work in particular is virtually non-existent.

Supreme Court Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] referred to the "so-called homosexual agenda" in ''[[Lawrence v. Texas]]'', 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (dissenting opinion).

== The Homosexual Agenda ==

Joseph P. Gudel, in ''That Which is Unnatural''<ref>[http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0108a.html "That Which is Unnatural" Homosexuality in Society, the Church, and Scripture] Part Two in a Two-Part Series on Homosexuality, from the Christian Research Journal, Winter 1993, page 8</ref> contended that the homosexual movement,

:has been militantly demanding not just the homosexuals' right to do whatever they wish to do behind closed doors, but, more importantly, that society fully accept their lifestyle as both healthy and normal, even demanding special rights and legislation as an "oppressed minority." Gudel quotes various sources evidencing this.

In a 1987 speech to the National Press Club in Washington, homosexual spokesperson Jeff Levi proclaimed,

:We are no longer seeking just a right to privacy and a protection from wrong. We also have a right — as heterosexual Americans already have — to see government and society affirm our lives. <ref>Jeff Levi, in William Dannemeyer, Shadow in the Land (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1989), 86.</ref>

In an article entitled "Gays on the March" in 1975, Time magazine quoted gay activist Barbara Gittings who stated:

:What the homosexual wants, and here he is neither willing to compromise nor morally required to compromise — is acceptance of homosexuality as a way of life fully on a par with heterosexuality." In response, Time opined, "It is one thing to remove legal discrimination against homosexuals. It is another to mandate approval....It is this goal of full acceptance, which no known society past or present has granted to homosexuals, that makes many Americans apprehensive.<ref>Gays on the March," Time, 8 Sept. 1975, 43</ref>

A primary goal of the homosexual agenda is to promote the lifestyle in [[public schools]]. This occurred quickly and intensely after gay marriage was imposed in Massachusetts, where homosexual relationships are taught to children as young as kindergartners, as recounted by the decision of ''[[Parker v. Hurley]]''.<ref>The ''Parker v. Hurley'' decision explained, "In January 2005, when Jacob Parker ("Jacob") was in kindergarten, he brought home a 'Diversity Book Bag.' This included a picture book, Who's in a Family?, which depicted different families, including single-parent families, an extended family, interracial families, animal families, a family without children, and — to the concern of the Parkers — a family with two dads and a family with two moms. The book concludes by answering the question, 'Who's in a family?': 'The people who love you the most!' The book says nothing about marriage."</ref>

In a 1992 report by John Leo in U.S. News and World Report, he notes some books which were part of New York City's public school curriculum.

The first-grade book, "Children of the Rainbow", stated on page 145, which states that teachers must "be aware of varied family structures, including...gay or lesbian parents," and "children must be taught to acknowledge the positive aspects of each type of household." Another children book is Heather Has Two Mommies, which is about a lesbian couple having a child through artificial insemination. Another book, Gloria Goes to Gay Pride, states, "Some women love women, some men love men, some women and men love each other. That's why we march in the parade, so everyone can have a choice."

Leo commented,

:A line is being crossed here; in fact, a brand new ethic is descending upon the city's public school system. The traditional civic virtue of tolerance (if gays want to live together, it's their own business) has been replaced with a new ethic requiring approval and endorsement (if gays want to live together, we must 'acknowledge the positive aspects' of their way of life).<ref>John Leo, "Heather Has a Message," U.S. News & World Report, 17 Aug. 1992, 16.</ref>

Dr. Judith A. Reisman in her extensive ''Crafting “Gay” Children'',<ref>http://www.defendthefamily.com/_docs/resources/6390601.pdf</ref> reports that Harvard homosexual Toby Morotta, PhD, stated that in the 1970s, members of the Gay Activists Alliance - who were trained in the “zapping" of any who rebuffed homosexuality.<ref> Toby Marotta: THE POLITICS OF HOMOSEXUALITY: HOW LESBIANS AND GAY MEN HAVE MADE THEMSELVES A POLITICAL AND SOCIAL FORCE IN MODERN AMERICA, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1981 at 319</ref> And that these formed the “Gay Academic Union,” (GAU) which was made up of faculty and students in major universities. She states that the GAU has long fought for domination of its worldview within the academic community, and professional journals commonly assigned GAU and other homosexual peer reviewers to research touching on homosexuality, generally resulting in a quick death to possible unfavorable findings. <ref>See extensive reports in regular NARTH Bulletins as well as Ray Johnson, “American Psychology: The Political Science, at 53-57.</ref>

This and the general agenda is seen to be overall implementing a marketing strategy explained in a book called ''After the Ball,'' by [[gay rights]] activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen in the late 1980s, in which a six-point plan was set forth as to how they could transform the beliefs of ordinary Americans with regard to homosexual behavior in a decade-long time frame:
:"The agenda of homosexual activists is basically to change America from what they perceive as looking down on homosexual behavior, to the affirmation of and societal acceptance of homosexual behavior." <ref name="Winn07252003">''After the Ball'' (1989), quoted from Winn, Pete (7-25-2003) [ ''Q&A: The Homosexual Agenda''] Citizenlink</ref> "Thus propagandistic advertising can depict all opponents of the gay movement as homophobic bigots who are 'not Christian' and the propaganda can further show them [homosexuals]] as being criticized, hated and shunned..."<ref>After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's, by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen (Author) (p. 152-153)</ref>

[[Focus on the Family]] provides additional quotes from After the Ball, outlining key points of the homosexual agenda:<ref name="Winn07252003"/><ref>Kirk, Marshall K. and Erastes Pill (11-1987) ''The Overhauling of Straight America'' Available at [http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/overhauling.htm ''STRATEGIES OF THE HOMOSEXUAL MOVEMENT: "The Overhauling of Straight America"'']</ref>

#"Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible."
#"Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers."
#"Give homosexual protectors a just cause."
#"Make gays look good."
#"Make the victimizers look bad."
#"Get funds from corporate America."

[[United States Supreme Court]] Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] wrote:
{{cquote|Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.<ref>[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-102#dissent1 ''LAWRENCE et al. v. TEXAS''] at findlaw.com</ref>}}

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vic_Eliason Vic Eliason] of [http://www.crosstalkamerica.com Crosstalk America] rightly points out that if all Americans turned homosexual it would only take a few generations for the United States to lose most of the population of the country through lack of procreation. This would make the US more vulnerable to attack by our enemies.

== Specific goals ==

The goals of the homosexual movement include:

#Destroying Christian morals
#*Changing the definition of marriage, even if doing so infringes on the religious rights of Christians not to recognize it as anything other than sin <ref>www.massresistance.org, Homosexuals begin campaign of terror over Prop 8 loss]</ref>
#*Dilute the clear message of the [[Bible]] that [[homosexuality]] is a sin and an abomination unto [[God]].
#Promote pseudoscience that legitimizes homosexuality, such as claims of a never-identified gay gene<ref>[http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/satinover.html The Gay Gene?
by Jeffrey Satinover, M.D.]</ref>
#*Censoring evidence that the "gay gene" is a hoax<ref>[http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/08a/born_gay_hoax/smith_0329/index.html ''Lesbian activists at Smith College riot, shut down Ryan Sorba speech on "The Born Gay Hoax" as police watch. See exclusive videos.''] Mass Resistance</ref>
#Censoring speech against homosexuality by branding it to possibly be "hate-speech"<ref>[http://www.silencingchristians.com Video:Silencing Christians]</ref><ref>[http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2009/06/homosexuality-its-crime-in-england-to.html Homosexuality: It’s a Crime in England to State Christian Views]</ref><ref>[http://www.ccfon.org/view.php?id=745 Bishops fight for right to criticise homosexual lifestyle, 25th May 2009]</ref>
#*Censoring biblical statements condemning homosexuality<ref>White, Hilary (04-21-2006) [http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/apr/06042105.html ''Court Upholds School Ban on "Homosexuality is Shameful" T-Shirt''] LifeSiteNews.com</ref>
#Establishing affirmative action for homosexuals<ref>The Crimson Staff (10-13-2006) [http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=514950 ''A Box of Their Own?''] (opinion) The Crimson</ref><ref>www.afa.net, Homosexual Agenda Platforms from 1972 - 2000</ref>
#Expand hate crimes legislation to include sexual orientation<ref>Pelosi, Nancy Office of (09-28-2004) [http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases/Sept04/HateCrimes092804.html ''Pelosi: "Hate Crimes Prevention Legislation is Right Thing to Do, Long Overdue"''] From the office of Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi</ref>
#Ending the military's and Boy Scout's restrictions on homosexuality<ref>''Boy Scouts of Am. v. Dale'', 530 U.S. 640 (2000) (Boy Scouts); "Matlovich v. Secretary of the Air Force (591 F.2d 852, DC Circ. 1 978) (military)</ref>
#Stopping children as young as 5 years old from attending therapy to repair their sexual preference<ref>[http://www.thetaskforce.org/reports_and_research/youth_in_the_crosshairs National Gay and Lesbian Task Force:Youth in the Crosshairs]</ref>
#Promote homosexuality in schools<ref>[[Morrison v. Board of Education]]</ref>
#*In places like Massachusetts and California, where the gay lobby is the strongest, it starts as early as pre-school. They tell seven- or eight-year-old boys, "If you only like boys, there's a chance you may be homosexual," or "If you only like girls, maybe you are lesbian." Well, at that age, all members of the opposite sex "have cooties."
#*You're planting a seed that can totally mess up the normal development process later, when at 12 or 14, kids enter the age of sexual confusion and discovering the opposite sex. <ref>[http://www.citizenlink.org/CLFeatures/A000000562.cfm CitizenLink: QA: The Homosexual Agenda]</ref>
#Force businesses to accommodate their lifestyle<ref>[http://www.thetaskforce.org/issues/nondiscrimination/ENDA_main_page Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) | National Gay and Lesbian Task Force</ref>
#*Suing an online dating website for discrimination<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,454904,00.html Fox News - eHarmony to Provide Gay Dating Service after Lawsuit]</ref>
#Undermining the [[Essay:Quantifying_Mental_Strength|resolve]] of [[Homosexuality_and_choice#Choice_and_Genetics|latent homosexuals]] so that their will becomes too weak to resist the temptations of homosexuality<ref>http://www.thetaskforce.org/activist_center/resources_and_tools/challenge_exgay</ref>
#Pushing for legalized adoption by gay individuals and couples<ref>http://www.thetaskforce.org/issues/parenting_and_family</ref>

The state-by-state push for same-sex marriage can be viewed as a means to the above goals, or a goal in itself.<ref>[[Lewis v. Harris]]</ref> An example of this would be the recent New Hampshire law that makes same-sex civil unions legal<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/06/01/new_hampshire_law_makes_same_sex_civil_unions_legal/</ref>

Although notable gains toward achieving its goals continue to be manifest, homosexual activists have recent been expressing a high level of and dissatisfaction against the Obama administration. Commenting on such, Massresistance.org, an organization which opposes the homosexual agenda in [[Massachusetts]], noted that the President has,

*signed an order extending federal benefits to same-sex partners;

*pushed an extreme hate crimes bill in Congress;

*declared his intention to repeal the Defense of Marriage,

*pushed a pro-homosexual and transgender version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

*appointed radical homosexual activists to high level positions, including Harry Knox, of the homosexual lobby group Human Rights Campaign, and Kevin Jennings, founder of the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network (GLSEN), which targets kids in the public schools.

*declared February to be "Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month."

*ordered the State Department to allow gay couples to use their married names (from marriages or civil unions) on US passports.<ref>update@massresistance.org 6/24/2009 11:56 PM</ref>

=== Strategies and psychological tactics ===

Homosexual activists are often seen as engaging in [[homosexual logic|specious argumentation]], such as attempts to controvert the consistent teaching of the Bible on homosexual relations, (see [[homosexuality and biblical interpretation]]) and using false analogies, in order to gain acceptance of homosexuality. One common argument used by homosexual activists seeks to compare their quest for equal rights to that of others.<ref>Miner, Homosexuality, Civil Rights, and the Church</ref> This argument is countered by the observation that blacks were able to peacefully argue that mankind should not be "judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character"<ref>[http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm, Speech by Martin Luther King Jr.]</ref>, as the former yields no certain moral distinction. In contrast, homosexual activists are seen to seek acceptance of an immoral practice(s), and in addition, to overall engage in certain coercive and manipulative means to do so. This is evidenced to include the use of a demonstrative manner of protests, which appear to be designed to censure and intimidate those who oppose them in any way.<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/socialsciences/sellinghomosexuality.html</ref><ref>http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm</ref><ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=89526</ref><ref>http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/08c/Prop8/church_attacks.html</ref><ref>http://rebuildtheparty.ning.com/video/exodus-protest-park-street</ref><ref>http://theway2k.vox.com/library/post/homosexuals-persecuting-christians-and-mormons.html</ref><ref>http://www.hamiltonsquare.net/articlesRiotsSep1993.htm</ref><ref>http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/may/08050205.html</ref><ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=95296</ref><ref>Muehlenberg, Bill, [http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2009/06/04/another-nail-in-the-christian-coffin/ Another Nail in the Christian Coffin], [[4 June]] [[2009]]</ref><ref>[http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/09a/feder_0311/index.html Loud homosexual activists disrupt and halt Don Feder speech at UMass Amherst, despite police presence"]</ref> In addition, one pro-homosexual commentator recently took the homosexual community to task for being racist in their practice of homosexuality.<ref>LZ Granderson, ''Commentary: Gay is not the new black'', Cable News Network,July 16, 2009</ref>

While not all homosexuals agree with the use of deceptive psychological tactics, these have been promoted by leading homosexual activists. The aforementioned book, ''After the Ball'', is widely regarded as the handbook for the gay agenda, in which Harvard trained marketing experts and social scientists Marshall Kirk (1957 - 2005) and Hunter Madsen advocated avoiding portraying gays as aggressive challengers, but as victims, while making those who opposed them as evil persecutors. As a means of the latter, they promoted jamming, in which Christians, traditionalists, or anyone else who opposes the gay agenda are publicly smeared. In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector ... The purpose of victim imagery is to make straights feel very uncomfortable, they suggested.

Jam homophobia (i.e., disagreement with homosexual behaviors) by linking it to Nazi horror, was the strategy of Kirk and Madsen. Associate all who oppose homosexuality with images of Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered, hysterical backwoods preachers, menacing punks, and a tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed. Thus, "propagandistic advertisement can depict homophobic and homohating bigots as crude loudmouths..."<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/socialsciences/sellinghomosexuality.html http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm </ref>

Kirk and Madsen's open admission of their deceptive tactics is noted as most revealing: [O]ur effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof. "...the person's beliefs can be altered whether he is conscious of the attack or not"<ref>After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s, p. 152-153 (1989, Doubleday/Bantam)</ref> “The campaign we outline in this book, though complex, depends centrally upon a program of unabashed propaganda, firmly grounded in long-established principles of psychology and advertising.”<ref>Kirk and Madsen, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of the Gay’s in the 90s, p.xxvi</ref><ref>[http://banap.net/ Behavior and Not a Person]</ref>

Similarly, author Robert Bauman additionally records, It makes no difference that the ads are lies . . . because were using them to ethically good effect, to counter negative stereotypes that are every bit as much lies, and far more wicked ones. <ref>The Gentleman from Maryland: The Conscience of a gay Conservative, by Robert Bauman, 1986, page 163.</ref>

The need for Kirk and Madsen to engage in such manipulation may be seen as being due to their sober realization of the nature of the homosexual lifestyle.

“In short, the gay lifestyle - if such a chaos can, after all, legitimately be called a lifestyle - it just doesn’t work: it doesn’t serve the two functions for which all social framework evolve: to constrain people’s natural impulses to behave badly and to meet their natural needs. While it’s impossible to provide an exhaustive analytic list of all the root causes and aggravants of this failure, we can asseverate at least some of the major causes. Many have been dissected, above, as elements of the Ten Misbehaviors; it only remains to discuss the failure of the gay community to provide a viable alternative to the heterosexual family.”<ref>Kirk and Madsen, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of the Gay’s in the 90s, p.363</ref>

Marshall Kirk died in 2005 at the age of 48. The cause of death has not been publicly revealed.

Often cited as an early example form of such tactics was the role of homosexual activists in persuading the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders (DSM-II). Dr. Ronald Bayer, though being himself a pro-homosexual psychiatrist, described this removal as being the result of power politics, threats, and intimidation, rather than any new scientific discoveries.<ref>[http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/eleven.php Exposed: The Myth That Psychiatry Has Proven That Homosexual Behavior Is Normal]</ref> In so doing, like slavery before it, the homosexual agenda is seen to threaten basic freedoms, principally the First Amendment.<ref>Adams, Guy (11-8-2008) [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/mormon-stars-face-backlash-after-gay-marriage-ban-1003967.html ''Mormon stars face backlash after gay marriage ban''] The Independent</ref>

The charge of "[[homophobia]]" has also been increasingly evidenced as being part of a means of intimidation used in promoting the homosexual agenda. Due to what homophobia has been made to denote, that of being a repressed homosexual, or possessing an irrational fear of being approached by homosexuals, or of being a bigot persecuting victims, the widespread use of the term "homophobic" attaches a powerful stigma to anyone who may even conscientiously oppose the practice of homosexuality, thus silencing many who might otherwise object to it.<ref>[http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/1995papers/socarides.html Thought Reform And The Psychology of Homosexual Advocacy
Charles W. Socarides, M.D.]</ref>

In relation to such oppression, psychologist Nicholas Cummings, former president of the American Psychological Association (APA), observed, "Homophobia as intimidation is one of the most pervasive techniques used to silence anyone who would disagree with the gay activist agenda." As an example of such fear within the APA, in addressing 100 fellow professionals Cummings related that while writing "Destructive Trends in Mental Health," with psychologist Rogers Wright, a number of fellow psychologists were invited to participate. However, these flatly turned them down, as they feared loss of tenure, loss of promotion, and other forms of professional retaliation. "We were bombarded by horror stories," Dr. Cummings said. "Their greatest fear was of the gay lobby, which is very strong in the APA.<ref>[Psychology Losing Scientific Credibility, Say APA Insiders http://www.narth.com/docs/insiders.html]</ref>

Noted homosexual activist and pornographer Clinton Fein, in his article, The Gay Agenda stated, Homophobic inclinations alone, even without any actions, should be criminal and punishable to the full extent of the law.

Erik Holland, author of "The Nature of Homosexuality," perceives that homosexuals have become so reckless in labeling others homophobic that "anyone who questions their labeling someone a homophobe himself. Even quoting factual statistics about the connection between homosexuality and AIDS is allegedly homophobic." In addition, according to pro homosexual author Vernon A Wall, "even acceptance of homosexuality can be seen as a form of homophobia, because to talk about the acceptance of homosexuality is to imply that there is something about homosexuality that needs acceptance."<ref>http://www.homosexinfo.org/Homophobia/HomePage</ref>

It may be speculated that if the liberal use of the term homophobia is not primarily a psychological tactic, then it indicates a psychological condition on the part of those who use it, in which they imagine that those who oppose them are fearful of them, or of being one.

===Influence in the Academic World===

Professor Jerry Z. Muller described in an article titled, "First Things" (Aug/Sept. 1993), how the homosexual lobby has gained widespread acceptance in the educational realm.

[Their] strategy has been remarkably successful. With a rapidity largely attributable in large part to a total lack of articulate resistance, homosexual ideology has gained an unquestioned and uncontested legitimacy in American academic life. Within the academy, as within nonacademic elite culture, the definition of opposite to homosexuality as "homophobia - a definition which implies that it is impossible to give good reasons for the cultural disapproval of homosexuality - is the best evidence of the success of this strategy.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=cbfVg_1qhe0C&pg=PP1&lpg=PP1&dq=David+W.+Virtue+scots+college&source=bl&ots=aDW7a615Gn&sig=Y1cLsx5sCQTgUUDJ88b5AKPRkNg&hl=en&ei=8skISpP1AcGktgfi2PzsCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPR14,M1 Homosexuality, by F. Earle Fox, David W. Virtue, p. 12]</ref>

== Opposing Christian Agenda ==

Liberals are critical of Christian groups that oppose homosexuality. These criticisms include Christian activities of:

*Soliciting donations
*Encouraging email activism
*Producing and disseminating gay reform information
*Influencing local media in what stories they produce
*Lobbying local, state and federal government officials to vote in the desired way on pending legislation<ref>[http://www.cwfa.org/about.asp Concerned Women For America] About page</ref>
*Calling anyone who opposes or even questions the homosexual agenda a 'bigot' or other untrue insults.

==Opponents of the Homosexual Agenda ==
Some well known individuals/groups in the [[United States]] who actively oppose the homosexual agenda are: [[Focus on the Family]], [[Peter LaBarbera]]'s American's for Truth, the [[Traditional Values Coalition]] ([[Louis Sheldon]] is a chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition), and [[Matt Barber]] of [[Concerned Women of America]].

==Further reading==
*[http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/lively.html Homosexuality and the Nazi Party] by Scott Lively. Excellent discussion of the anti-Christian and homosexual origins of the Nazism.
*[http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/BPCollectionNews.asp?ID=131 2008 McDonald's and the Homosexual Agenda], Baptist Press
*[http://www.couplescompany.com/FEATURES/politics/2004/Selling%20Homosexuality.pdf Paul E. Rondeau, Selling homosexuality to America (PDF)] [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/730694/posts Or html form]

==See also==
*[[ACT-UP]]
*[[Anti-Defamation League]]
*[[Homosexual belief system]]
*[[Gay rights]]
*"[[Homophobia]]"
*[[Hate speech]], [[Hate crime]]
*[[Homosexual logic]], used to justify and promote the homosexual agenda
*[[Homosexuality]]
*[[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]]
*[[Intimate Partner Violence]]
*[[Homosexualization]]

== References ==

{{reflist|2}}

{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]
[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category: Liberal Deceit]]

Tea Party Movement

2011-08-04T17:51:21Z

MRellek: Undo revision 897334 by SusannahSS (talk)

The '''TEA Party Movement''' (TEA is a backronym for Taxed Enough Already) is an ongoing, nationwide mainstream movement of [[grassroots]] protesters, encompassing millions of individuals and thousands of self-organizing groups, all united in accomplishing a single goal: returning [[Conservative|fiscal responsibility]] and limited government to the [[United States]] through the exercise of political [[activist|activism]].<ref>[http://blog.heritage.org/2009/04/15/morning-bell-the-tea-party-movement/ Morning Bell: The Tea Party Movement], heritage.org, April 15th, 2009.</ref> The main focus of the TEA Party Movement is a rebuke of outrageous mandates, overspending and a [[radical]] agenda by an out of touch federal government with values similar to King George III (see [[Boston Tea Party]]).<ref>[[Glenn Beck]]. [http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/24073/ What the Tea Parties Are About], April 16, 2009.</ref> 

=== Beginnings ===
The birth of the Tea Party Movement is often mistakenly traced to February 2009; however, while [[Rick Santelli|Rick Santelli's]] famous impassioned speech on CNBC was perhaps the most visible spark that ignited Tea Party gatherings across the nation, the movement's genesis was in progress long before that notable day in early 2009.<ref>Tea Party Arose From Conservatives Steeped in Crisis. [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304173704575578332725182228.html Birth of a Movement], ''[[The Wall Street Journal]]'', October 29, 2010.</ref> One earlier manifestation of both the movement and the name occurred in the fall of 2007 when supporters of Ron Paul called for a "Tea Party 2007" to promote Paul's bid for the presidency and a return to limited federal government. It is likely the movement was in gestation for years, in the hearts and minds of American citizens concerned about the path down which [[progressive]] policies have been taking the United States of America, and its emergence has been called [[Main Street]] America's indictment against the ruling class.
<ref>Doug Mainwaring. [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/13/tea-partys-inception-a-rebirth/ MAINWARING: Tea Party's inception a rebirth], ''[[The Washington Times]]'', August 13, 2010.</ref> The rallies are promoted as protests of the [[generational theft]] of public tax monies, the tremendous extensions of United States Federal debt and authority, the apparent restructuring of the Federal government with the intent to contravene the system of checks and balances for which the [[United States Constitution|Constitution]] provides, and the attempt, which some movement leaders say has been in progress for several decades, to sacrifice [[liberty]] for permanent dependency.

The Tea Party Movement held its first scheduled nationwide protest on April 15, 2009, a day that became known as the [[Tax Day Tea Party]].<ref name="WSJ">[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123975867505519363.html Tax Day Becomes Protest Day], ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'', April 15, 2009.</ref><ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/15/thousands-anti-tax-tea-party-protesters-turn-cities/ Thousands of Anti-Tax 'Tea Party' Protesters Turn Out in U.S. Cities], FOXNews.com, April 15, 2009.</ref> In the spirit of the [[Founding Fathers]] [[Boston Tea Party]], the rallies have used themes from the [[American Revolution]] and also adopted the "American Tea Party Anthem," a song first performed during a March 21, 2009 Orlando, Florida Tea Party that drew over 4,000 people.<ref>Michelle Malkin. [http://michellemalkin.com/2009/02/21/tea-party-usa-the-movement-grows/ Tea Party U.S.A.: The movement grows], February 21, 2009.</ref><ref>[http://newsblaze.com/story/20090323074552zzzz.nb/topstory.html "Tea Party" Song Becomes YouTube Hit]. ''Newsblaze'', March 23, 2009.</ref><ref>Andrea Shea King. [http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/asking/2009/04/14/american-tea-party-anthem-singer-lloyd-marcus-this-whole-thing-is-rush-limbaughs-fault/ American Tea Party Anthem Singer Lloyd Marcus: "This whole thing is Rush Limbaugh’s fault."], ''Big Hollywood'', April 14, 2009.</ref> [[Dick Armey]] of [[FreedomWorks]] is one of Washington's principal supporters of the Tea Party movement.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,516136,00.html Dick Armey to Speak at Atlanta Tea Party], FOXNews.com, April 15, 2009.</ref> [[Glenn Beck]], [[Rand Paul]], [[Michele Bachmann]], [[Sarah Palin]], and many others have encouraged and participated in aspects of the movement.

Impetus was given to the movement when radio talk-show host [[Rush Limbaugh]] criticized the [[American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009]] on January 27, commenting, "This 'porkulus' bill is designed to repair the Democratic Party's power losses from the 1990s forward, and to cement the party's majority power for decades."<ref>Rush Limbaugh. [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123318906638926749.html Rush Limbaugh: My Bipartisan Stimulus], WSJ.com, January 29, 2009.</ref>

On February 9, a Cape Coral woman named Mary Rakovich led a small protest outside President Barack Obama's townhall meeting in Fort Myers, [[Florida]].<ref>[http://www.news-press.com/article/20090211/OBAMA/90210068 Those outside Harborside in Fort Myers had plenty to see, say], ''The News-Press'', February 11, 2009.</ref><ref>Dick Armey, Matt Kibbe. [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704407804575425061553154540.html?KEYWORDS=tea+party+movement A Tea Party Manifesto], ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'', August 17, 2010.</ref> Then in late March of 2009, faced with the prospect of heavy fines from the city for not having the proper permitting or insurance, Mary Rakovich moved forward with future protests but with the backing of national organization ''FreedomWorks''. Rakovich said ''FreedomWorks'' offered to provide the insurance per the city's rules.<ref>[http://www.cape-coral-daily-breeze.com/page/content.detail/id/504707.html?nav=5011 Tea party finds new life, broadens cause], cape-coral-daily-breeze.com, March, 31, 2009.</ref>

The first anti-spending protest, organized by Liberty Belle, occurred in [[Seattle]], Washington on February 16, 2009.<ref>Derek Erwin. [http://derekerwin.blogspot.com/2009/04/dozen-ring-liberty-belles-sound-800.html A 'Dozen' Ring Liberty Belle's Sound, 800 Cities Ring-Back], ''A 1-In-100 Blogger'', accessed April 18, 2009.</ref><ref>Michelle Malkin, Glenn Reynolds. [http://www.pjtv.com/video/Pajamas_TV/Tea_Party_Protests%3A_Mesa%2C_Seattle%2C_Denver_%28Michelle_Malkin_and_Glenn_Reynolds%29/1406/ Tea Party Protests: Mesa, Seattle, Denver], PJTV, February 16, 2009.</ref> Another protest was held the following day, held in [[Denver]] on February 17,<ref>[http://www.thedenverchannel.com/politics/18732002/detail.html President Signs Massive Stimulus In Denver], accessed April 2, 2009.</ref> and a protest in Mesa, [[Arizona]] on February 18 brought 500 protesters.<ref>Gary Grado, Sonu Munshi, Hayley Ringle. [http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/135640/ More than 500 protest Obama's arrival], accessed April 2, 2009.</ref>

===Shout Heard 'Round the World===
The Tea Party Movement gained support when on February 19, on live [[Television|TV]], [[CNBC]] reporter [[Rick Santelli]] argued about the [[bailout]]s and shouted, "The government is promoting bad behavior."<ref>[http://freedomeden.blogspot.com/2009/02/rick-santelli-tea-party.html Transcript of Rick Santelli's speech], February 19, 2009.</ref><ref>[http://www.cnbc.com/id/29283701 Rick Santelli's Shout Heard 'Round the World], CNBC.com, February 19, 2009.</ref> Standing in the middle of the Chicago Stock Exchange, Santelli declared that America needed "a new kind of tea party," so that citizens can express their discontent with "the government's support of fiscal irresponsibility."<ref>Jennifer Rubin. [http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/mr-president-turn-back-while-theres-still-time/ Mr. President: Turn Back While There’s Still Time], ''Pajamas Media'', February 20, 2009.</ref><ref>Matt Drudge. [http://www.streetinsider.com/Insiders+Blog/Rick+Santelli+-+The+Rant+Heard+Round+the+World/4419854.html Rick Santelli - The Rant Heard 'Round the World'], streetinsider.com, February 19, 2009.</ref><ref name=myfoxchicago>Andy Roesgen. [http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/TeaParty Protesters Gather for Self-Styled Tea Party], myfoxchicago.com, February 27, 2009.</ref> With the help of ''DontGo'', ''Top Conservatives on Twitter'' (TCOT), ''[[Smart Girl Politics]]'' (SGP), ''The American Spectator'', ''Americans for Tax Reform'', ''[[FreedomWorks]]'', and ''The Heartland Institute'', the Chicago Tea Parties were scheduled to happen nationwide on February 27, 2009.<ref>[http://www.dontgomovement.com/blog/2009/02/23/the-chicago-tea-party-is-on/ The Chicago Tea Party is on!], February 23, 2009.</ref>

==February 27th Tea Parties==
Americans across the country gathered in 50 cities to protest the newly-passed Stimulus Bill of 2009.<ref>[http://www.tcotreport.com/Talking_Points.htm Talking Points and Theme for the Nationwide Chicago Tea Party], ''[[The TCOT Report]]'', February 24, 2009.</ref> Over 30,000 people made it to this event.<ref>Teri Christoph. [http://smartgirlpolitics.ning.com/video/video/show?id=2488056%3AVideo%3A24070& SGP.TeaParty], ''[[Smart Girl Politics]]'', February 27, 2009.</ref> Many at the event were upset over the economic stimulus packages and [[bailout]]s for [[Wall Street]] pushed through by both [[George W. Bush|President Bush]] and President Obama's administrations.<ref>[http://www.raleigh3.com/default.asp?sdetail=1849&sc=2724 Raleigh Holds 'Tea Party' To Protest Government], ''Raleigh Telegram'', March 25, 2009.</ref><ref name=myfoxchicago/>

{| class="wikitable" border="1"
|- style="background:#ccc; text-align:center;"
! Location !! Sponsors<ref>[http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=page&page-id=68 Schedule of American Tea party Protests (with Sponsors)], February 27, 2009.</ref> !! Details
|-
| Atlanta, Georgia || TCOT, SGP, Don'tGo || A reported 300 to 400 protesters gathered outside the Georgia Capitol in protest of a $787 billion recovery bill.<ref name="georgia">[http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/02/27/budget-debate-launches-new-tea-party/ Budget debate launches new tea party], February 27, 2009.</ref><ref>[http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/71521/ Tea Party from Atlanta], pajamasmedia.com, February 17, 2009.</ref>
|-
| [[Chicago, Illinois]] || Don'tGo<ref>[http://www.dontgomovement.com/blog/2009/02/19/chicago-tea-party/ Don'tGo Movement: Pledge to Have a Representation at Chicago Tea Party], February 19, 2009.</ref> || Approximately 300 people braved the 25 degree cold and wind in Chicago.<ref name="illinios">[http://www.foundingbloggers.com/wordpress/2009/02/breaking-chicago-tea-party-pictures/ BREAKING - Chicago Tea Party (Pictures) UPDATED Now With Video!], February 27, 2009.</ref><ref>[http://www.dontgomovement.com/blog/2009/02/27/the-birth-of-a-new-revolution/ The Birth of a New Revolution], February 27, 2009.</ref><ref name=myfoxchicago/>
|-
| Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas || Americans for Prosperity,<ref>[http://www.redcounty.com/texas/2009/02/the-tea-parties-were-successfu/ The Tea Parties were successful - here's the proof], February 23, 2009.</ref> TCOT, SGP, Don'tGo, Dallas County Young Republicans || A "Texas-sized Tea Party" of 300 or more Texans met in Fort Worth, protesting big government and taxes.<ref name="fortworth">[http://txtcot.ning.com/video/tea-party-09-made-the-world Tea Party '09 made the world news], February 27, 2009.</ref> One sponsor, TCOT, collected over 800 signatures during the event.<ref>[http://txtcot.ning.com/profiles/blogs/tea-party-09 Tea Party '09], February 28, 2009.</ref>
|-
| Denver, Colorado || TCOT, SGP, Don'tGo || At the East Capitol Steps, 100 "[[Atlas Shrugged]]" fans braved cold temperatures for a "Nationwide Chicago Tea Party" to protest the [[Obama Administration]]'s [[bailout]] plan.<ref name="dcolorado1">[http://coloradoindependent.com/23026/ayn-rand-stars-at-denver-stimulus-tea-party-protest Ayn Rand stars at Denver stimulus ‘tea party’ protest], ''Colorado Independent'', February 28, 2009.</ref><ref name="dcolorado2">[http://colorado.newsplatoon.com/2009/02/24/denver-tea-party/ Denver Tea Party], [[Colorado]], February 24, 2009.</ref>
|-
| [[Houston, Texas]] || TBD || Large groups, not entirely made up of Republicans, tried to create a modern day version of the Boston Tea Party.<ref>[http://houstontps.org/?page_id=163 Houston Tea Party Society, In the News, Audio, Video], February 27, 2009.</ref><ref>[http://www.khou.com/video/topstories-index.html?nvid=352345&shu=1 Houston's Tax Day tea party], February 27, 2009.</ref>
|-
| [[Washington, D.C.]] || Americans for Prosperity, Americans for Tax Reform, Young Conservatives Coalition, The Heartland Institute || The American Tea Party made some noise outside the White House.<ref name="dc_examiner">[http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/New-American-Tea-Party-40442172.html DC Tea Party thrown at the White House], ''The Washington Examiner'', February 27, 2009.</ref><ref>[http://www.freedomworks.org/petition/iamwithrick/index.html 2009 Taxpayer Tea party], February 28, 2009.</ref> Several hundred taxpayers showed up at the DC Tea Party protest in Lafayette Park,<ref name="michellemalkin">[[Michelle Malkin]]. [http://michellemalkin.com/2009/02/27/scenes-from-the-tea-party/ Scenes from the D.C. Tea Party], February 27, 2009.</ref><ref name="dcfreedomworks">[http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/bstein80/video-from-the-dc-tea-party Video from the DC Tea Party], ''[[FreedomWorks]]'', February 28, 2009.</ref> including "Joe the Plumber."<ref name="hotair">[http://hotair.com/archives/2009/02/27/joe-the-plumber-at-dc-tea-party-no-one-on-the-hill-gives-a-rip-about-you/ Joe the Plumber at D.C. Tea Party: No one on the Hill gives a rip about you], ''[[Hot Air]]'', February 27, 2009.</ref>
|}

== Scheduled Rallies ==
[[Image:Headnew.jpg|right|380px|right|Tax Day Tea Party poster]]
=== Tax Day Tea Party ===
: ''Main Article: [[Tax Day Tea Party]]''

==== 2009 ====
Success from the Chicago Tea Parties on February 27, as part of a concerted nationwide effort, led to the Tax Day Tea Party rallies held on April 15, 2009. Following the Chicago Tea Party protests, a group called ''Americans for Prosperity'' of [[North Carolina]] began implementing plans for a "Tax Day" Tea Party rally in Raleigh on the tax filing deadline.<ref>[http://www.raleigh3.com/default.asp?sdetail=1849&sc=2724 Raleigh Holds 'Tea Party' To Protest Government], ''Raleigh Telegram'', March 25, 2009.</ref> Leading up to the Tax Day Tea Parties, the events were organized and promoted by volunteers, activists, and [[Political action committee]]s across the [[United States]].<ref>http://www.freedomworks.org/press-releases/freedomworks-co-sponsoring-taxpayer-tea-parties-ac</ref> By taking advantage of online viral [[marketing]] to get the word out,<ref name="investorsnews">[http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=470054&Ntt=tea+party 'Tea Party' Protests In 35 Cities], March 2, 2009.</ref> the speed and scope with which the Tax Day Tea Party protests were organized can be attributed to the use of [[Twitter]] [[TCOT Report|#TCOT feeds]],<ref>[http://tcotreport.com/ TCOT Report], ''[[The TCOT Report]]''.</ref> on [[blog|blogs]],<ref>Marc Ambinder. [http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/02/tea_parties_pajamas_and_mediaevent_symbiotics.php Tea Parties, Pajamas, and Media/Event Symbiotics], ''The Atlantic'', February 25, 2009.</ref> and the social networking [[Web site]] [[Facebook]].<ref name="facebook">[http://michellemalkin.com/2009/03/04/going-galt-and-the-next-tea-party-wave/ “Going Galt” and the next Tea Party wave], [[Michelle Malkin]], March 4, 2009.</ref>

President Obama is seen to have responded to the tea parties with requested budget cuts of $100 million on April 20, 2009.<ref name="rushlimbaugh">[[Rush Limbaugh]]. [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_042109/content/01125107.guest.html Obama Responded to Tea Parties with $100 Million in "Budget Cuts"], RushLimbaugh.com, April 21, 2009.</ref> Rush Limbaugh contended, "I'm sure they've got internal polling data that shows these tea parties are successful and these tea parties are a problem. So they're responding to the tea parties here. That's all this is." According to a Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey on April 20, 2009, the poll found that fifty-one percent (51%) of Americans had a favorable view of the tea parties held nationwide, including 32% who said their view of the events were "Very favorable." Thirty-three percent (33%) held an unfavorable opinion of the tea parties. Fifteen percent (15%) were not sure.<ref name="rasmussenreports">[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics2/51_view_tea_parties_favorably_political_class_strongly_disagrees 51% View Tea Parties Favorably, Political Class Strongly Disagrees], ''Rasmussen Reports'', April 20, 2009.</ref>

==== 2010 ====
The Tea Party Patriots<ref>http://www.TeaPartyPatriots.org</ref> announced a milestone in the Tea Party movement: 2 million people attended the April 15 Tea Party events across the country in 2010, and 2,000 groups are now voluntarily affiliated with the Tea Party Patriots through its [[Web site]].<ref>PR Newswire. [http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=xprnw.20100429.DC96062&show_article=1 Tea Party Numbers Released: 2 Million, 2 Thousand], ''Breitbart'', April 29, 2010.</ref><ref>Greta Van Susteren. [http://gretawire.blogs.foxnews.com/tea-parties-on-tax-day/ Tea Parties on Tax Day], ''GretaWire'', April 16, 2010.</ref> Recent polls have shown that 48% of voters believe their views are reflected more closely in the values of the Tea Party movement than in the views of President Obama.

=== Independence Day ===
: ''Main Article: [[Independence Day Tea Party]]''

The same organizations decided to repeat their performance on [[Independence Day]] (July 4, 2009). Even more people attended; the largest such rally was held on the grounds of the Southfork Ranch (scene of the [[television]] series ''Dallas '), in [[Plano]], [[Texas]], which drew 37,000 attendees. The themes that organizers and participants sounded at these events were much the same as were those at the Tax Day events: advocacy of limited government, decrying of high levels of taxation, and refusal to countenance plans for [[socialism]] and especially socialized [[medicine]].

=== Labor Day ===
Several organizations also organized Tea Parties on [[Labor Day]], once again sounding the same limited-government, low-tax, and anti-socialistic themes. Those organizations that did not plan such events often referred people to those that did.

=== September 12 March on Washington ===
: ''Main Article: [[September 12 March on Washington]]''

[[File:Gadsden_snake.jpg|250px|right]]The largest TEA Party event thus far has been the September 12 March on [[Washington, DC]]. This was an event organized initially by the FreedomWorks Foundation, but nearly all Tea Party organizations decided to participate in this event, primarily by chartering buses and registering people for transportation to Washington. FreedomWorks estimates that 600,000 to 800,000 persons attended, and they base that estimate on the number of persons who responded when their Master of Ceremonies asked all attendees within earshot to send the text message "Freedom" to a designated five-digit telephone number. However, the [[London]] ''Daily Mail'' estimates attendance at as many as a million persons, on the basis of eyewitness accounts and aerial-photographic evidence.<ref name=dailymail>Gardner D, "[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1213056/Up-million-march-US-Capitol-protest-Obamas-spending-tea-party-demonstration.html A million march to US Capitol to protest against 'Obama the socialist']," ''The London Daily Mail'', September 14, 2009. Accessed September 16, 2009.</ref> Estimates of total attendance are difficult to obtain, primarily because the size of the crowd far exceeded the estimates by the event planners, with the result that many attendees were never able to get within earshot of the stage or even the sound system, and the temporary sanitary facilities were hopelessly jammed, with fifty persons standing in line to use each portable "necessary."

=== Operation: Can You Hear us Now? ===
TEA party demonstrations have targeted local and national media outs across the country to oppose massive government spending. In a press release, the movement was led by FaxDC in about 100 cities across the U.S. on September 17th. <ref>[http://www.lookingattheleft.com/2009/10/tea-party-movement-denounces-media-corrupton/ Tea Party Movement Denounces Media Corruption], Lookingattheleft.com, October 19, 2009.</ref> [[Rush Limbaugh]] has previously spoke for the need for such media targeted TEA protests.

* NBC studios in Burbank
* CNN in Atlanta and
* Affiliate stations of NBC, ABC and CBS
* The New York Times
* Los Angeles Times
* Other prominent newspapers.
[[File:Canyouhearusnow.jpg|350px]]

===TEA Party Movie===
''TEA PARTY: The Documentary Film'' was released Thanksgiving Day 2009, is a documentary of five grassroots activists. The story line ''"from home town rally goers and rally organizers to national activists taking part in the 912 Taxpayer March on Washington."'' The theme is about principles, a call for a return to constitutionally limited government, personal responsibility, and fiscal restraint at the Federal level. [http://www.teapartymovie.com/ TEA Party the Movie]

===Pink Slips Campaign===

''Main Article: [[Pink Slips campaign]]''

Organized in part by Joseph Farah from [[WorldNetDaily]], they had a goal of sending each and every member of Congress more than 5,000,000 pink slips.
 
Each pink slip reads '''YOU ARE BEING PUT ON NOTICE''' and

*government health care
*cap and trade
*"hate crimes"
*any more spending

''"If you vote for any of these, your real pink slip will be issued in the next election"''

As of November 2009, 8 million pink slips have been sent to Congress at a cost of $29 each <ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=117136 True grass-roots effort? The 'pink slips' campaign, WND.com, November 25, 2009]</ref>

== Noteworthy achievements ==
=== Elections ===
* The first Tea Party activist to win a special election for a state assembly seat was [[Dean Murray]] in Long Island.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,586821,00.html Meet the First Tea Party Activist to Be Elected Into Office], ''[[Fox News]]'', February 19, 2010.</ref>
* The most stunning victory credited to the Tea Party Movement, specifically to the [[Tea Party Express]], was the surprise nomination of [[Sharron Angle]] over the establishment favorite [[Sue Lowden]] as the Republican candidate for the Senate seat of [[Nevada]].
* The Tea Party Movement is credited with helping to elect [[Senator]] [[Scott Brown]] in an upset for the seat formerly held by the late [[Ted Kennedy]].
* For the [[2010 Midterm Elections]], the [[Nationwide Tea Party Coalition]] endorsed 50 candidates running for U.S. House of Representatives; 31 of 50 Tea Party challengers won their elections.<ref>[http://www.electiondayteaparty.com/ Election Day Tea Party 2010], ElectionDayTeaParty.com, a project of the [[Nationwide Tea Party Coalition]].</ref>

=== Education ===
* The Tea Party Movement has exposed the [[progressive]] agenda and its significant correlation with the failings of higher education in America.<ref>''Our universities haven't taught much political history for decades. No wonder so many progressives have disdain for the principles that animated the Federalist debates.'' [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704631504575531913602803980.html Why Liberals Don't Get the Tea Party Movement], by Peter Berkowitz, ''[[The Wall Street Journal]]'', October 16, 2010.</ref> {{Cquote|Neither [[professors]] of [[political science]] nor of [[history]] have made a priority of instructing students in the [[Founding Fathers|founding principles]] of American [[Constitutional Republic|constitutional government]]. Nor have they taught about the contest between the [[Socialism|progressive vision]] and the [[Limited government|conservative vision]] that has characterized [[American Government Lecture Two|American politics]] since [[Woodrow Wilson]] helped launch the progressive movement in the late 19th century by arguing that the [[United States Constitution|Constitution]] had become [[obsolete]] and hindered [[democratic]] reform. ... They do little to teach about [[Federal republic|self-government]]. They certainly do not teach about the [[virtue|virtues]], or [[quality|qualities]] of [[mind]] and [[character]], that enable citizens to shoulder their political responsibilities and prosper amidst the opportunities and uncertainties that [[freedom]] brings. Nor do they teach the beliefs, practices and associations that foster such virtues and those that endanger them. ... [America's] [[University|universities]] have produced two [[Generation|generations]] of highly educated people who seem unable to recognize the spirited defense of fundamental [[American]] [[Principle|principles]], even when it takes place for more than a year and a half right in front of their noses.}}

== Themes ==
The Tea Party Movement began with a protest against two aspects of current public policy:

# Excessive taxation
# Special privilege

[[Rick Santelli]] specifically cited the mortgage [[bailout]] policies of early 2009 as a prize example of the government doing special favors for certain classes of voters, in return for their continued support, and also of the "moral hazard" in which such policies inevitably place anyone who "buys on time," i.e., buys any sort of asset, from a home appliance to a parcel of [[real estate]], using borrowed money.

As the movement has progressed, it has begun to sound broader themes, which one may best summarize as:

# Self-responsibility
# Self-autonomy
# Limited government
# A requirement that government live within its own means, just as individuals must live within theirs
# Capitalism
# Freedom of all varieties of production and trade
# Respect for the [[United States Constitution]]

== Characteristics ==
=== Autonomy of local organizers ===
Most organization of Tea Parties and similar events is local. Typical of the movement is the Morristown Tea Party Organization ([[Morristown]], [[New Jersey]]), which has a five-member board of trustees and about fifty dedicated volunteers who handle operations, communication, and logistics without assistance or direction from any regional or other organization. State-wide coordinating bodies do exist (for example, New Jersey Tea Parties United), but local organizations are responsible for most of their activities, fund-raising, and legal functioning. In this regard, the Tea Party Movement is similar to the Independent Baptist Fellowship of North America, which never seeks to dictate to individual churches how they must conduct their affairs.

=== Individual comportment and deportment ===
Event participants, and especially event planners, are urged to comport themselves in a manner respectful of the rights and feelings of others. Organizational leaders consciously endeavor to distinguish their movement from many [[liberal]] protest movements, which often characterize themselves by rude behavior, [[vandalism]], and even physical assaults against their opponents. Any person who persistently suggests that Tea Party Movement participants engage in activities remotely similar to this may usually consider themselves excluded, and in some cases organizers have summoned law-enforcement authorities to deal with provocative behavior by attendees at planning and other meetings.

=== Symbols ===
[[File:Gadsden_flag.png|200px|right]]By far the most prominent symbol at Tea Parties is the [[Gadsden Flag|Gadsden]] [[Rattlesnake (American symbol)|Rattlesnake Flag]].<ref>''Heraldric'': Or a rattlesnake sable and or coiled as to strike, facing sinister, on a bed of grass vert; motto "Don't Tread On Me"</ref><ref>[http://www.gadsden.info/Tea-Party.html Gadsden Flag at Tea Party Protests]</ref> The ''[[American historical flags|Come And Take It]]'' Flag has also appeared most notably at the September 12 March on Washington. Tea Party participants have almost always used home-made and home-decorated signs and other artifacts, in sharp contrast to the uniform, professionally printed signs carried at [[liberal]] demonstrations.

Most of the signs bear lampoons of the most highly publicized Obama Administration policies, from "Czars" to socialized medicine; moreover, Barack Obama is not the only target of criticism, the [[MSM]] has also been challenged in some rallies, both for their failings in covering the Tea Party Movement and also for what most participants regard as a collective decision by Mainstream Media organs to function as ''de facto'' government and/or [[Democratic Party]] as organs rather than the objective and disinterested commentators that they pretend to be.

Some of the signs that have been seen and photographed at these events have provoked cries of outrage from Tea Party Movement opponents, alleging bad taste, e.g. a picture of Barack Obama with the square mustache affected by [[Adolf Hitler]] and bearing the caption "I've Changed," and a sign bearing the message "Bury ObamaCare with [[Edward M. Kennedy|Kennedy]]." After the liberal Mainstream Media quickly blamed conservatives and even [[Rush Limbaugh]], some research was done to find the true source of the Hitler poster. It was later uncovered that the provocative Hitler signs were from a group of [[Leftist|far-left]] [[Lyndon LaRouche]] supporters, as they were infiltrating the Tea Party rallies as a means to spread their extreme visions.<ref>Seton Motley. [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/seton-motley/2009/08/12/nbc-cnn-msnbc-all-assign-communist-larouches-obama-hitler-poster-conse NBC, CNN and MSNBC All Assign Communist LaRouche's Obama-Hitler Poster to Conservatives, Limbaugh], ''NewsBusters'', August 12, 2009.</ref>

=== Demographic profile ===

A Quinnipiac Poll conducted in March 2010 found that thirteen percent of American voters say they are part of the Tea Party movement, a group containing more women than men. 49% told pollsters they voted for [[Barack Obama]] in 2008, while only 44% voted for [[John McCain]].<ref>[http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1436 Quinnipiac Poll, Question 50e, March 2010.]</ref> Despite these findings, the [[White House]] has been linked to efforts to label the Tea Party as [[racist]].<ref>http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/07/obama-administration-linked-to-fraudulent-racist-tea-party-video/</ref>

== News Coverage ==
[[File:MSMbyTEA.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Attitude of Tea Party Movement participants toward four MSM outlets]]

By far the most industrious news organization that has covered the Tea Party Movement is the [[Fox News Channel]], especially with commentators [[Neil Cavuto]], [[Glenn Beck]], [[Sean Hannity]] and [[Greta Van Susteren]]. Coverage of the Tea Party events by the [[Mainstream Media]] has lacked both quantity and quality. The three traditional broadcast networks ([[ABC]], [[CBS]], [[NBC]]) have attempted to falsely discredit these events as corporate-sponsored or sponsored by the [[Republican Party]] and other conservative or reactionary groups, and have generally censored the movement by refusing to cover major events.<ref name=baker>Baker B, "[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2009/04/16/abc-cbs-nbc-try-discredit-tea-party-protests ABC, CBS and NBC Try to Discredit 'Tea Party' Protests]," ''NewsBusters'', 16 April 2009. Accessed September 16, 2009. Baker does a side-by-side comparison of coverage of the Tax Day Tea Parties and of several pro-immigration rallies held on 1 May 2006.</ref><ref>[http://politics.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2010/08/25/tea-party-group-hit-with-death-threats Tea Party Group Hit With Death Threats] Supporters of the Tea Party Movement receive death threats from socialists and liberal extremists, but the [[MSM]] looks the other way and refuses mention the story.</ref>

===Uncivil Language===
Several news anchors working for [[CNN]] and [[MSNBC]] used uncivil language to describe Tea Partiers and coined the phrase "teabaggers," which is a crude term used to slur conservatives. Additionally, President Obama used the crude term as an off-color connotation attempting to mock Tea Party Movement leaders and participants across the nation. During an interview with the ''[[New York Times]]'', Barack Obama described the people of the Tea Party Movement as "the teabag, anti-government [extremists]."<ref>Michael Patrick Leahy. [http://www.tcotreport.com/obamaslur.html In Pep Talk to Democrats Yesterday, Obama Used Crude Term to Slur Conservatives], ''[[The TCOT Report]]'', November 8, 2009.</ref>

===Death Threats===
Tea Party organizers are not controlled or funded by the Republican Party or any established interest group. However, ''[[FreedomWorks]]'' and [[Dick Armey]] are well known supporters of the Tea Party Movement, and thus receive dozens of threatening and harassing calls and E-mails each day. ''FreedomWorks'' provided ''U.S. News & World Report'' with some of the recordings of the threatening calls, which include physical threats and profanity aimed at the group, Tea Party spokesmen and even [[conservative]] talkers. ''"You guys better watch it,"'' says one caller. ''"Now, we are going to destroy and obliterate [[Rush Limbaugh|Rush [Limbaugh]]] and [[Sean Hannity]],"'' said another. ''"Those two guys are dead."''<ref>Paul Bedard. [http://politics.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2010/08/25/tea-party-group-hit-with-death-threats Tea Party Group Hit With Death Threats], ''U.S. News & World Report'', August 25, 2010.</ref>

===Commentary===
[[Gordon Anderson]] wrote:
{{Cquote|Corruption and abuse of power seek to cloak themselves under the banner of security interests in order create elite ruling classes that are a threat to the security of those they are sworn to protect and the constitutions they are supposed to uphold. Citizens in both the United States and the European Union are witnessing the fruits of their lack of vigilance. This is a core underlying concern and reason for the rise of the “Tea Party” movement and its European counterparts. Such movements will continue arise as leaders of the so-called “free world” continue to violate the major principles of sound governance and hide corrupt actions under veils of secrecy.<ref>http://forum.newworldencyclopedia.org/index.php/2010/12/wikileaks-and-the-balance-of-political-principles/</ref>}}

===Polls===
In late 2009, the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed 41% of Americans have a positive view of the tea party movement, and 24% had a negative view . By contrast, only 35% of Americans have a positive view of the Democrats and only 28% have a positive view of the Republican Party.<ref> see [http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/12/16/wsjnbc-news-poll-tea-party-tops-democrats-and-republicans/ "WSJ/NBC News Poll: Tea Party Tops Democrats and Republicans," ''Wall Street Journal'' Dec. 16, 2009]</ref>

{{Conservatism}}

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

==See Also==
* [[Tax Day Tea Party]]
* [[Independence Day Tea Party]]
* [[9/12 March on Washington D.C.]]
* [[Boston Tea Party]]
* [[Tea Party Organizations]]
* [[Tea Party Express]]
* [[Tea Party Patriots]]
* [[Contract From America]]

==External Links==
* [http://www.nationalteapartyconvention.com/ National Tea Party Unity Convention], TEA Party Nation (TPN).
* [http://www.onlinetaxrevolt.com/march/ The Online Tax Revolt March], Choose an Avatar and March Online to Washington.
* [http://taxdayteaparty.com/ Tax Day Tea Party]
* [http://www.reteaparty.com/ America's Re-Tea Party]
* [http://www.teapartypatriots.org/ Tea Party Patriots]
* [http://www.foundingfathers.info/stories/gadsden.html Don't Tread on Me]: Gadsden Flag History.
* [http://ccsrwm.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/shared/docs/Berlet%20paper.pdf Demonizing the Tea Party Movement by Chip Barlett (Berkeley)] PDF

===Music Videos===
{{main|Tea Party Movement Videos}}

* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2H8xHFXC8U&feature=player_embedded American Tea Party Anthem], by Lloyd Marcus
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BT54cGEv7Nk I am America], by Krista Branch
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwvuimX2bjI&list=QL Rise Up], music by Jeremy Hoop from ''[http://www.teapartymovie.com/film.html The Tea Party Movie]''
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfH46DTAkxo When You're Holding a Hammer (Everything Looks Like a Nail)], by Kyle Hill and Bryan Glover
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3CIPnQUOK0 Tip of the Spear], music by Phil Cuomo and Phil Valentine from the motion picture ''[http://philvalentine.com/AnInconsistentTruth.htm An Inconsistent Truth]''
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wG38P92wQlc Don't tread on me], by the band ''[[Metallica]]'' ([http://www.sing365.com/music/Lyric.nsf/Don%27t-Tread-On-Me-lyrics-Metallica/1F9C85C5B25CB6FF4825688D0034190D Lyrics])

[[Category:Taxation]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:Tax Revolts]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]
[[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]
[[Category:Tea Party Movement]]

Talk:Atheism

2011-08-04T01:44:11Z

MRellek: /* Length of Page */

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">

==Attention atheists ==
Please provide proof and evidence that [[atheism]] is true. There is plenty of evidence for [[Christianity]] as can be seen [[Christian apologetics|HERE]] and [[Christian apologetics website resources|HERE]] and no evidence [[atheism]] is true as can be seen [[Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism|HERE]].

Then, please proceed [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian|HERE]].

</blockquote>

[[Talk:Atheism/archive1|Archive 1]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive2|Archive 2]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive3|Archive 3]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive4|Archive 4]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive5|Archive 5]] 
[[Talk:Atheism/archive6|Archive 6]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive7|Archive 7]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive8|Archive 8]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive9|Archive 9]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive10|Archive 10]] 
[[Talk:Atheism/archive11|Archive 11]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive12|Archive 12]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive13|Archive 13]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive14|Archive 14]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive15|Archive 15]] 
[[Talk:Atheism/archive16|Archive 16]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive17|Archive 17]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive18|Archive 18]]

{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
__TOC__
 

=='Attention atheists' message==
There is a mistake in the text of your message. You should ask atheists for proof and evidence (by the way, aren't "proof" and "evidence" synonyms?) that atheism is true, not false. But then again, I am not sure that "true" and "false", as adjectives, can apply very well to "atheism", so I'd rather change it to "Please provide evidence against the existence of God", or to "Please provide evidence that atheism is logically justifiable".
Also (but this is nitpicking), there is a full stop after the question mark.
Please don't get me wrong, I am a devout Christian and I am applaud your crusade against atheism, but I just had some minor issues about the FORM of your message :)
I did not correct the text of your message directly, because it is in a talk page, and not in a main page.
Best regards,
--[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 08:28, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::Someone had changed the message. I changed it back. [[User:Conservative|conservative]]

== Atheism and Racism, new evidence (from Wikipedia) ==

Sociologist Phil Zuckerman analyzed previous social science research on secularity and non-belief, and concluded that societal well-being is positively correlated with irreligion. His findings relating specifically to atheism include:

Compared to religious people, "atheists and secular people" are less nationalistic, prejudiced, antisemitic, racist, dogmatic, ethnocentric, close-minded, and authoritarian.

In the US, in states with the highest percentages of atheists, the murder rate is lower than average. In the most religious US states, the murder rate is higher than average.

http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Zuckerman_on_Atheism.pdf
:Zuckerman is a secular, that's the word Atheists use when they want to disguise their believes. Naturally an atheist says that societies are better off without religion, [[Atheism and Mass Murder| it's clear that this is not the case]]. Now pick up a history book and start educating yourself instead of believing atheist propaganda. --[[User:StevenAA|StevenAA]] 16:55, 8 July 2011 (EDT)

True, he is secular, but one is either secular or religious, and both sides have a stake in the argument - by your logic, no one can comment on the validity of statements regarding the characteristics of religious or non-religious people, since both a secular or non-secular commenter would want to slant the argument towards their point of view. What Zuckerman does do is lay out the results of previous studies, perform a meta-analysis, and draw reasonable conclusions from the results of his analysis. Mass murder (however sensational it is), does not speak to the question Zuckerman tries to answer with his study. I think a complete, non-biased discussion about the relationship between atheism and morality should include all of the studies that address the issue. After all, we should be teaching the controversy. --[[User:Stairmaster|Stairmaster]] 21:50, 8 July 2011 (EDT)

:Secularism is the attempt to take religion out of everything, as Atheism doesn't see itself as a religion - actively attacking all other religions - it is clear that secularization actually means atheismization. Atheism is a religion. Quoting some falsy famous Atheist leaders who I fail to remember now "Religion is believe despite evidence" - Atheist believe despite the evidence for Christianity, they believe despite the evidence that evolution is false, they believe despite the evidence that the big bang did not occure, and son on in thousands of cases. Atheism is a religion even by the standards atheists use. Atheism is bad for society because atheism leaves no reason not to be selfish, not to follow the path Darwin described so pseudoscientifically. Atheism is all that what immorality means. Why don't we see this you might ask. Because Atheists know that they can't behave this way in a society that has Christian roots. They would be kicked out, they would not be tolerated, every smile from an atheist towards a Christian is fake, every friendly gesture is a trick to make us think they are good people. They are not, they are deeply selfish people that trick innocent Christians, Jews and all other people that don't suppress the knownledge that they are religious, every time they are friendly into thinking that they are friendly.
:Christians can know the truth, because they know that Christianity is true their basis of thinking is not contaminated by what is false. No matter if Atheists knownlingly lie to us or are just too indoctrinated or too stupid to see the truth how wrong they are, we shoot look twice at everything they say. And if an Atheist claims that Atheism makes for a better society he does not only meassure with his own Atheist instruments of "equality" and "social equality" which is problematic but also is he biased in his perseption of how good it actually is. Of course he will think that such a society is "better" (aside that the murder rates also stem from the fact that Scandinavians have no temper, which Americans have) simply because he is not reminded all the time how awefully wrong he is. You are naturally free as a member of a totalitarian state if you are an adherent to that ideology, you simply will not notice any difference.
:I sincerely hope you learned something today. --[[User:StevenAA|StevenAA]] 13:38, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

::"...from the fact that Scandinavians have no temper, which Americans have..." Thanks for the chuckle. My grandfather and mother were Swedish, and believe me, they had a temper. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:00, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

Well, I certainly learned how to spell words in some interesting ways. Some sources for these lovely statements would be much appreciated, as I know Conservapedia prides itself on citations. In particular, "every smile from an atheist towards a Christian is fake, every friendly gesture is a trick to make us think they are good people". Also I'd like a fact check on the statement that "the murder rates also stem from the fact that Scandinavians have no temper, which Americans have", (which also doesn't answer the point I made comparing murder rates between different states in the US).

I'm also not going to respond to your claim about the "evidence that evolution is false", because there is much, much, much, much more evidence supporting the fact of evolution. However, this evidence will likely be ignored by those who want to believe in design, similar to the way the evidence in the article I posted beginning this discussion was ignored.

As far as indoctrination, based off the encounters I've had, it seems most atheists examine the facts and reach that position on their own. Similar to the way that babies make the conscious choice to be baptized or circumcised and become members of a certain religion.

Didn't Jesus talk a lot about equality and treating people equally? I don't think equality is solely an atheist trick, and I'm not sure how it is bad that equality is an "atheist instrument". A society with equality and low murder rates - what a horrible scenario. I know I'd definitely prefer one with high rates of crime and slavery.

--[[User:Stairmaster|Stairmaster]] 22:20, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

== "Weak" vs "Strong" atheism; ''Implicit'' vs ''Explicit'', etc. ==

I wanted to add something like this, but can't because the page is locked. If an admin thinks it is a good idea, please add it:
:Many atheists like to make a distinction between ''strong atheism'' and ''weak atheism''. They define ''strong atheism'' as believing God does not exist, while ''weak atheism'' as neither believing nor disbelieving. However, this usage is incorrect, and has been invented by atheists to boost their numbers. If you believe God does not exist, you are an atheist. If you neither believe nor disbelieve, you aren't an atheist, you are some kind of agnostic.
:Another distinction atheists like to propose is between ''implicit'' and ''explicit'' atheism. Explicit atheism means active conscious rejection of God's existence. "Implicit atheism" refers to having no belief in God, due to not being aware of the concept. Atheists use this to argue that "babies are atheists", again in order to boost their numbers. However, again, this is an abuse of terminology. "Implicit atheism" is not atheism. Babies, just because they haven't learnt the concept of "God" yet, are not atheists. To be an atheist, you must have encountered the idea of "God", and chosen to reject it. A baby isn't even an agnostic, since an agnostic has encountered the idea, and isn't personally sure whether it is right, or even thinks we'll never know if it is. A baby hasn't encountered the idea yet.
:Another specious atheist argument is "Christians are atheists about all Gods but one". But this ignores that ''god'' is used in two different ways. Little-g god, refers to a limited being, like the gods of mythology, with immense but not absolute power. It is possible for multiple such limited beings to exist. Capital-G God, refers to an omnipotent being, as conceived in religions such as Judaism and Christianity. It is impossible for there to exist more than one omnipotent being - what happens if two omnipotent beings have a disagreement? So, Zeus is not comparable to the Christian God, and the Christian's disbelief in Zeus is not a form of atheism.
What do people think? I think this is a good way to address some common atheist distortions. Of course, maybe it could be worded better, feel free to edit it if someone decides to... [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 16:50, 6 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I think we do a good enough job on the definition of atheism and we also link to [http://creation.com/atheism Creation Ministries International's atheism article] which goes into the implicit vs. explicit atheism issue. I think where Conservapedia could be stronger is the "[[Atheism is a religion]]" issue. Like this material: http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion except summarized and compact. Also, courts have called atheism a religion. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:41, 6 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Here is what Conservapedia has now: http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_is_a_religion Except for another topic I want to add later which I have referred to as the [[pièce de résistance]] I don't want the article to get much bigger as I believe it is a large article although it is an organized article that hits the main/common/interesting points that are or can be raised about this topic. I really like the wiki software in that it creates a table of contents so people can read what they want to read easily. I hit the print preview on Firefox 5.0 and it says the article is 63 pages long if printed out. It is probably Conservapedia's largest article. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:49, 6 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::I understand your logic, the article is big already and you don't want it to get bigger, that makes sense. Do you think the points I made would fit in another article, maybe one of the other articles the site has about atheism, or else a brand new one (e.g. "Definition of atheism")? And then I guess, this can be the main atheism article, and it can link to various subarticles, for people interested in more detail on specific points about atheism. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 15:30, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Expanding [[Definition of atheism]] sounds good. I will get a clip of [[William Lane Craig]] challenging atheist [[Christopher Hitchens]] on the definition of atheism once you complete the article which I predict will be a popular article. Hitchens claimed his earphone didn't work and got nervous. Even an atheist said Dr. Craig "spanked Hitchen's like a foolish child" at the debate. [http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1230] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:44, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Hi Conservative, please see I have added my content to the [[Definition of atheism]] article. Please let me know if there is anything I could improve. I think your clip sounds good. The reality is, William Lane Craig is a professional philosopher, Christopher Hitchens is a dilettante journalist. I think, if atheists want to debate Craig, they need to find people on Craig's own level, or else they'll just get steamrollered. I never watched that debate, but I've seen others - like a video of this atheist geologist who debated Craig, and I really felt sorry for the guy, because Craig was just wiping the floor with him. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 18:34, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::I would go into the implications of atheism being defined as a religion. John Calvert, the intelligent design lawyer (I provided two links for you), believes that if atheism is defined as a religion then you can argue that the evolutionary paradigm should not be taught as it advances the religion of atheism. It has been a while since I looked at his material but I think that is the gist of it. I would read Calvert's material again. I think it is important to include that material now that people are insisting in "atheism chaplains" for the military. I see possible future precedents being set in favor of Calvert's position. In addition, do any other courts outside the US recognize atheism as religion? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:20, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

== MIS-ATTRIBUTED MLK, JR quote ==

"We must remember that it's possible to affirm the existence of God with your lips and to deny the existence of God with your life. The most dangerous form of atheism is not theoretical atheism but practical atheism."

i cannot find the original transcription of this quotation. i found very little, at all, but the most that i could track down that i could reasonably attribute to King was:

''[i]I decided early to give my life to something eternal and
absolute. Not to these little gods that are here today and gone
tomorrow, but to God who is the same yesterday, today, and
forever.[/i] (MLK, Jr.; from "Rediscovering Lost Values," Feb. 28, 1954)
''
AND
''
[i]... I want you to think with me this morning from the subject: "Rediscovering Lost Values." "Rediscovering Lost Values." There is something wrong with our world, something fundamentally and basically wrong. I don't think we have to look too far to see that. I'm sure that most of you would agree with me in making that assertion. And when we stop to analyze the cause of our world's ills, many things come to mind.

We begin to wonder if it is due to the fact that we don't know enough. But it can't be that. Because in terms of accumulated knowledge we know more today than men have known in any period of human history. We have the facts at our disposal. We know more about mathematics, about science, about social science, and philosophy than we've ever known in any period of the world's history. So it can't be because we don't know enough.

And then we wonder if it is due to the fact that our scientific genius lags behind; that is, if we have not made enough progress scientifically. Well then, it can't be that. For our scientific progress over the past years has been [sic] amazing. Man through his scientific genius has been able to dwarf distance and place time in cha8fs, so that today it is possible to eat breakfast in New York City and supper in London, England. Back in about 1:53 [sic] it took a letter three days to go from New York City to Washington, and today youcan go from here to China in less time than that. It can't be because man is stagnant in his scientific progress. Man's scientific genius has been amazing.

''I think we have to look much deeper than that if we are to find the real cause of man's problems and the real cause of the world's ills today. If we are to really find it I think we will have to look in the hearts and souls of men.[/i]" [b]MLK, jr.[/b]''

DOES seems to exist, but the entire section on "Manifestations of atheism" is thoroughly un-sourced. further, if i'm to understand manifestations to mean observable differences between possible reactions to athiesm, then i don't understand the distinction. i think that behaving/believing in deities are two sides of the one coin; there is no effective difference, and the quote is mis-attributed.
:::I did not write that material. However, I listened to a tape series of MLK speeches and I am 95% confident that he said it. I can try to confirm it though without listening to the whole tape series again. ;) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:12, 20 July 2011 (EDT)
::::I fixed it, here is the sermon: http://www.globatron.org/truth/rediscovering-lost-values-martin-luther-king-early-sermon [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:21, 20 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::''There is something in this universe that justifies the biblical writer in saying, “You shall reap what you sow.” (Amen) This is a law-abiding universe. (Amen) This is a moral universe. It hinges on moral foundations. (Lord help him) If we are to make of this a better world, we’ve got to go back and rediscover that precious value that we’ve left behind. (Yes)''

:::::''And then there is a second thing, a second principle that we’ve got to go back and rediscover. (Help him) And that is that all reality has spiritual control. In other words, we’ve got to go back and rediscover the principle that there is a God behind the process. Well this you say, “Why is it that you raise that as a point in your sermon, in a church? The mere fact we are at church, we believe in God, we don’t need to go back and rediscover that. The mere fact that we are here, and the mere fact that we sing and pray, and come to church—we believe in God.” Well, there’s some truth in that. But we must remember that it’s possible to affirm the existence of God with your lips and deny his existence with your life. (Amen, Preach) The most dangerous type of atheism is not theoretical atheism, but practical atheism (Amen)—that’s the most dangerous type. (Lord have mercy) And the world, even the church, is filled up with people who pay lip service to God and not life service. (That’s right, Filled up with, Come on, Lord help him) And there is always a danger that we will make it appear externally that we believe in God when internally we don’t. (Yes) We say with our mouths that we believe in him, but we live with our lives like he never existed. (That’s right) That is the ever-present danger confronting religion. That’s a dangerous type of atheism.

:::::''And I think, my friends, that that is the thing that has happened in America. That we have unconsciously left God behind. Now, we haven’t consciously done it; we have unconsciously done it. You see, the text, you remember the text said that Jesus’ parents went a whole day’s journey not knowing that he wasn’t with them. They didn’t consciously leave him behind. (Well) It was unconscious; went a whole day and didn’t even know it. It wasn’t a conscious process. You see, we didn’t grow up and say, “Now, goodbye God, we’re going to leave you now.” The materialism in America has been an unconscious thing. Since the rise of the Industrial Revolution in England, and then the invention of all of our gadgets and contrivances and all of the things and modern conveniences—we unconsciously left God behind. We didn’t mean to do it.
:::::''... we need [various worldly things] ; all of that’s important to live. But whenever they become substitutes for God, (Yes) they become injurious. (Amen)
:::::''... And may I say to you this morning, (Lord help him) that none of these things can ever be real substitutes for God.
:::::''... And I say to you this morning in conclusion (Lord have mercy) that I’m not going to put my ultimate faith in things. I’m not going to put my ultimate faith in gadgets and contrivances. As a young man with most of my life ahead of me, I decided early (Oh yeah) to give my life to something eternal and absolute. (All right) Not to these little gods that are here today and gone tomorrow, (Come on) but to God who is the same yesterday, today, and forever. (Amen, Amen)

:::::''Not in the little gods that can be with us in a few moments of prosperity, (Yes) but in the God who walks with us through the valley of the shadow of death, (That’s right) and causes us to fear no evil. (All right) That’s the God. (Come on)
:::::... [after this it gets a bit psychedelic;p]:::::

i also found the speech here, on google books:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Uwi_HJUbJUMC&pg=PA253&lpg=PA253&dq=%22The+most+dangerous+type+of+atheism+is+not+theoretical+atheism,+but+practical+atheism%22&source=bl&ots=YSE23jsEZY&sig=b6e3gkMcP-b_36uMuaIKNtjyiWw&hl=en&ei=9H8nTuGLEZCgtwfvhdG7Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22The%20most%20dangerous%20type%20of%20atheism%20is%20not%20theoretical%20atheism%2C%20but%20practical%20atheism%22&f=false

so now it's well sourced, but i think MLK Jr is talking about materialism rather than modern atheism. i think it's explicit, even. "That's a dangerous type of atheism." would seem to imply logically that there are benign forms of atheism, or at least neutral, morally.

MLK Jr isn't really discussing atheism, at all. the insinuation that MLK Jr was particularly concerned with atheism is, afaik, unfounded, so the quote is still mis-attributed; it's also misapplied as an argument. but i would like to see any relevant documentation, otherwise. it think it sounds too much like original research, but maybe that's the point of this wiki;p
::::MLK mentions atheism/practical atheism and consumerism/materialism in the sermon I cited. I don't know if he spoke about "practical atheism" in the original sermon that was cited by another editor. I think you are either reading the sermon sloppily and/or merely being contentious at this point. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:28, 23 July 2011 (EDT)

== Requested Addition ==

I have written this paragraph and recommend its incorporation in the article as well as [[Atheism and uncharitableness|this article]]:

A comprehensive study by [[Harvard University]] professor [[Robert Putnam]] found that religious people are more charitable than their irreligious counterparts.<ref name="Relgion & Charity">{{cite web|url = http://pewforum.org/Religion-News/Religious-people-make-better-citizens-study-says.aspx|title =Religious people make better citizens, study says |publisher = [[Pew Research Center]]|quote=The scholars say their studies found that religious people are three to four times more likely to be involved in their community. They are more apt than nonreligious Americans to work on community projects, belong to voluntary associations, attend public meetings, vote in local elections, attend protest demonstrations and political rallies, and donate time and money to causes -- including secular ones. At the same time, Putnam and Campbell say their data show that religious people are just "nicer": they carry packages for people, don't mind folks cutting ahead in line and give money to panhandlers.|accessdate = 2007–10–18}}</ref><ref name="Relgion and Charity">{{cite web|url = http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-11-15-column15_ST_N.htm|title =Religious people are 'better neighbors'|publisher = [[USA Today]]|quote=However, on the other side of the ledger, religious people are also "better neighbors" than their secular counterparts. No matter the civic activity, being more religious means being more involved. Take, for example, volunteer work. Compared with people who never attend worship services, those who attend weekly are more likely to volunteer in religious activities (no surprise there), but also for secular causes. The differences between religious and secular Americans can be dramatic. Forty percent of worship-attending Americans volunteer regularly to help the poor and elderly, compared with 15% of Americans who never attend services. Frequent-attenders are also more likely than the never-attenders to volunteer for school and youth programs (36% vs. 15%), a neighborhood or civic group (26% vs. 13%), and for health care (21% vs. 13%). The same is true for philanthropic giving; religious Americans give more money to secular causes than do secular Americans. And the list goes on, as it is true for good deeds such as helping someone find a job, donating blood, and spending time with someone who is feeling blue. Furthermore, the "religious edge" holds up for organized forms of community involvement: membership in organizations, working to solve community problems, attending local meetings, voting in local elections, and working for social or political reform. On this last point, it is not just that religious people are advocating for right-leaning causes, although many are. Religious liberals are actually more likely to be community activists than are religious conservatives.|accessdate = 2007–10–18}}</ref> The study revealed that forty percent of [[service of worship|worship service]] attending Americans volunteer regularly to help the poor and elderly as opposed to 15% of Americans who never attend services.<ref name="Relgion & Charity">{{cite web|url = http://pewforum.org/Religion-News/Religious-people-make-better-citizens-study-says.aspx|title =Religious people make better citizens, study says |publisher = [[Pew Research Center]]|quote=The scholars say their studies found that religious people are three to four times more likely to be involved in their community. They are more apt than nonreligious Americans to work on community projects, belong to voluntary associations, attend public meetings, vote in local elections, attend protest demonstrations and political rallies, and donate time and money to causes -- including secular ones. At the same time, Putnam and Campbell say their data show that religious people are just "nicer": they carry packages for people, don't mind folks cutting ahead in line and give money to panhandlers.|accessdate = 2007–10–18}}</ref><ref name="Relgion and Charity">{{cite web|url = http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-11-15-column15_ST_N.htm|title =Religious people are 'better neighbors'|publisher = [[USA Today]]|quote=However, on the other side of the ledger, religious people are also "better neighbors" than their secular counterparts. No matter the civic activity, being more religious means being more involved. Take, for example, volunteer work. Compared with people who never attend worship services, those who attend weekly are more likely to volunteer in religious activities (no surprise there), but also for secular causes. The differences between religious and secular Americans can be dramatic. Forty percent of worship-attending Americans volunteer regularly to help the poor and elderly, compared with 15% of Americans who never attend services. Frequent-attenders are also more likely than the never-attenders to volunteer for school and youth programs (36% vs. 15%), a neighborhood or civic group (26% vs. 13%), and for health care (21% vs. 13%). The same is true for philanthropic giving; religious Americans give more money to secular causes than do secular Americans. And the list goes on, as it is true for good deeds such as helping someone find a job, donating blood, and spending time with someone who is feeling blue. Furthermore, the "religious edge" holds up for organized forms of community involvement: membership in organizations, working to solve community problems, attending local meetings, voting in local elections, and working for social or political reform. On this last point, it is not just that religious people are advocating for right-leaning causes, although many are. Religious liberals are actually more likely to be community activists than are religious conservatives.|accessdate = 2007–10–18}}</ref> Moreover, religious individuals are more likely than non-religious individuals to volunteer for school and youth programs (36% vs. 15%), a neighborhood or civic group (26% vs. 13%), and for health care (21% vs. 13%).<ref name="Relgion & Charity">{{cite web|url = http://pewforum.org/Religion-News/Religious-people-make-better-citizens-study-says.aspx|title =Religious people make better citizens, study says |publisher = [[Pew Research Center]]|quote=The scholars say their studies found that religious people are three to four times more likely to be involved in their community. They are more apt than nonreligious Americans to work on community projects, belong to voluntary associations, attend public meetings, vote in local elections, attend protest demonstrations and political rallies, and donate time and money to causes -- including secular ones. At the same time, Putnam and Campbell say their data show that religious people are just "nicer": they carry packages for people, don't mind folks cutting ahead in line and give money to panhandlers.|accessdate = 2007–10–18}}</ref><ref name="Relgion and Charity">{{cite web|url = http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-11-15-column15_ST_N.htm|title =Religious people are 'better neighbors'|publisher = [[USA Today]]|quote=However, on the other side of the ledger, religious people are also "better neighbors" than their secular counterparts. No matter the civic activity, being more religious means being more involved. Take, for example, volunteer work. Compared with people who never attend worship services, those who attend weekly are more likely to volunteer in religious activities (no surprise there), but also for secular causes. The differences between religious and secular Americans can be dramatic. Forty percent of worship-attending Americans volunteer regularly to help the poor and elderly, compared with 15% of Americans who never attend services. Frequent-attenders are also more likely than the never-attenders to volunteer for school and youth programs (36% vs. 15%), a neighborhood or civic group (26% vs. 13%), and for health care (21% vs. 13%). The same is true for philanthropic giving; religious Americans give more money to secular causes than do secular Americans. And the list goes on, as it is true for good deeds such as helping someone find a job, donating blood, and spending time with someone who is feeling blue. Furthermore, the "religious edge" holds up for organized forms of community involvement: membership in organizations, working to solve community problems, attending local meetings, voting in local elections, and working for social or political reform. On this last point, it is not just that religious people are advocating for right-leaning causes, although many are. Religious liberals are actually more likely to be community activists than are religious conservatives.|accessdate = 2007–10–18}}</ref>

===References===
{{reflist}}

:::Anupam, I added the material. However, given the size of this article/web page, I deleted all the notes in the footnotes. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:06, 23 July 2011 (EDT)

== Conspiring Atheists ==

Atheists supposedly conspired against Youtube Users, Nephilimfree, and ShockofGod. The medium claim to be used is voxli, more specificlly the following website, [http://www.voxli.com/pointmanzero]
:::Sounds like a small fry YouTube soap opera. It does appears that some atheists have cried wolf before. Shockofgod allegedly engaging in phishing (yet no YouTube atheist accounts seem to have been shutdown). From what I have seen, there appears to be a lot of strange atheists channels at YouTube (guy posing as a woman, atheist guy who had a weird relations with his teddy bear. etc. etc. etc.). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:20, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] Hey I read somewhere that Atheists were more likely to be unemployed then Christians or too have lower paying jobs. I can't remember where I read it but I know it's true. We might want to add that in, maybe in the same paragraph as the one on being uncharitable.
:I don't know how anybody can look at a beautiful woman and not believe there is a God. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:51, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

== Length of Page ==

Is it possible to split this material up at all? I noticed on the Penn Jillette article that you claim that this is 53 pages of written text. If that is true I believe that dividing this page in some way would make it more accessible (Its really difficult to parse 53 pages of information and most people don't have an hour to read a wiki article). Anyway just a suggestion. --[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 20:42, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::Thanks for the feedback. I will take your feedback into consideration. Have trimmed atheism, evolution and homosexuality articles recently. I will look into your suggestion in the fall perhaps. Feel free to offer suggestions on possible trimming. I generally put the most important/interesting material closer to the top of the page plus table of contents helps. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:46, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I'll look into the page and try to offer up some suggestions in the coming weeks. It's just a little intimidating coming to a page and having my scroll bar almost disappear ( I have a small screen so this is definitely partly to blame). --[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 21:44, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Atheism

2011-08-04T00:44:05Z

MRellek: Fix headers so that sections appear properly

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">

==Attention atheists ==
Please provide proof and evidence that [[atheism]] is true. There is plenty of evidence for [[Christianity]] as can be seen [[Christian apologetics|HERE]] and [[Christian apologetics website resources|HERE]] and no evidence [[atheism]] is true as can be seen [[Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism|HERE]].

Then, please proceed [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian|HERE]].

</blockquote>

[[Talk:Atheism/archive1|Archive 1]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive2|Archive 2]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive3|Archive 3]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive4|Archive 4]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive5|Archive 5]] 
[[Talk:Atheism/archive6|Archive 6]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive7|Archive 7]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive8|Archive 8]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive9|Archive 9]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive10|Archive 10]] 
[[Talk:Atheism/archive11|Archive 11]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive12|Archive 12]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive13|Archive 13]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive14|Archive 14]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive15|Archive 15]] 
[[Talk:Atheism/archive16|Archive 16]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive17|Archive 17]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive18|Archive 18]]

{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
__TOC__
 

=='Attention atheists' message==
There is a mistake in the text of your message. You should ask atheists for proof and evidence (by the way, aren't "proof" and "evidence" synonyms?) that atheism is true, not false. But then again, I am not sure that "true" and "false", as adjectives, can apply very well to "atheism", so I'd rather change it to "Please provide evidence against the existence of God", or to "Please provide evidence that atheism is logically justifiable".
Also (but this is nitpicking), there is a full stop after the question mark.
Please don't get me wrong, I am a devout Christian and I am applaud your crusade against atheism, but I just had some minor issues about the FORM of your message :)
I did not correct the text of your message directly, because it is in a talk page, and not in a main page.
Best regards,
--[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 08:28, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::Someone had changed the message. I changed it back. [[User:Conservative|conservative]]

== Atheism and Racism, new evidence (from Wikipedia) ==

Sociologist Phil Zuckerman analyzed previous social science research on secularity and non-belief, and concluded that societal well-being is positively correlated with irreligion. His findings relating specifically to atheism include:

Compared to religious people, "atheists and secular people" are less nationalistic, prejudiced, antisemitic, racist, dogmatic, ethnocentric, close-minded, and authoritarian.

In the US, in states with the highest percentages of atheists, the murder rate is lower than average. In the most religious US states, the murder rate is higher than average.

http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Zuckerman_on_Atheism.pdf
:Zuckerman is a secular, that's the word Atheists use when they want to disguise their believes. Naturally an atheist says that societies are better off without religion, [[Atheism and Mass Murder| it's clear that this is not the case]]. Now pick up a history book and start educating yourself instead of believing atheist propaganda. --[[User:StevenAA|StevenAA]] 16:55, 8 July 2011 (EDT)

True, he is secular, but one is either secular or religious, and both sides have a stake in the argument - by your logic, no one can comment on the validity of statements regarding the characteristics of religious or non-religious people, since both a secular or non-secular commenter would want to slant the argument towards their point of view. What Zuckerman does do is lay out the results of previous studies, perform a meta-analysis, and draw reasonable conclusions from the results of his analysis. Mass murder (however sensational it is), does not speak to the question Zuckerman tries to answer with his study. I think a complete, non-biased discussion about the relationship between atheism and morality should include all of the studies that address the issue. After all, we should be teaching the controversy. --[[User:Stairmaster|Stairmaster]] 21:50, 8 July 2011 (EDT)

:Secularism is the attempt to take religion out of everything, as Atheism doesn't see itself as a religion - actively attacking all other religions - it is clear that secularization actually means atheismization. Atheism is a religion. Quoting some falsy famous Atheist leaders who I fail to remember now "Religion is believe despite evidence" - Atheist believe despite the evidence for Christianity, they believe despite the evidence that evolution is false, they believe despite the evidence that the big bang did not occure, and son on in thousands of cases. Atheism is a religion even by the standards atheists use. Atheism is bad for society because atheism leaves no reason not to be selfish, not to follow the path Darwin described so pseudoscientifically. Atheism is all that what immorality means. Why don't we see this you might ask. Because Atheists know that they can't behave this way in a society that has Christian roots. They would be kicked out, they would not be tolerated, every smile from an atheist towards a Christian is fake, every friendly gesture is a trick to make us think they are good people. They are not, they are deeply selfish people that trick innocent Christians, Jews and all other people that don't suppress the knownledge that they are religious, every time they are friendly into thinking that they are friendly.
:Christians can know the truth, because they know that Christianity is true their basis of thinking is not contaminated by what is false. No matter if Atheists knownlingly lie to us or are just too indoctrinated or too stupid to see the truth how wrong they are, we shoot look twice at everything they say. And if an Atheist claims that Atheism makes for a better society he does not only meassure with his own Atheist instruments of "equality" and "social equality" which is problematic but also is he biased in his perseption of how good it actually is. Of course he will think that such a society is "better" (aside that the murder rates also stem from the fact that Scandinavians have no temper, which Americans have) simply because he is not reminded all the time how awefully wrong he is. You are naturally free as a member of a totalitarian state if you are an adherent to that ideology, you simply will not notice any difference.
:I sincerely hope you learned something today. --[[User:StevenAA|StevenAA]] 13:38, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

::"...from the fact that Scandinavians have no temper, which Americans have..." Thanks for the chuckle. My grandfather and mother were Swedish, and believe me, they had a temper. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:00, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

Well, I certainly learned how to spell words in some interesting ways. Some sources for these lovely statements would be much appreciated, as I know Conservapedia prides itself on citations. In particular, "every smile from an atheist towards a Christian is fake, every friendly gesture is a trick to make us think they are good people". Also I'd like a fact check on the statement that "the murder rates also stem from the fact that Scandinavians have no temper, which Americans have", (which also doesn't answer the point I made comparing murder rates between different states in the US).

I'm also not going to respond to your claim about the "evidence that evolution is false", because there is much, much, much, much more evidence supporting the fact of evolution. However, this evidence will likely be ignored by those who want to believe in design, similar to the way the evidence in the article I posted beginning this discussion was ignored.

As far as indoctrination, based off the encounters I've had, it seems most atheists examine the facts and reach that position on their own. Similar to the way that babies make the conscious choice to be baptized or circumcised and become members of a certain religion.

Didn't Jesus talk a lot about equality and treating people equally? I don't think equality is solely an atheist trick, and I'm not sure how it is bad that equality is an "atheist instrument". A society with equality and low murder rates - what a horrible scenario. I know I'd definitely prefer one with high rates of crime and slavery.

--[[User:Stairmaster|Stairmaster]] 22:20, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

== "Weak" vs "Strong" atheism; ''Implicit'' vs ''Explicit'', etc. ==

I wanted to add something like this, but can't because the page is locked. If an admin thinks it is a good idea, please add it:
:Many atheists like to make a distinction between ''strong atheism'' and ''weak atheism''. They define ''strong atheism'' as believing God does not exist, while ''weak atheism'' as neither believing nor disbelieving. However, this usage is incorrect, and has been invented by atheists to boost their numbers. If you believe God does not exist, you are an atheist. If you neither believe nor disbelieve, you aren't an atheist, you are some kind of agnostic.
:Another distinction atheists like to propose is between ''implicit'' and ''explicit'' atheism. Explicit atheism means active conscious rejection of God's existence. "Implicit atheism" refers to having no belief in God, due to not being aware of the concept. Atheists use this to argue that "babies are atheists", again in order to boost their numbers. However, again, this is an abuse of terminology. "Implicit atheism" is not atheism. Babies, just because they haven't learnt the concept of "God" yet, are not atheists. To be an atheist, you must have encountered the idea of "God", and chosen to reject it. A baby isn't even an agnostic, since an agnostic has encountered the idea, and isn't personally sure whether it is right, or even thinks we'll never know if it is. A baby hasn't encountered the idea yet.
:Another specious atheist argument is "Christians are atheists about all Gods but one". But this ignores that ''god'' is used in two different ways. Little-g god, refers to a limited being, like the gods of mythology, with immense but not absolute power. It is possible for multiple such limited beings to exist. Capital-G God, refers to an omnipotent being, as conceived in religions such as Judaism and Christianity. It is impossible for there to exist more than one omnipotent being - what happens if two omnipotent beings have a disagreement? So, Zeus is not comparable to the Christian God, and the Christian's disbelief in Zeus is not a form of atheism.
What do people think? I think this is a good way to address some common atheist distortions. Of course, maybe it could be worded better, feel free to edit it if someone decides to... [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 16:50, 6 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I think we do a good enough job on the definition of atheism and we also link to [http://creation.com/atheism Creation Ministries International's atheism article] which goes into the implicit vs. explicit atheism issue. I think where Conservapedia could be stronger is the "[[Atheism is a religion]]" issue. Like this material: http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion except summarized and compact. Also, courts have called atheism a religion. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:41, 6 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Here is what Conservapedia has now: http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_is_a_religion Except for another topic I want to add later which I have referred to as the [[pièce de résistance]] I don't want the article to get much bigger as I believe it is a large article although it is an organized article that hits the main/common/interesting points that are or can be raised about this topic. I really like the wiki software in that it creates a table of contents so people can read what they want to read easily. I hit the print preview on Firefox 5.0 and it says the article is 63 pages long if printed out. It is probably Conservapedia's largest article. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:49, 6 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::I understand your logic, the article is big already and you don't want it to get bigger, that makes sense. Do you think the points I made would fit in another article, maybe one of the other articles the site has about atheism, or else a brand new one (e.g. "Definition of atheism")? And then I guess, this can be the main atheism article, and it can link to various subarticles, for people interested in more detail on specific points about atheism. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 15:30, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Expanding [[Definition of atheism]] sounds good. I will get a clip of [[William Lane Craig]] challenging atheist [[Christopher Hitchens]] on the definition of atheism once you complete the article which I predict will be a popular article. Hitchens claimed his earphone didn't work and got nervous. Even an atheist said Dr. Craig "spanked Hitchen's like a foolish child" at the debate. [http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1230] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:44, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Hi Conservative, please see I have added my content to the [[Definition of atheism]] article. Please let me know if there is anything I could improve. I think your clip sounds good. The reality is, William Lane Craig is a professional philosopher, Christopher Hitchens is a dilettante journalist. I think, if atheists want to debate Craig, they need to find people on Craig's own level, or else they'll just get steamrollered. I never watched that debate, but I've seen others - like a video of this atheist geologist who debated Craig, and I really felt sorry for the guy, because Craig was just wiping the floor with him. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 18:34, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::I would go into the implications of atheism being defined as a religion. John Calvert, the intelligent design lawyer (I provided two links for you), believes that if atheism is defined as a religion then you can argue that the evolutionary paradigm should not be taught as it advances the religion of atheism. It has been a while since I looked at his material but I think that is the gist of it. I would read Calvert's material again. I think it is important to include that material now that people are insisting in "atheism chaplains" for the military. I see possible future precedents being set in favor of Calvert's position. In addition, do any other courts outside the US recognize atheism as religion? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:20, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

== MIS-ATTRIBUTED MLK, JR quote ==

"We must remember that it's possible to affirm the existence of God with your lips and to deny the existence of God with your life. The most dangerous form of atheism is not theoretical atheism but practical atheism."

i cannot find the original transcription of this quotation. i found very little, at all, but the most that i could track down that i could reasonably attribute to King was:

''[i]I decided early to give my life to something eternal and
absolute. Not to these little gods that are here today and gone
tomorrow, but to God who is the same yesterday, today, and
forever.[/i] (MLK, Jr.; from "Rediscovering Lost Values," Feb. 28, 1954)
''
AND
''
[i]... I want you to think with me this morning from the subject: "Rediscovering Lost Values." "Rediscovering Lost Values." There is something wrong with our world, something fundamentally and basically wrong. I don't think we have to look too far to see that. I'm sure that most of you would agree with me in making that assertion. And when we stop to analyze the cause of our world's ills, many things come to mind.

We begin to wonder if it is due to the fact that we don't know enough. But it can't be that. Because in terms of accumulated knowledge we know more today than men have known in any period of human history. We have the facts at our disposal. We know more about mathematics, about science, about social science, and philosophy than we've ever known in any period of the world's history. So it can't be because we don't know enough.

And then we wonder if it is due to the fact that our scientific genius lags behind; that is, if we have not made enough progress scientifically. Well then, it can't be that. For our scientific progress over the past years has been [sic] amazing. Man through his scientific genius has been able to dwarf distance and place time in cha8fs, so that today it is possible to eat breakfast in New York City and supper in London, England. Back in about 1:53 [sic] it took a letter three days to go from New York City to Washington, and today youcan go from here to China in less time than that. It can't be because man is stagnant in his scientific progress. Man's scientific genius has been amazing.

''I think we have to look much deeper than that if we are to find the real cause of man's problems and the real cause of the world's ills today. If we are to really find it I think we will have to look in the hearts and souls of men.[/i]" [b]MLK, jr.[/b]''

DOES seems to exist, but the entire section on "Manifestations of atheism" is thoroughly un-sourced. further, if i'm to understand manifestations to mean observable differences between possible reactions to athiesm, then i don't understand the distinction. i think that behaving/believing in deities are two sides of the one coin; there is no effective difference, and the quote is mis-attributed.
:::I did not write that material. However, I listened to a tape series of MLK speeches and I am 95% confident that he said it. I can try to confirm it though without listening to the whole tape series again. ;) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:12, 20 July 2011 (EDT)
::::I fixed it, here is the sermon: http://www.globatron.org/truth/rediscovering-lost-values-martin-luther-king-early-sermon [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:21, 20 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::''There is something in this universe that justifies the biblical writer in saying, “You shall reap what you sow.” (Amen) This is a law-abiding universe. (Amen) This is a moral universe. It hinges on moral foundations. (Lord help him) If we are to make of this a better world, we’ve got to go back and rediscover that precious value that we’ve left behind. (Yes)''

:::::''And then there is a second thing, a second principle that we’ve got to go back and rediscover. (Help him) And that is that all reality has spiritual control. In other words, we’ve got to go back and rediscover the principle that there is a God behind the process. Well this you say, “Why is it that you raise that as a point in your sermon, in a church? The mere fact we are at church, we believe in God, we don’t need to go back and rediscover that. The mere fact that we are here, and the mere fact that we sing and pray, and come to church—we believe in God.” Well, there’s some truth in that. But we must remember that it’s possible to affirm the existence of God with your lips and deny his existence with your life. (Amen, Preach) The most dangerous type of atheism is not theoretical atheism, but practical atheism (Amen)—that’s the most dangerous type. (Lord have mercy) And the world, even the church, is filled up with people who pay lip service to God and not life service. (That’s right, Filled up with, Come on, Lord help him) And there is always a danger that we will make it appear externally that we believe in God when internally we don’t. (Yes) We say with our mouths that we believe in him, but we live with our lives like he never existed. (That’s right) That is the ever-present danger confronting religion. That’s a dangerous type of atheism.

:::::''And I think, my friends, that that is the thing that has happened in America. That we have unconsciously left God behind. Now, we haven’t consciously done it; we have unconsciously done it. You see, the text, you remember the text said that Jesus’ parents went a whole day’s journey not knowing that he wasn’t with them. They didn’t consciously leave him behind. (Well) It was unconscious; went a whole day and didn’t even know it. It wasn’t a conscious process. You see, we didn’t grow up and say, “Now, goodbye God, we’re going to leave you now.” The materialism in America has been an unconscious thing. Since the rise of the Industrial Revolution in England, and then the invention of all of our gadgets and contrivances and all of the things and modern conveniences—we unconsciously left God behind. We didn’t mean to do it.
:::::''... we need [various worldly things] ; all of that’s important to live. But whenever they become substitutes for God, (Yes) they become injurious. (Amen)
:::::''... And may I say to you this morning, (Lord help him) that none of these things can ever be real substitutes for God.
:::::''... And I say to you this morning in conclusion (Lord have mercy) that I’m not going to put my ultimate faith in things. I’m not going to put my ultimate faith in gadgets and contrivances. As a young man with most of my life ahead of me, I decided early (Oh yeah) to give my life to something eternal and absolute. (All right) Not to these little gods that are here today and gone tomorrow, (Come on) but to God who is the same yesterday, today, and forever. (Amen, Amen)

:::::''Not in the little gods that can be with us in a few moments of prosperity, (Yes) but in the God who walks with us through the valley of the shadow of death, (That’s right) and causes us to fear no evil. (All right) That’s the God. (Come on)
:::::... [after this it gets a bit psychedelic;p]:::::

i also found the speech here, on google books:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Uwi_HJUbJUMC&pg=PA253&lpg=PA253&dq=%22The+most+dangerous+type+of+atheism+is+not+theoretical+atheism,+but+practical+atheism%22&source=bl&ots=YSE23jsEZY&sig=b6e3gkMcP-b_36uMuaIKNtjyiWw&hl=en&ei=9H8nTuGLEZCgtwfvhdG7Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22The%20most%20dangerous%20type%20of%20atheism%20is%20not%20theoretical%20atheism%2C%20but%20practical%20atheism%22&f=false

so now it's well sourced, but i think MLK Jr is talking about materialism rather than modern atheism. i think it's explicit, even. "That's a dangerous type of atheism." would seem to imply logically that there are benign forms of atheism, or at least neutral, morally.

MLK Jr isn't really discussing atheism, at all. the insinuation that MLK Jr was particularly concerned with atheism is, afaik, unfounded, so the quote is still mis-attributed; it's also misapplied as an argument. but i would like to see any relevant documentation, otherwise. it think it sounds too much like original research, but maybe that's the point of this wiki;p
::::MLK mentions atheism/practical atheism and consumerism/materialism in the sermon I cited. I don't know if he spoke about "practical atheism" in the original sermon that was cited by another editor. I think you are either reading the sermon sloppily and/or merely being contentious at this point. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:28, 23 July 2011 (EDT)

== Requested Addition ==

I have written this paragraph and recommend its incorporation in the article as well as [[Atheism and uncharitableness|this article]]:

A comprehensive study by [[Harvard University]] professor [[Robert Putnam]] found that religious people are more charitable than their irreligious counterparts.<ref name="Relgion & Charity">{{cite web|url = http://pewforum.org/Religion-News/Religious-people-make-better-citizens-study-says.aspx|title =Religious people make better citizens, study says |publisher = [[Pew Research Center]]|quote=The scholars say their studies found that religious people are three to four times more likely to be involved in their community. They are more apt than nonreligious Americans to work on community projects, belong to voluntary associations, attend public meetings, vote in local elections, attend protest demonstrations and political rallies, and donate time and money to causes -- including secular ones. At the same time, Putnam and Campbell say their data show that religious people are just "nicer": they carry packages for people, don't mind folks cutting ahead in line and give money to panhandlers.|accessdate = 2007–10–18}}</ref><ref name="Relgion and Charity">{{cite web|url = http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-11-15-column15_ST_N.htm|title =Religious people are 'better neighbors'|publisher = [[USA Today]]|quote=However, on the other side of the ledger, religious people are also "better neighbors" than their secular counterparts. No matter the civic activity, being more religious means being more involved. Take, for example, volunteer work. Compared with people who never attend worship services, those who attend weekly are more likely to volunteer in religious activities (no surprise there), but also for secular causes. The differences between religious and secular Americans can be dramatic. Forty percent of worship-attending Americans volunteer regularly to help the poor and elderly, compared with 15% of Americans who never attend services. Frequent-attenders are also more likely than the never-attenders to volunteer for school and youth programs (36% vs. 15%), a neighborhood or civic group (26% vs. 13%), and for health care (21% vs. 13%). The same is true for philanthropic giving; religious Americans give more money to secular causes than do secular Americans. And the list goes on, as it is true for good deeds such as helping someone find a job, donating blood, and spending time with someone who is feeling blue. Furthermore, the "religious edge" holds up for organized forms of community involvement: membership in organizations, working to solve community problems, attending local meetings, voting in local elections, and working for social or political reform. On this last point, it is not just that religious people are advocating for right-leaning causes, although many are. Religious liberals are actually more likely to be community activists than are religious conservatives.|accessdate = 2007–10–18}}</ref> The study revealed that forty percent of [[service of worship|worship service]] attending Americans volunteer regularly to help the poor and elderly as opposed to 15% of Americans who never attend services.<ref name="Relgion & Charity">{{cite web|url = http://pewforum.org/Religion-News/Religious-people-make-better-citizens-study-says.aspx|title =Religious people make better citizens, study says |publisher = [[Pew Research Center]]|quote=The scholars say their studies found that religious people are three to four times more likely to be involved in their community. They are more apt than nonreligious Americans to work on community projects, belong to voluntary associations, attend public meetings, vote in local elections, attend protest demonstrations and political rallies, and donate time and money to causes -- including secular ones. At the same time, Putnam and Campbell say their data show that religious people are just "nicer": they carry packages for people, don't mind folks cutting ahead in line and give money to panhandlers.|accessdate = 2007–10–18}}</ref><ref name="Relgion and Charity">{{cite web|url = http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-11-15-column15_ST_N.htm|title =Religious people are 'better neighbors'|publisher = [[USA Today]]|quote=However, on the other side of the ledger, religious people are also "better neighbors" than their secular counterparts. No matter the civic activity, being more religious means being more involved. Take, for example, volunteer work. Compared with people who never attend worship services, those who attend weekly are more likely to volunteer in religious activities (no surprise there), but also for secular causes. The differences between religious and secular Americans can be dramatic. Forty percent of worship-attending Americans volunteer regularly to help the poor and elderly, compared with 15% of Americans who never attend services. Frequent-attenders are also more likely than the never-attenders to volunteer for school and youth programs (36% vs. 15%), a neighborhood or civic group (26% vs. 13%), and for health care (21% vs. 13%). The same is true for philanthropic giving; religious Americans give more money to secular causes than do secular Americans. And the list goes on, as it is true for good deeds such as helping someone find a job, donating blood, and spending time with someone who is feeling blue. Furthermore, the "religious edge" holds up for organized forms of community involvement: membership in organizations, working to solve community problems, attending local meetings, voting in local elections, and working for social or political reform. On this last point, it is not just that religious people are advocating for right-leaning causes, although many are. Religious liberals are actually more likely to be community activists than are religious conservatives.|accessdate = 2007–10–18}}</ref> Moreover, religious individuals are more likely than non-religious individuals to volunteer for school and youth programs (36% vs. 15%), a neighborhood or civic group (26% vs. 13%), and for health care (21% vs. 13%).<ref name="Relgion & Charity">{{cite web|url = http://pewforum.org/Religion-News/Religious-people-make-better-citizens-study-says.aspx|title =Religious people make better citizens, study says |publisher = [[Pew Research Center]]|quote=The scholars say their studies found that religious people are three to four times more likely to be involved in their community. They are more apt than nonreligious Americans to work on community projects, belong to voluntary associations, attend public meetings, vote in local elections, attend protest demonstrations and political rallies, and donate time and money to causes -- including secular ones. At the same time, Putnam and Campbell say their data show that religious people are just "nicer": they carry packages for people, don't mind folks cutting ahead in line and give money to panhandlers.|accessdate = 2007–10–18}}</ref><ref name="Relgion and Charity">{{cite web|url = http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-11-15-column15_ST_N.htm|title =Religious people are 'better neighbors'|publisher = [[USA Today]]|quote=However, on the other side of the ledger, religious people are also "better neighbors" than their secular counterparts. No matter the civic activity, being more religious means being more involved. Take, for example, volunteer work. Compared with people who never attend worship services, those who attend weekly are more likely to volunteer in religious activities (no surprise there), but also for secular causes. The differences between religious and secular Americans can be dramatic. Forty percent of worship-attending Americans volunteer regularly to help the poor and elderly, compared with 15% of Americans who never attend services. Frequent-attenders are also more likely than the never-attenders to volunteer for school and youth programs (36% vs. 15%), a neighborhood or civic group (26% vs. 13%), and for health care (21% vs. 13%). The same is true for philanthropic giving; religious Americans give more money to secular causes than do secular Americans. And the list goes on, as it is true for good deeds such as helping someone find a job, donating blood, and spending time with someone who is feeling blue. Furthermore, the "religious edge" holds up for organized forms of community involvement: membership in organizations, working to solve community problems, attending local meetings, voting in local elections, and working for social or political reform. On this last point, it is not just that religious people are advocating for right-leaning causes, although many are. Religious liberals are actually more likely to be community activists than are religious conservatives.|accessdate = 2007–10–18}}</ref>

===References===
{{reflist}}

:::Anupam, I added the material. However, given the size of this article/web page, I deleted all the notes in the footnotes. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:06, 23 July 2011 (EDT)

== Conspiring Atheists ==

Atheists supposedly conspired against Youtube Users, Nephilimfree, and ShockofGod. The medium claim to be used is voxli, more specificlly the following website, [http://www.voxli.com/pointmanzero]
:::Sounds like a small fry YouTube soap opera. It does appears that some atheists have cried wolf before. Shockofgod allegedly engaging in phishing (yet no YouTube atheist accounts seem to have been shutdown). From what I have seen, there appears to be a lot of strange atheists channels at YouTube (guy posing as a woman, atheist guy who had a weird relations with his teddy bear. etc. etc. etc.). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:20, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] Hey I read somewhere that Atheists were more likely to be unemployed then Christians or too have lower paying jobs. I can't remember where I read it but I know it's true. We might want to add that in, maybe in the same paragraph as the one on being uncharitable.

== Length of Page ==

Is it possible to split this material up at all? I noticed on the Penn Jillette article that you claim that this is 53 pages of written text. If that is true I believe that dividing this page in some way would make it more accessible (Its really difficult to parse 53 pages of information and most people don't have an hour to read a wiki article). Anyway just a suggestion. --[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 20:42, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Atheism

2011-08-04T00:42:42Z

MRellek: Dividing information?

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">

==Attention atheists ==
Please provide proof and evidence that [[atheism]] is true. There is plenty of evidence for [[Christianity]] as can be seen [[Christian apologetics|HERE]] and [[Christian apologetics website resources|HERE]] and no evidence [[atheism]] is true as can be seen [[Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism|HERE]].

Then, please proceed [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian|HERE]].

</blockquote>

[[Talk:Atheism/archive1|Archive 1]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive2|Archive 2]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive3|Archive 3]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive4|Archive 4]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive5|Archive 5]] 
[[Talk:Atheism/archive6|Archive 6]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive7|Archive 7]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive8|Archive 8]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive9|Archive 9]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive10|Archive 10]] 
[[Talk:Atheism/archive11|Archive 11]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive12|Archive 12]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive13|Archive 13]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive14|Archive 14]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive15|Archive 15]] 
[[Talk:Atheism/archive16|Archive 16]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive17|Archive 17]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive18|Archive 18]]

{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
__TOC__
 

='Attention atheists' message=
There is a mistake in the text of your message. You should ask atheists for proof and evidence (by the way, aren't "proof" and "evidence" synonyms?) that atheism is true, not false. But then again, I am not sure that "true" and "false", as adjectives, can apply very well to "atheism", so I'd rather change it to "Please provide evidence against the existence of God", or to "Please provide evidence that atheism is logically justifiable".
Also (but this is nitpicking), there is a full stop after the question mark.
Please don't get me wrong, I am a devout Christian and I am applaud your crusade against atheism, but I just had some minor issues about the FORM of your message :)
I did not correct the text of your message directly, because it is in a talk page, and not in a main page.
Best regards,
--[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 08:28, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::Someone had changed the message. I changed it back. [[User:Conservative|conservative]]

== Atheism and Racism, new evidence (from Wikipedia) ==

Sociologist Phil Zuckerman analyzed previous social science research on secularity and non-belief, and concluded that societal well-being is positively correlated with irreligion. His findings relating specifically to atheism include:

Compared to religious people, "atheists and secular people" are less nationalistic, prejudiced, antisemitic, racist, dogmatic, ethnocentric, close-minded, and authoritarian.

In the US, in states with the highest percentages of atheists, the murder rate is lower than average. In the most religious US states, the murder rate is higher than average.

http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Zuckerman_on_Atheism.pdf
:Zuckerman is a secular, that's the word Atheists use when they want to disguise their believes. Naturally an atheist says that societies are better off without religion, [[Atheism and Mass Murder| it's clear that this is not the case]]. Now pick up a history book and start educating yourself instead of believing atheist propaganda. --[[User:StevenAA|StevenAA]] 16:55, 8 July 2011 (EDT)

True, he is secular, but one is either secular or religious, and both sides have a stake in the argument - by your logic, no one can comment on the validity of statements regarding the characteristics of religious or non-religious people, since both a secular or non-secular commenter would want to slant the argument towards their point of view. What Zuckerman does do is lay out the results of previous studies, perform a meta-analysis, and draw reasonable conclusions from the results of his analysis. Mass murder (however sensational it is), does not speak to the question Zuckerman tries to answer with his study. I think a complete, non-biased discussion about the relationship between atheism and morality should include all of the studies that address the issue. After all, we should be teaching the controversy. --[[User:Stairmaster|Stairmaster]] 21:50, 8 July 2011 (EDT)

:Secularism is the attempt to take religion out of everything, as Atheism doesn't see itself as a religion - actively attacking all other religions - it is clear that secularization actually means atheismization. Atheism is a religion. Quoting some falsy famous Atheist leaders who I fail to remember now "Religion is believe despite evidence" - Atheist believe despite the evidence for Christianity, they believe despite the evidence that evolution is false, they believe despite the evidence that the big bang did not occure, and son on in thousands of cases. Atheism is a religion even by the standards atheists use. Atheism is bad for society because atheism leaves no reason not to be selfish, not to follow the path Darwin described so pseudoscientifically. Atheism is all that what immorality means. Why don't we see this you might ask. Because Atheists know that they can't behave this way in a society that has Christian roots. They would be kicked out, they would not be tolerated, every smile from an atheist towards a Christian is fake, every friendly gesture is a trick to make us think they are good people. They are not, they are deeply selfish people that trick innocent Christians, Jews and all other people that don't suppress the knownledge that they are religious, every time they are friendly into thinking that they are friendly.
:Christians can know the truth, because they know that Christianity is true their basis of thinking is not contaminated by what is false. No matter if Atheists knownlingly lie to us or are just too indoctrinated or too stupid to see the truth how wrong they are, we shoot look twice at everything they say. And if an Atheist claims that Atheism makes for a better society he does not only meassure with his own Atheist instruments of "equality" and "social equality" which is problematic but also is he biased in his perseption of how good it actually is. Of course he will think that such a society is "better" (aside that the murder rates also stem from the fact that Scandinavians have no temper, which Americans have) simply because he is not reminded all the time how awefully wrong he is. You are naturally free as a member of a totalitarian state if you are an adherent to that ideology, you simply will not notice any difference.
:I sincerely hope you learned something today. --[[User:StevenAA|StevenAA]] 13:38, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

::"...from the fact that Scandinavians have no temper, which Americans have..." Thanks for the chuckle. My grandfather and mother were Swedish, and believe me, they had a temper. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:00, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

Well, I certainly learned how to spell words in some interesting ways. Some sources for these lovely statements would be much appreciated, as I know Conservapedia prides itself on citations. In particular, "every smile from an atheist towards a Christian is fake, every friendly gesture is a trick to make us think they are good people". Also I'd like a fact check on the statement that "the murder rates also stem from the fact that Scandinavians have no temper, which Americans have", (which also doesn't answer the point I made comparing murder rates between different states in the US).

I'm also not going to respond to your claim about the "evidence that evolution is false", because there is much, much, much, much more evidence supporting the fact of evolution. However, this evidence will likely be ignored by those who want to believe in design, similar to the way the evidence in the article I posted beginning this discussion was ignored.

As far as indoctrination, based off the encounters I've had, it seems most atheists examine the facts and reach that position on their own. Similar to the way that babies make the conscious choice to be baptized or circumcised and become members of a certain religion.

Didn't Jesus talk a lot about equality and treating people equally? I don't think equality is solely an atheist trick, and I'm not sure how it is bad that equality is an "atheist instrument". A society with equality and low murder rates - what a horrible scenario. I know I'd definitely prefer one with high rates of crime and slavery.

--[[User:Stairmaster|Stairmaster]] 22:20, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

== "Weak" vs "Strong" atheism; ''Implicit'' vs ''Explicit'', etc. ==

I wanted to add something like this, but can't because the page is locked. If an admin thinks it is a good idea, please add it:
:Many atheists like to make a distinction between ''strong atheism'' and ''weak atheism''. They define ''strong atheism'' as believing God does not exist, while ''weak atheism'' as neither believing nor disbelieving. However, this usage is incorrect, and has been invented by atheists to boost their numbers. If you believe God does not exist, you are an atheist. If you neither believe nor disbelieve, you aren't an atheist, you are some kind of agnostic.
:Another distinction atheists like to propose is between ''implicit'' and ''explicit'' atheism. Explicit atheism means active conscious rejection of God's existence. "Implicit atheism" refers to having no belief in God, due to not being aware of the concept. Atheists use this to argue that "babies are atheists", again in order to boost their numbers. However, again, this is an abuse of terminology. "Implicit atheism" is not atheism. Babies, just because they haven't learnt the concept of "God" yet, are not atheists. To be an atheist, you must have encountered the idea of "God", and chosen to reject it. A baby isn't even an agnostic, since an agnostic has encountered the idea, and isn't personally sure whether it is right, or even thinks we'll never know if it is. A baby hasn't encountered the idea yet.
:Another specious atheist argument is "Christians are atheists about all Gods but one". But this ignores that ''god'' is used in two different ways. Little-g god, refers to a limited being, like the gods of mythology, with immense but not absolute power. It is possible for multiple such limited beings to exist. Capital-G God, refers to an omnipotent being, as conceived in religions such as Judaism and Christianity. It is impossible for there to exist more than one omnipotent being - what happens if two omnipotent beings have a disagreement? So, Zeus is not comparable to the Christian God, and the Christian's disbelief in Zeus is not a form of atheism.
What do people think? I think this is a good way to address some common atheist distortions. Of course, maybe it could be worded better, feel free to edit it if someone decides to... [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 16:50, 6 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I think we do a good enough job on the definition of atheism and we also link to [http://creation.com/atheism Creation Ministries International's atheism article] which goes into the implicit vs. explicit atheism issue. I think where Conservapedia could be stronger is the "[[Atheism is a religion]]" issue. Like this material: http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion except summarized and compact. Also, courts have called atheism a religion. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:41, 6 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Here is what Conservapedia has now: http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_is_a_religion Except for another topic I want to add later which I have referred to as the [[pièce de résistance]] I don't want the article to get much bigger as I believe it is a large article although it is an organized article that hits the main/common/interesting points that are or can be raised about this topic. I really like the wiki software in that it creates a table of contents so people can read what they want to read easily. I hit the print preview on Firefox 5.0 and it says the article is 63 pages long if printed out. It is probably Conservapedia's largest article. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:49, 6 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::I understand your logic, the article is big already and you don't want it to get bigger, that makes sense. Do you think the points I made would fit in another article, maybe one of the other articles the site has about atheism, or else a brand new one (e.g. "Definition of atheism")? And then I guess, this can be the main atheism article, and it can link to various subarticles, for people interested in more detail on specific points about atheism. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 15:30, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Expanding [[Definition of atheism]] sounds good. I will get a clip of [[William Lane Craig]] challenging atheist [[Christopher Hitchens]] on the definition of atheism once you complete the article which I predict will be a popular article. Hitchens claimed his earphone didn't work and got nervous. Even an atheist said Dr. Craig "spanked Hitchen's like a foolish child" at the debate. [http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1230] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:44, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Hi Conservative, please see I have added my content to the [[Definition of atheism]] article. Please let me know if there is anything I could improve. I think your clip sounds good. The reality is, William Lane Craig is a professional philosopher, Christopher Hitchens is a dilettante journalist. I think, if atheists want to debate Craig, they need to find people on Craig's own level, or else they'll just get steamrollered. I never watched that debate, but I've seen others - like a video of this atheist geologist who debated Craig, and I really felt sorry for the guy, because Craig was just wiping the floor with him. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 18:34, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::I would go into the implications of atheism being defined as a religion. John Calvert, the intelligent design lawyer (I provided two links for you), believes that if atheism is defined as a religion then you can argue that the evolutionary paradigm should not be taught as it advances the religion of atheism. It has been a while since I looked at his material but I think that is the gist of it. I would read Calvert's material again. I think it is important to include that material now that people are insisting in "atheism chaplains" for the military. I see possible future precedents being set in favor of Calvert's position. In addition, do any other courts outside the US recognize atheism as religion? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:20, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

== MIS-ATTRIBUTED MLK, JR quote ==

"We must remember that it's possible to affirm the existence of God with your lips and to deny the existence of God with your life. The most dangerous form of atheism is not theoretical atheism but practical atheism."

i cannot find the original transcription of this quotation. i found very little, at all, but the most that i could track down that i could reasonably attribute to King was:

''[i]I decided early to give my life to something eternal and
absolute. Not to these little gods that are here today and gone
tomorrow, but to God who is the same yesterday, today, and
forever.[/i] (MLK, Jr.; from "Rediscovering Lost Values," Feb. 28, 1954)
''
AND
''
[i]... I want you to think with me this morning from the subject: "Rediscovering Lost Values." "Rediscovering Lost Values." There is something wrong with our world, something fundamentally and basically wrong. I don't think we have to look too far to see that. I'm sure that most of you would agree with me in making that assertion. And when we stop to analyze the cause of our world's ills, many things come to mind.

We begin to wonder if it is due to the fact that we don't know enough. But it can't be that. Because in terms of accumulated knowledge we know more today than men have known in any period of human history. We have the facts at our disposal. We know more about mathematics, about science, about social science, and philosophy than we've ever known in any period of the world's history. So it can't be because we don't know enough.

And then we wonder if it is due to the fact that our scientific genius lags behind; that is, if we have not made enough progress scientifically. Well then, it can't be that. For our scientific progress over the past years has been [sic] amazing. Man through his scientific genius has been able to dwarf distance and place time in cha8fs, so that today it is possible to eat breakfast in New York City and supper in London, England. Back in about 1:53 [sic] it took a letter three days to go from New York City to Washington, and today youcan go from here to China in less time than that. It can't be because man is stagnant in his scientific progress. Man's scientific genius has been amazing.

''I think we have to look much deeper than that if we are to find the real cause of man's problems and the real cause of the world's ills today. If we are to really find it I think we will have to look in the hearts and souls of men.[/i]" [b]MLK, jr.[/b]''

DOES seems to exist, but the entire section on "Manifestations of atheism" is thoroughly un-sourced. further, if i'm to understand manifestations to mean observable differences between possible reactions to athiesm, then i don't understand the distinction. i think that behaving/believing in deities are two sides of the one coin; there is no effective difference, and the quote is mis-attributed.
:::I did not write that material. However, I listened to a tape series of MLK speeches and I am 95% confident that he said it. I can try to confirm it though without listening to the whole tape series again. ;) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:12, 20 July 2011 (EDT)
::::I fixed it, here is the sermon: http://www.globatron.org/truth/rediscovering-lost-values-martin-luther-king-early-sermon [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:21, 20 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::''There is something in this universe that justifies the biblical writer in saying, “You shall reap what you sow.” (Amen) This is a law-abiding universe. (Amen) This is a moral universe. It hinges on moral foundations. (Lord help him) If we are to make of this a better world, we’ve got to go back and rediscover that precious value that we’ve left behind. (Yes)''

:::::''And then there is a second thing, a second principle that we’ve got to go back and rediscover. (Help him) And that is that all reality has spiritual control. In other words, we’ve got to go back and rediscover the principle that there is a God behind the process. Well this you say, “Why is it that you raise that as a point in your sermon, in a church? The mere fact we are at church, we believe in God, we don’t need to go back and rediscover that. The mere fact that we are here, and the mere fact that we sing and pray, and come to church—we believe in God.” Well, there’s some truth in that. But we must remember that it’s possible to affirm the existence of God with your lips and deny his existence with your life. (Amen, Preach) The most dangerous type of atheism is not theoretical atheism, but practical atheism (Amen)—that’s the most dangerous type. (Lord have mercy) And the world, even the church, is filled up with people who pay lip service to God and not life service. (That’s right, Filled up with, Come on, Lord help him) And there is always a danger that we will make it appear externally that we believe in God when internally we don’t. (Yes) We say with our mouths that we believe in him, but we live with our lives like he never existed. (That’s right) That is the ever-present danger confronting religion. That’s a dangerous type of atheism.

:::::''And I think, my friends, that that is the thing that has happened in America. That we have unconsciously left God behind. Now, we haven’t consciously done it; we have unconsciously done it. You see, the text, you remember the text said that Jesus’ parents went a whole day’s journey not knowing that he wasn’t with them. They didn’t consciously leave him behind. (Well) It was unconscious; went a whole day and didn’t even know it. It wasn’t a conscious process. You see, we didn’t grow up and say, “Now, goodbye God, we’re going to leave you now.” The materialism in America has been an unconscious thing. Since the rise of the Industrial Revolution in England, and then the invention of all of our gadgets and contrivances and all of the things and modern conveniences—we unconsciously left God behind. We didn’t mean to do it.
:::::''... we need [various worldly things] ; all of that’s important to live. But whenever they become substitutes for God, (Yes) they become injurious. (Amen)
:::::''... And may I say to you this morning, (Lord help him) that none of these things can ever be real substitutes for God.
:::::''... And I say to you this morning in conclusion (Lord have mercy) that I’m not going to put my ultimate faith in things. I’m not going to put my ultimate faith in gadgets and contrivances. As a young man with most of my life ahead of me, I decided early (Oh yeah) to give my life to something eternal and absolute. (All right) Not to these little gods that are here today and gone tomorrow, (Come on) but to God who is the same yesterday, today, and forever. (Amen, Amen)

:::::''Not in the little gods that can be with us in a few moments of prosperity, (Yes) but in the God who walks with us through the valley of the shadow of death, (That’s right) and causes us to fear no evil. (All right) That’s the God. (Come on)
:::::... [after this it gets a bit psychedelic;p]:::::

i also found the speech here, on google books:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Uwi_HJUbJUMC&pg=PA253&lpg=PA253&dq=%22The+most+dangerous+type+of+atheism+is+not+theoretical+atheism,+but+practical+atheism%22&source=bl&ots=YSE23jsEZY&sig=b6e3gkMcP-b_36uMuaIKNtjyiWw&hl=en&ei=9H8nTuGLEZCgtwfvhdG7Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22The%20most%20dangerous%20type%20of%20atheism%20is%20not%20theoretical%20atheism%2C%20but%20practical%20atheism%22&f=false

so now it's well sourced, but i think MLK Jr is talking about materialism rather than modern atheism. i think it's explicit, even. "That's a dangerous type of atheism." would seem to imply logically that there are benign forms of atheism, or at least neutral, morally.

MLK Jr isn't really discussing atheism, at all. the insinuation that MLK Jr was particularly concerned with atheism is, afaik, unfounded, so the quote is still mis-attributed; it's also misapplied as an argument. but i would like to see any relevant documentation, otherwise. it think it sounds too much like original research, but maybe that's the point of this wiki;p
::::MLK mentions atheism/practical atheism and consumerism/materialism in the sermon I cited. I don't know if he spoke about "practical atheism" in the original sermon that was cited by another editor. I think you are either reading the sermon sloppily and/or merely being contentious at this point. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:28, 23 July 2011 (EDT)

== Requested Addition ==

I have written this paragraph and recommend its incorporation in the article as well as [[Atheism and uncharitableness|this article]]:

A comprehensive study by [[Harvard University]] professor [[Robert Putnam]] found that religious people are more charitable than their irreligious counterparts.<ref name="Relgion & Charity">{{cite web|url = http://pewforum.org/Religion-News/Religious-people-make-better-citizens-study-says.aspx|title =Religious people make better citizens, study says |publisher = [[Pew Research Center]]|quote=The scholars say their studies found that religious people are three to four times more likely to be involved in their community. They are more apt than nonreligious Americans to work on community projects, belong to voluntary associations, attend public meetings, vote in local elections, attend protest demonstrations and political rallies, and donate time and money to causes -- including secular ones. At the same time, Putnam and Campbell say their data show that religious people are just "nicer": they carry packages for people, don't mind folks cutting ahead in line and give money to panhandlers.|accessdate = 2007–10–18}}</ref><ref name="Relgion and Charity">{{cite web|url = http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-11-15-column15_ST_N.htm|title =Religious people are 'better neighbors'|publisher = [[USA Today]]|quote=However, on the other side of the ledger, religious people are also "better neighbors" than their secular counterparts. No matter the civic activity, being more religious means being more involved. Take, for example, volunteer work. Compared with people who never attend worship services, those who attend weekly are more likely to volunteer in religious activities (no surprise there), but also for secular causes. The differences between religious and secular Americans can be dramatic. Forty percent of worship-attending Americans volunteer regularly to help the poor and elderly, compared with 15% of Americans who never attend services. Frequent-attenders are also more likely than the never-attenders to volunteer for school and youth programs (36% vs. 15%), a neighborhood or civic group (26% vs. 13%), and for health care (21% vs. 13%). The same is true for philanthropic giving; religious Americans give more money to secular causes than do secular Americans. And the list goes on, as it is true for good deeds such as helping someone find a job, donating blood, and spending time with someone who is feeling blue. Furthermore, the "religious edge" holds up for organized forms of community involvement: membership in organizations, working to solve community problems, attending local meetings, voting in local elections, and working for social or political reform. On this last point, it is not just that religious people are advocating for right-leaning causes, although many are. Religious liberals are actually more likely to be community activists than are religious conservatives.|accessdate = 2007–10–18}}</ref> The study revealed that forty percent of [[service of worship|worship service]] attending Americans volunteer regularly to help the poor and elderly as opposed to 15% of Americans who never attend services.<ref name="Relgion & Charity">{{cite web|url = http://pewforum.org/Religion-News/Religious-people-make-better-citizens-study-says.aspx|title =Religious people make better citizens, study says |publisher = [[Pew Research Center]]|quote=The scholars say their studies found that religious people are three to four times more likely to be involved in their community. They are more apt than nonreligious Americans to work on community projects, belong to voluntary associations, attend public meetings, vote in local elections, attend protest demonstrations and political rallies, and donate time and money to causes -- including secular ones. At the same time, Putnam and Campbell say their data show that religious people are just "nicer": they carry packages for people, don't mind folks cutting ahead in line and give money to panhandlers.|accessdate = 2007–10–18}}</ref><ref name="Relgion and Charity">{{cite web|url = http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-11-15-column15_ST_N.htm|title =Religious people are 'better neighbors'|publisher = [[USA Today]]|quote=However, on the other side of the ledger, religious people are also "better neighbors" than their secular counterparts. No matter the civic activity, being more religious means being more involved. Take, for example, volunteer work. Compared with people who never attend worship services, those who attend weekly are more likely to volunteer in religious activities (no surprise there), but also for secular causes. The differences between religious and secular Americans can be dramatic. Forty percent of worship-attending Americans volunteer regularly to help the poor and elderly, compared with 15% of Americans who never attend services. Frequent-attenders are also more likely than the never-attenders to volunteer for school and youth programs (36% vs. 15%), a neighborhood or civic group (26% vs. 13%), and for health care (21% vs. 13%). The same is true for philanthropic giving; religious Americans give more money to secular causes than do secular Americans. And the list goes on, as it is true for good deeds such as helping someone find a job, donating blood, and spending time with someone who is feeling blue. Furthermore, the "religious edge" holds up for organized forms of community involvement: membership in organizations, working to solve community problems, attending local meetings, voting in local elections, and working for social or political reform. On this last point, it is not just that religious people are advocating for right-leaning causes, although many are. Religious liberals are actually more likely to be community activists than are religious conservatives.|accessdate = 2007–10–18}}</ref> Moreover, religious individuals are more likely than non-religious individuals to volunteer for school and youth programs (36% vs. 15%), a neighborhood or civic group (26% vs. 13%), and for health care (21% vs. 13%).<ref name="Relgion & Charity">{{cite web|url = http://pewforum.org/Religion-News/Religious-people-make-better-citizens-study-says.aspx|title =Religious people make better citizens, study says |publisher = [[Pew Research Center]]|quote=The scholars say their studies found that religious people are three to four times more likely to be involved in their community. They are more apt than nonreligious Americans to work on community projects, belong to voluntary associations, attend public meetings, vote in local elections, attend protest demonstrations and political rallies, and donate time and money to causes -- including secular ones. At the same time, Putnam and Campbell say their data show that religious people are just "nicer": they carry packages for people, don't mind folks cutting ahead in line and give money to panhandlers.|accessdate = 2007–10–18}}</ref><ref name="Relgion and Charity">{{cite web|url = http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-11-15-column15_ST_N.htm|title =Religious people are 'better neighbors'|publisher = [[USA Today]]|quote=However, on the other side of the ledger, religious people are also "better neighbors" than their secular counterparts. No matter the civic activity, being more religious means being more involved. Take, for example, volunteer work. Compared with people who never attend worship services, those who attend weekly are more likely to volunteer in religious activities (no surprise there), but also for secular causes. The differences between religious and secular Americans can be dramatic. Forty percent of worship-attending Americans volunteer regularly to help the poor and elderly, compared with 15% of Americans who never attend services. Frequent-attenders are also more likely than the never-attenders to volunteer for school and youth programs (36% vs. 15%), a neighborhood or civic group (26% vs. 13%), and for health care (21% vs. 13%). The same is true for philanthropic giving; religious Americans give more money to secular causes than do secular Americans. And the list goes on, as it is true for good deeds such as helping someone find a job, donating blood, and spending time with someone who is feeling blue. Furthermore, the "religious edge" holds up for organized forms of community involvement: membership in organizations, working to solve community problems, attending local meetings, voting in local elections, and working for social or political reform. On this last point, it is not just that religious people are advocating for right-leaning causes, although many are. Religious liberals are actually more likely to be community activists than are religious conservatives.|accessdate = 2007–10–18}}</ref>

===References===
{{reflist}}

:::Anupam, I added the material. However, given the size of this article/web page, I deleted all the notes in the footnotes. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:06, 23 July 2011 (EDT)

== Conspiring Atheists ==

Atheists supposedly conspired against Youtube Users, Nephilimfree, and ShockofGod. The medium claim to be used is voxli, more specificlly the following website, [http://www.voxli.com/pointmanzero]
:::Sounds like a small fry YouTube soap opera. It does appears that some atheists have cried wolf before. Shockofgod allegedly engaging in phishing (yet no YouTube atheist accounts seem to have been shutdown). From what I have seen, there appears to be a lot of strange atheists channels at YouTube (guy posing as a woman, atheist guy who had a weird relations with his teddy bear. etc. etc. etc.). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:20, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] Hey I read somewhere that Atheists were more likely to be unemployed then Christians or too have lower paying jobs. I can't remember where I read it but I know it's true. We might want to add that in, maybe in the same paragraph as the one on being uncharitable.

== Length of Page ==

Is it possible to split this material up at all? I noticed on the Penn Jillette article that you claim that this is 53 pages of written text. If that is true I believe that dividing this page in some way would make it more accessible (Its really difficult to parse 53 pages of information and most people don't have an hour to read a wiki article). Anyway just a suggestion. --[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 20:42, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Debate:Should RobS lose his Sysop rights?

2011-08-02T02:28:09Z

MRellek: /* the voters */

== Rename headlines ==

I'm almost tempted to rename "Yea" and "Nay" to "I want to be promoted!" and "I want to be banned soon!" respectively. Some truth in advertising would be refreshing ;) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:06, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

== Time Limit ==

Should there be some sort of time limitation on how long this vote lasts? [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 15:09, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:Given how this vote is more about making a point than actually deciding Rob's fate, does it matter? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:11, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::I suppose not. I feel like we're all part of the Charge of the Light Brigade...[[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 15:12, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

== spelling ==

The spelling "loose" for "lose" is one of my pet peeves. Sorry, Rob, but you spelled it wrong. Please fix. Rob should not lose his sysop rights, and Conservative should not be allowed to loose his inane ramblings over this website. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 15:09, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:If you feel that way SamHB then add your vote to the main page. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 15:11, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

== Yea votes ==

I don't think we can trust User:Conservative's assertion that there are five sysops against RobS. If these sysops want to cast a vote they cannot cast a vote through Conservative acting as a proxy. They should have to come to the page and vote themselves. Only seems fair. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 15:17, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:This is true; also, there are site policies regarding the use of [[gossip]], bullying, and innuendo. It should be noted User:RobSmith edits under his real life identity. Some untempered, inflamitory comments made by unrestrained sysops, such as User:Conservative, about real life persons have the potential to be problematic. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:50, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

== Comment ==
[[User:Conservative]] brings a great deal of traffic and quality publicity to this site. In my opinion, that is too important to risk over a silly squabble. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 20:15, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:Running naked onto a baseball field brings a lot of attention, too. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 20:19, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
===A slightly more pressing comment===
So.. a bunch of you think that the power structure here is broken and corrupt... and even a few think andy is working against you all... So what do you expect to get done here? Somehow convince Synops that you say abuse power to not do so anymore cause a bunch of people made a vote? I'm just curious, because you know, from your own point of view your wasting time. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 20:28, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:We're just trying to make a point before User:Conservative inevitably wins. This is a Charge of the Light Brigade..."Into the valley of ban rode the 600..." [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 20:40, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::The nay voters are just making it easy for the sysops to know who to block when the dust settles. We don't need disloyal users here. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 20:49, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:::We also don't need socks, of which many users (including myself) suspect you are. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 20:51, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Have you seen my [[Talk:Main Page#Conservapedia Android App|Android app?]] or my [[Portal:Essays|essay portal]]? Why would a sock puppet make contributions like that? Maybe you're a sock. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 20:54, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Simple reasoning here, FergusE...if I were a sock '''I would be agreeing with the current direction of the site, not disagreeing with it.''' There is no benefit to dissenting at Conservapedia. Most socks follow your path, where they constantly parrot what the other sysops are saying to create an illusion of more support for that sysop's preferred positions than actually exists. As for the app and the portal, if someone went through the effort to create socks (like many sysops here) and log in and out of the site to respond on numerous issues than I don;t find it unreasonable that they'd have their sock take credit for other work on the site. If that sock got promoted, then the person behind it would effectively have 2 votes in site matters, and more power. Pretty simple really. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 21:00, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Check the description on the App's page again. And check the edit history of the portal. It's me. This is a typical tactic: discredit my position by discrediting me. Did you ever stop to think that maybe I really do support [[User:Conservative]]? --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 21:08, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::It's rather easy to use an alias online, FergusE. I wouldn't doubt that a dedicated sysop with a sock would go through such effort. And to be honest with you, I did briefly think about the possibility that you do support him, but then it occurred to me that '''except for you and one other user, no one has spoken up publicly for User:Conservative.''' Not Karajou, not TerryH, not the two mystery sysops Conservative claims support him, no one. I just find it highly unlikely you are an independent user who is not a parodist. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 21:14, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Karajou and TerryH have voiced their support for [[User:Conservative]] on other pages. Their votes were listed in the Yea section but were [[censor]]ed by User:RobS. I've offered my support and I'm now done here. You can believe what you want. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 21:30, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::But they haven't voiced their support here. It's like voting in a Presidential election- you can say whatever you want before election day but if you don't show up to the polls your vote won't count. If they really support Conservative they'd vote here. And I know you're not going, just like Conservative said he was "putting Conservapedia on the back burner" and then continued editing. Also, another reason why I think you're Conservative...the wikifying of various usernames and phrases in a debate or talk page comment is one of his traits. We're not dumb. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 21:34, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::Andy Schlafly has yet to make a statement. No one thinks he's "working against us."--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 20:56, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
-
::::::I was referring to comments people made when he removed checkuser from Rob--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 21:00, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

:No, the vote won't magically fix anything. If the site can still be fixed, it's going to start with a long process of hammering out centralized and less vague rules, and of holding everybody to the same standards. Yes, even (*gasp*) the sysops.
:And that's just the thing - this is about policy and not about stripping Rob or Conservative of their powers. That's just the lazy way out. If Rob is thrown out, the policy reform is dead, and the community will continue at its usual low point. If Conservative is thrown out, somebody else will take his place because the system is still broken.
:Conservative pushed hard to get Rob thrown out by invoking a sort of ''ad populum'' argument with his "4 Sysops support me! Now 5 Sysops support me! Maybe soon 6 Sysops will support me!" posts on Andy's talk page. That's mob rule, and Rob simply demonstrated that this can go both ways. That's why we voted. It was never about the actual outcome, it was to show that Rob has plenty of support from the community and isn't the lone antagonist Conservative tried to paint him as.
:Maybe now we as a community, normal editors and sysops, can work together on the actual issues. CP won't turn into an evolutionist atheist liberal site (duh), but maybe it can turn into a site where new editors don't have to worry about being banhammered for violating some obscure rule such as "Reverting a sysop even once can get you blocked without warning!". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:02, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

The above discussion reveals that many liberals have somehow infiltrated this good website. I recommend bans on the dissenters.--[[User:JacobReid|JacobReid]] 21:04, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

:This website has become a collection of jokes masquerading as essays, or even, in some cases, actual mainspace articles. If Conservapedia has been reduced to a collection of 'fat jokes' and articles about flying animals, which are tolerated, if not perhaps actively encouraged, in a cynical drive for pageviews, then what is the point of this website at all? What do any of those things have to do with this website's original intention? [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 21:42, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

=== Move? ===
Should we maybe move this section to the talk page? Might be a better place. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:30, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:ok [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:45, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

===Fundamental reform===
Fundamental reform would be incorporating into Conservapedia's core content policy what already comes up in Google Search results: '''An encyclopaedia with articles written from a conservative viewpoint.''' Let's call it '''[[CPOV]]'''. Then editor's that sign up here, be they obese homosexual liberal atheists or Jesus himself upon return would know article content must adhere to Conservapedia's core content policy of CPOV, "this is non-negotiable", top borrow language from Wikipedia. This would end ceaseless and pointless discussion, sockpuppetry, parody, and trolling that's plagued CP from the early days. This website now, neither has it ever, required an ideological litmus test of contributors. There have been abusive Administrators in the past who have ''illegally'' blocked on ideological grounds. This is why CP is in need of a reform movement. The language administrators used to overstep editors efforts was,
:*'''''Administrators and Bureaucrats are the final authority as to policy and procedures. ''Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed.''' [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Guidelines&diff=prev&oldid=892763]
has been rescinded, per the site owners approval. This opens the door to Community input. Likewise it has fostered a Resistance movement among the CP Old Guard who feel threatened with a loss of power. But now we are all equals, editors and sysops. All must follow the same rules of interaction and civility.

These are only first steps. I encourage constructive editors to get involved in this reform process. It's not about personal disputes, it's about making Conservapedia a healthy, constructive, less threatening and friendly-to-the-newbie editing environment and educational resource. It begins with admitting our failures, moving on past them to making Conservapedia less of a joke, and more of an encyclopedic resource. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:45, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

== the voters ==

I think we should ignore votes by "contributors" that have not made any substantial mainspace edits. This goes for both sides. --[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 08:11, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
:It would seem that some editors with blocking rights and a certain sysop are taking control of this by banning or blocking every remotely questionable user anyway. I would guess that at least half of the users in the nay will be blocked by the end of this.--[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 22:18, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
::I think this is a serious issue. People on both sides of the vote have no real contributions and should not be given a say in Conservapedia's affairs.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 22:24, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
::: I agree and it seems that many of them have already been banned for being socks or vandals. Hopefully this doesn't scare off actual users with valid opinions.--[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 22:28, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

== This page is not being honest ==

Yes, this page is not being honest. I am not against refinement of Conservapedia's rules and suggested a [[User:Conservative/blocking-board-framework|blocking review board framework]]. This is about RobS: being disloyal to his fellow Conservapedians, not wanting to apply rules to himself, playing pointless power games, whitewashing Ashlafly's talk page and often behaving unreasonably. The dishonesty of this web page has probably caused Karajou and TerryH not to vote. Plus, Karajou believes sockpuppets are being used to vote and this page is a sham. Furthermore, I did find it telling that RobS watched my vote and Karajou's vote being removed and did not bother to ask TerryH if he thought he should lose his Admin rights since I maintain this is TerryH's position. Given the dishonesty of this web page, I would not be surprised if others did not vote either and are not going to bother with this web page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:26, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
:Quite so, User:Conservative. The [[silent majority]] very wisely don't want to get involved in RobS's power games. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 09:45, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
::Actually, it is about you acting in a childish and unbecoming manner, when you were asked to unlock talk pages and to stop deleting pages at random. However, you saw this as an affront to your power and over-reacted. It is exactly the same reason why you do not use the preview and minor edit buttons - you seem to think you are about such niceties. Your over-reaction to this is ample proof. It was never about RobS, but you being unwilling to work with other people. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 09:56, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
::::Jcw, I do agree with your "RobS power games comment". I don't know if there is a "silent majority", but since I don't believe in mob rule it is a moot point anyways. My guess is that the power structure of Conservapedia is going to change within 5 years and I believe I may have a suggestion within 2-3 years as I think the timing of me offering such a suggestion will be more opportune. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:57, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

Point of clarification: The situation about the removal of votes Conservative is refering to is where another editor added votes from sysops that Conservative has stated support RobS being demoted. The supporting sysops did ''not'' actually place their votes on the page. The proxy votes were removed under the premise of one person/one vote. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:41, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

== Jcw edits ==

Jcw has been removing comments from the Debate page on the grounds of civility. I believe he has gone way too far. A number of those comments were very relevant to the debate and the reason for editors exercising their vote in a particular way. I would ask that they be reinstated. I didn't want to rush back in and immediately reinstate them myself without discussion so I await some input from Jcw. If not I intend to reinstate some of them myself. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 17:36, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
:Agreed, many of the comments removed were in fact quite relevant. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:37, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

::I've been very careful - every remark I've removed could have been rephrased to be quite acceptable. If people want to make cogent points then they're free to do so, but they should do so in ways that follow the rules and avoid inflammatory or insulting language. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:40, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Acceptable to whom? Have you cleaned up the insulting, inflammatory language of another admin on the [[Community Portal]] page, or ASchlafly's talk page? or his comments to editors anywhere, ever? This is precisely at the core of this issue, sysops wantonly abusing editors, and other sysops not holding them to account. Sysop's are not God. They '''''Do Not''''' make and/or dictate the rules anymore. They themselves must be held to account for their own interaction with the lesser beings, the lowly editors. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:20, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
::::No doubt you understand the system better than I do, but I assumed that the sysops were accountable upwards, to ASchlafly. Isn't that the point - to avoid mob rule by having a clear chain of command with a definite leader at the top? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:24, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
::(EC) P.s. Note that I'm not a sysop or an admin, just a user. I haven't taken any part in this debate, nor do I belong to any side or have any personal allegiance to anyone involved. My only interest is to prevent further excesses; one inflammatory comment leads to more and so on, leading to a very poor quality of debate. This hurts everyone who wants open discussion. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:44, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Unless the language is completely offensive it should stay. Jcw, you are removing peoples reasoning, which IS NOT a personal remark. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:41, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
::::On that we disagree; perhaps an admin will settle the point. In my opinion, an argument like this should be handled very carefully and with the highest levels of civility and respect for all parties. The comments I removed evinced disrespect variously for Conservative, ASchlafly and the site as a whole. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:44, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::user:Conservative was far more egregious when it came to personal remarks recently and the ones on this page explain ''reasons'' why people support Robs over Conservative. Please do not remove them until a line is crossed (which it hasn't yet - not quite). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:47, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::As Conservative is a sysop, it's not my place to comment on his behavior. As for other users, I suppose we have different ideas about where the line is. To me, calling this whole site a 'joke' is crossing the line; calling another sysop 'abusive' is crossing the line. If something useful were being discussed, I might be more relaxed about it, but as this page seems simply to be an excuse for users to insult Conservative, I don't feel inclined to have much tolerance. The matters being discussed on this page are for the sysops to discuss and decide on, not for us users to carp about. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:53, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::If I was asked why I believe conservative should be stripped of sysop rights I would say it is because he uses them in an unbecoming fashions, is abusive to other uses and his "Obesity" essay make conservapedia into a joke. That is not a personal attack. learn the difference. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:55, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
(unindent)Perhaps it's not a 'personal attack', but it is disrespectful of a senior admin on this site, of the site itself, and by implication the whole senior team here. You and I have no business making remarks like that. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:59, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
:''You and I have no business making remarks like that.'' Which is part of the problem when it comes to sysop accountability and this is exactly why we have this page. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:04, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Debate:Should RobS lose his Sysop rights?

2011-08-02T02:18:41Z

MRellek: /* the voters */

== Rename headlines ==

I'm almost tempted to rename "Yea" and "Nay" to "I want to be promoted!" and "I want to be banned soon!" respectively. Some truth in advertising would be refreshing ;) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:06, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

== Time Limit ==

Should there be some sort of time limitation on how long this vote lasts? [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 15:09, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:Given how this vote is more about making a point than actually deciding Rob's fate, does it matter? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:11, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::I suppose not. I feel like we're all part of the Charge of the Light Brigade...[[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 15:12, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

== spelling ==

The spelling "loose" for "lose" is one of my pet peeves. Sorry, Rob, but you spelled it wrong. Please fix. Rob should not lose his sysop rights, and Conservative should not be allowed to loose his inane ramblings over this website. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 15:09, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:If you feel that way SamHB then add your vote to the main page. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 15:11, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

== Yea votes ==

I don't think we can trust User:Conservative's assertion that there are five sysops against RobS. If these sysops want to cast a vote they cannot cast a vote through Conservative acting as a proxy. They should have to come to the page and vote themselves. Only seems fair. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 15:17, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:This is true; also, there are site policies regarding the use of [[gossip]], bullying, and innuendo. It should be noted User:RobSmith edits under his real life identity. Some untempered, inflamitory comments made by unrestrained sysops, such as User:Conservative, about real life persons have the potential to be problematic. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:50, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

== Comment ==
[[User:Conservative]] brings a great deal of traffic and quality publicity to this site. In my opinion, that is too important to risk over a silly squabble. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 20:15, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:Running naked onto a baseball field brings a lot of attention, too. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 20:19, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
===A slightly more pressing comment===
So.. a bunch of you think that the power structure here is broken and corrupt... and even a few think andy is working against you all... So what do you expect to get done here? Somehow convince Synops that you say abuse power to not do so anymore cause a bunch of people made a vote? I'm just curious, because you know, from your own point of view your wasting time. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 20:28, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:We're just trying to make a point before User:Conservative inevitably wins. This is a Charge of the Light Brigade..."Into the valley of ban rode the 600..." [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 20:40, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::The nay voters are just making it easy for the sysops to know who to block when the dust settles. We don't need disloyal users here. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 20:49, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:::We also don't need socks, of which many users (including myself) suspect you are. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 20:51, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Have you seen my [[Talk:Main Page#Conservapedia Android App|Android app?]] or my [[Portal:Essays|essay portal]]? Why would a sock puppet make contributions like that? Maybe you're a sock. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 20:54, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Simple reasoning here, FergusE...if I were a sock '''I would be agreeing with the current direction of the site, not disagreeing with it.''' There is no benefit to dissenting at Conservapedia. Most socks follow your path, where they constantly parrot what the other sysops are saying to create an illusion of more support for that sysop's preferred positions than actually exists. As for the app and the portal, if someone went through the effort to create socks (like many sysops here) and log in and out of the site to respond on numerous issues than I don;t find it unreasonable that they'd have their sock take credit for other work on the site. If that sock got promoted, then the person behind it would effectively have 2 votes in site matters, and more power. Pretty simple really. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 21:00, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Check the description on the App's page again. And check the edit history of the portal. It's me. This is a typical tactic: discredit my position by discrediting me. Did you ever stop to think that maybe I really do support [[User:Conservative]]? --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 21:08, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::It's rather easy to use an alias online, FergusE. I wouldn't doubt that a dedicated sysop with a sock would go through such effort. And to be honest with you, I did briefly think about the possibility that you do support him, but then it occurred to me that '''except for you and one other user, no one has spoken up publicly for User:Conservative.''' Not Karajou, not TerryH, not the two mystery sysops Conservative claims support him, no one. I just find it highly unlikely you are an independent user who is not a parodist. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 21:14, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Karajou and TerryH have voiced their support for [[User:Conservative]] on other pages. Their votes were listed in the Yea section but were [[censor]]ed by User:RobS. I've offered my support and I'm now done here. You can believe what you want. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 21:30, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::But they haven't voiced their support here. It's like voting in a Presidential election- you can say whatever you want before election day but if you don't show up to the polls your vote won't count. If they really support Conservative they'd vote here. And I know you're not going, just like Conservative said he was "putting Conservapedia on the back burner" and then continued editing. Also, another reason why I think you're Conservative...the wikifying of various usernames and phrases in a debate or talk page comment is one of his traits. We're not dumb. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 21:34, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::Andy Schlafly has yet to make a statement. No one thinks he's "working against us."--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 20:56, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
-
::::::I was referring to comments people made when he removed checkuser from Rob--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 21:00, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

:No, the vote won't magically fix anything. If the site can still be fixed, it's going to start with a long process of hammering out centralized and less vague rules, and of holding everybody to the same standards. Yes, even (*gasp*) the sysops.
:And that's just the thing - this is about policy and not about stripping Rob or Conservative of their powers. That's just the lazy way out. If Rob is thrown out, the policy reform is dead, and the community will continue at its usual low point. If Conservative is thrown out, somebody else will take his place because the system is still broken.
:Conservative pushed hard to get Rob thrown out by invoking a sort of ''ad populum'' argument with his "4 Sysops support me! Now 5 Sysops support me! Maybe soon 6 Sysops will support me!" posts on Andy's talk page. That's mob rule, and Rob simply demonstrated that this can go both ways. That's why we voted. It was never about the actual outcome, it was to show that Rob has plenty of support from the community and isn't the lone antagonist Conservative tried to paint him as.
:Maybe now we as a community, normal editors and sysops, can work together on the actual issues. CP won't turn into an evolutionist atheist liberal site (duh), but maybe it can turn into a site where new editors don't have to worry about being banhammered for violating some obscure rule such as "Reverting a sysop even once can get you blocked without warning!". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:02, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

The above discussion reveals that many liberals have somehow infiltrated this good website. I recommend bans on the dissenters.--[[User:JacobReid|JacobReid]] 21:04, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

:This website has become a collection of jokes masquerading as essays, or even, in some cases, actual mainspace articles. If Conservapedia has been reduced to a collection of 'fat jokes' and articles about flying animals, which are tolerated, if not perhaps actively encouraged, in a cynical drive for pageviews, then what is the point of this website at all? What do any of those things have to do with this website's original intention? [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 21:42, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

=== Move? ===
Should we maybe move this section to the talk page? Might be a better place. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:30, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:ok [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:45, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

===Fundamental reform===
Fundamental reform would be incorporating into Conservapedia's core content policy what already comes up in Google Search results: '''An encyclopaedia with articles written from a conservative viewpoint.''' Let's call it '''[[CPOV]]'''. Then editor's that sign up here, be they obese homosexual liberal atheists or Jesus himself upon return would know article content must adhere to Conservapedia's core content policy of CPOV, "this is non-negotiable", top borrow language from Wikipedia. This would end ceaseless and pointless discussion, sockpuppetry, parody, and trolling that's plagued CP from the early days. This website now, neither has it ever, required an ideological litmus test of contributors. There have been abusive Administrators in the past who have ''illegally'' blocked on ideological grounds. This is why CP is in need of a reform movement. The language administrators used to overstep editors efforts was,
:*'''''Administrators and Bureaucrats are the final authority as to policy and procedures. ''Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed.''' [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Guidelines&diff=prev&oldid=892763]
has been rescinded, per the site owners approval. This opens the door to Community input. Likewise it has fostered a Resistance movement among the CP Old Guard who feel threatened with a loss of power. But now we are all equals, editors and sysops. All must follow the same rules of interaction and civility.

These are only first steps. I encourage constructive editors to get involved in this reform process. It's not about personal disputes, it's about making Conservapedia a healthy, constructive, less threatening and friendly-to-the-newbie editing environment and educational resource. It begins with admitting our failures, moving on past them to making Conservapedia less of a joke, and more of an encyclopedic resource. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:45, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

== the voters ==

I think we should ignore votes by "contributors" that have not made any substantial mainspace edits. This goes for both sides. --[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 08:11, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
:It would seem that some editors with blocking rights and a certain sysop are taking control of this by banning or blocking every remotely questionable user anyway. I would guess that at least half of the users in the nay will be blocked by the end of this.--[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 22:18, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

== This page is not being honest ==

Yes, this page is not being honest. I am not against refinement of Conservapedia's rules and suggested a [[User:Conservative/blocking-board-framework|blocking review board framework]]. This is about RobS: being disloyal to his fellow Conservapedians, not wanting to apply rules to himself, playing pointless power games, whitewashing Ashlafly's talk page and often behaving unreasonably. The dishonesty of this web page has probably caused Karajou and TerryH not to vote. Plus, Karajou believes sockpuppets are being used to vote and this page is a sham. Furthermore, I did find it telling that RobS watched my vote and Karajou's vote being removed and did not bother to ask TerryH if he thought he should lose his Admin rights since I maintain this is TerryH's position. Given the dishonesty of this web page, I would not be surprised if others did not vote either and are not going to bother with this web page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:26, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
:Quite so, User:Conservative. The [[silent majority]] very wisely don't want to get involved in RobS's power games. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 09:45, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
::Actually, it is about you acting in a childish and unbecoming manner, when you were asked to unlock talk pages and to stop deleting pages at random. However, you saw this as an affront to your power and over-reacted. It is exactly the same reason why you do not use the preview and minor edit buttons - you seem to think you are about such niceties. Your over-reaction to this is ample proof. It was never about RobS, but you being unwilling to work with other people. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 09:56, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
::::Jcw, I do agree with your "RobS power games comment". I don't know if there is a "silent majority", but since I don't believe in mob rule it is a moot point anyways. My guess is that the power structure of Conservapedia is going to change within 5 years and I believe I may have a suggestion within 2-3 years as I think the timing of me offering such a suggestion will be more opportune. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:57, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

Point of clarification: The situation about the removal of votes Conservative is refering to is where another editor added votes from sysops that Conservative has stated support RobS being demoted. The supporting sysops did ''not'' actually place their votes on the page. The proxy votes were removed under the premise of one person/one vote. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:41, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

== Jcw edits ==

Jcw has been removing comments from the Debate page on the grounds of civility. I believe he has gone way too far. A number of those comments were very relevant to the debate and the reason for editors exercising their vote in a particular way. I would ask that they be reinstated. I didn't want to rush back in and immediately reinstate them myself without discussion so I await some input from Jcw. If not I intend to reinstate some of them myself. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 17:36, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
:Agreed, many of the comments removed were in fact quite relevant. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:37, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

::I've been very careful - every remark I've removed could have been rephrased to be quite acceptable. If people want to make cogent points then they're free to do so, but they should do so in ways that follow the rules and avoid inflammatory or insulting language. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:40, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Acceptable to whom? Have you cleaned up the insulting, inflammatory language of another admin on the [[Community Portal]] page, or ASchlafly's talk page? or his comments to editors anywhere, ever? This is precisely at the core of this issue, sysops wantonly abusing editors, and other sysops not holding them to account. Sysop's are not God. They '''''Do Not''''' make and/or dictate the rules anymore. They themselves must be held to account for their own interaction with the lesser beings, the lowly editors. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:20, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
::::No doubt you understand the system better than I do, but I assumed that the sysops were accountable upwards, to ASchlafly. Isn't that the point - to avoid mob rule by having a clear chain of command with a definite leader at the top? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:24, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
::(EC) P.s. Note that I'm not a sysop or an admin, just a user. I haven't taken any part in this debate, nor do I belong to any side or have any personal allegiance to anyone involved. My only interest is to prevent further excesses; one inflammatory comment leads to more and so on, leading to a very poor quality of debate. This hurts everyone who wants open discussion. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:44, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Unless the language is completely offensive it should stay. Jcw, you are removing peoples reasoning, which IS NOT a personal remark. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:41, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
::::On that we disagree; perhaps an admin will settle the point. In my opinion, an argument like this should be handled very carefully and with the highest levels of civility and respect for all parties. The comments I removed evinced disrespect variously for Conservative, ASchlafly and the site as a whole. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:44, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::user:Conservative was far more egregious when it came to personal remarks recently and the ones on this page explain ''reasons'' why people support Robs over Conservative. Please do not remove them until a line is crossed (which it hasn't yet - not quite). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:47, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::As Conservative is a sysop, it's not my place to comment on his behavior. As for other users, I suppose we have different ideas about where the line is. To me, calling this whole site a 'joke' is crossing the line; calling another sysop 'abusive' is crossing the line. If something useful were being discussed, I might be more relaxed about it, but as this page seems simply to be an excuse for users to insult Conservative, I don't feel inclined to have much tolerance. The matters being discussed on this page are for the sysops to discuss and decide on, not for us users to carp about. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:53, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::If I was asked why I believe conservative should be stripped of sysop rights I would say it is because he uses them in an unbecoming fashions, is abusive to other uses and his "Obesity" essay make conservapedia into a joke. That is not a personal attack. learn the difference. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:55, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
(unindent)Perhaps it's not a 'personal attack', but it is disrespectful of a senior admin on this site, of the site itself, and by implication the whole senior team here. You and I have no business making remarks like that. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:59, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
:''You and I have no business making remarks like that.'' Which is part of the problem when it comes to sysop accountability and this is exactly why we have this page. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:04, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Debate:Should RobS lose his Sysop rights?

2011-08-01T02:42:13Z

MRellek: Undo revision 895734 by FergusE (talk)

User talk:Jcw

2011-07-31T21:01:01Z

MRellek:

This is a [[meritocracy]], and you deserve blocking privileges. They have just been awarded to you. Congratulations!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:55, 7 June 2011 (EDT)
:Thanks Andy, much appreciated. I'll endeavor to use the privileges responsibly and to the benefit of CP. If I have questions about blocking policy or anti-vandal tactics, is it alright to ask publicly on your talk page, or is there a better venue? Thanks again. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 12:50, 7 June 2011 (EDT)
::Wow, your new privileges were just in time! Great effort a little while ago.

::I'll mark your talk page here as "watched" and you can ask any questions about blocking here, or on my talk page. Looks like you already know what you need, however!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:51, 7 June 2011 (EDT)
:::Indeed, the vandals never seem to be far away... One question occurs at once: from the username policy, I'd assume that anyone with a clearly incorrect username should be gently blocked and invited to re-join. Is that something I can legitimately do, or should I leave it to the admins? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:57, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

::::Please do block inappropriate user names, even before any edits. Note that it is necessary to unblock the option boxes in those cases in order to allow re-registering under an appropriate name.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:22, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::Ah yes, I'll be careful of that. Thanks for all the help. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 14:29, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

==Freyja==

I won't put up with edit warring over my talk page. If you want to have this sort of discussion on here, you have to be civil and respectful. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 08:21, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

:Genuine thanks for being even handed and deleting the whole thread, rather than selectively deleting individual contributions. [[User:Freyja|Freyja]]

::I suppose I can't be upset at your using a sock to post that... I look forward to an interesting discussion elsewhere - perhaps on your talk page, or a CP debate page? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 08:44, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

== Question ==

Hello there, I'm new here on Conservapedia. However it seems I cannot create new pages. Is there any way I am able to do so? Or is it a restriction to protect the wiki from vandals creating nonsense pages? [[User:TomFowdy|TomFowdy]] 10:33, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

: When an entry does not exist, there is a link to click for it in order to create it. You should be able to do this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:35, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

== A minor point ==

First, congrats! And thanks for sorting out the A.D.s at [[Otho]]. Now for the minor point: virtually all of you edits are marked as ''minor''. That's very humble, but not right :-) Please have a look at [[Help:Editing etiquette#Minor Edit box]].

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:01, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
:Ah yes, a good point - I set the software to mark all edits as 'minor' when I first started contributing, and back then it was true. Thanks for pointing it out. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 12:05, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

== Alert block ==

Jcw, your alert block earlier was superb. I should have promoted you to this sooner: SkipCaptcha. Now you won't have to enter captcha characters any more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:15, 13 June 2011 (EDT)
:Thanks Andy, that'll be useful - reverting blanked pages usually involves a captcha, so skipping it will make fixing vandalism twice as fast. Speaking of which, have you considered a tool to allow banning a vandal and reverting all his edits at once? Of course it would only be applicable to the run-of-the-mill drive-by vandals who blank a few pages then get banned, but it could save a lot of time spent reverting. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:37, 13 June 2011 (EDT)
::::I think MediaWiki has an extension called Nuke something or other that does that type of reverting. [[User:Conservative|conservative]]

== thanks, removed reference to website ==

Thanks, I removed reference to the website in question. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 13:11, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
:No problem. Glad to be a help. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:15, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

== N3hima blocked ==

Good catch, I think they are trying to check whether the sysops read all the posts. Thank God you were alert :) --[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 19:32, 23 June 2011 (EDT)
:Thanks. That's actually the first remotely intelligent attempt at vandalism I've seen - I'd almost stopped paying attention by the time it came to the vandalism. I think if the user had had a more reasonable name I might not have noticed at all. Silly vandal! [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 21:04, 23 June 2011 (EDT)
::Hehe, I do not like vandalism, but I must admit that this one attempt made me laugh! Still, good catch! --[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 02:23, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

== Conservative words count ==

You appear to have inadvertently reverted my change to the word count on Conservative Words. I added "left wing" to the 1800s. That is why the count was changed. --[[User:BertramB|BertramB]] 21:15, 23 June 2011 (EDT)
:Ah yes, my mistake. However, you seem to be adding some dubious words to the list - 'vacuous' seems awfully like parody to me. Please come and discuss your additions on the talk page. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 21:37, 23 June 2011 (EDT)
::I confess I am a little concerned and even put out by your reaction to my editing. And by the reaction of Aschlafly. Between you, you have removed all of my additions to the article. At least in your case you gave some sort of reason (in relation to "garrote" which I address below) but Aschlafly gave no reason at all other than an assertion that the edits didn't meet the "particularly high quality level" required. So I am left to ponder how my entry of "vacuous - Empty, void or free. A common characteristic of liberal argument" falls below the particularly high standard set by entries such as "blather - nonsensical or insignificant babble, as in "liberal blather is common on the lamestream media"". Or how my entry of the word "morals - A person's moral qualities" falls below the particularly high standard set by entries such as "fat farm - a place where obese people -- such as self-centered atheists -- might go to try to lose weight". Perhaps you could explain the difference to me? I have an interest in etymology and am very interested in editing the page so it would be of great assistance to know how these things are judged.
::As to the word "garrote" I regarded it as a conservative term in light of the fact that it was the state sanctioned method of execution in Spain for some time. Indeed American authorities kept the garrote as a method of execution in the Philippines after its capture in 1898. Capital punishment is often decried by liberals who have little or no concept of righteous punishment for criminal acts, whereas conservatives have always recognised the benefit of capital punishment in building a law abiding and just society. That was why I included the word. I do, however, appreciate your concerns and will not reintroduce the word into the article without consulting you. --[[User:BertramB|BertramB]] 00:04, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

== Trolling? ==

I'm sorry - but when is raising legitimate concerns about the conduct of people on Conservapedia "trolling"? Or is the standard response to "something I don't like" to delete it? Please can you enlighten me, so I know for future reference. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 10:04, 26 June 2011 (EDT)
:Please go back and re-read what you wrote. Your tone was rather offensive, indeed it seemed calculated to provoke Conservative. I'm sure you can make your substantive points in a less strident manner, then they'll be more likely to get a response. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 10:14, 26 June 2011 (EDT)
::Sorry, I was - am - annoyed. But I will tone down my questions for him. Thank you! [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 10:21, 26 June 2011 (EDT)
:::No problem TracyS, it happens to us all. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 10:28, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

== Well-deserved promotion ==

You've just received a well-deserved promotion to full 24x7 editing, without interruption.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:30, 26 June 2011 (EDT)
:Superb, many thanks. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 03:02, 27 June 2011 (EDT)

== Netball ==

Hi - I was curious why you reverted my change on netball? [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:32, 29 June 2011 (EDT)
:Edited to add: This is from the referenced article on netball: Netball is an Olympic recognised sport. The sport gained recognition in 1995, after a twenty year period of lobbying. '''It has never been played at the summer Olympics but recognition means that it could be played at some point in the future.'''

Thanks, [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:36, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

:Hi Sharon. That entry could certainly be improved to make the point clearer, but I think it is correct - if you look at the WP article as it is now, and at its talk page, it's clear that there's been an overtly feminist attempt to overstate the importance and the international standing of netball using WP. The links given perhaps aren't the best chosen, but illustrating a wiki controversy by static links is always a difficult task. Note that the example is from [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]], so that would be the best place to take issue with it. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:52, 29 June 2011 (EDT)
::I agree that the WP article overemphasizes the sport - I know I've never heard of it before. There already is a statement in the CP article about feminists' arguments about the sport, but I still maintain that the WP article does NOT say the game is played in the Olympics, which the CP article states. The above bolded sentence has been in the WP article since it was created. Personally, I'd add a bit about sport fanaticism too, to all sporting articles, since it can be just as bad if not worse than feminism. ;-) [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 17:26, 29 June 2011 (EDT)
:::I think you're right on that point - I certainly wouldn't object if you re-wrote that part to be clearer about exactly what's wrong with the WP article. As for sports fanaticism, I entirely agree - my idea of sport involves dead birds and gin, so the fanaticism one sees around professional sports is incomprehensible to me. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:43, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

== Endosymbiotic Theory ==

Hi, I recently authored a page on Serial Endosymbiotic Theory (SET) that was factually accurate (I cited sources) and well-written (two users felt the page was excellent). I spent a great deal of time on it in order to legitimize Conservapedia as a source for scientific information. However, I found that it was almost immediately altered beyond recognition. We had a less-than-productive debate on the Talk page, and you removed the one comment that was rather insulting/trolling. I fail to see how it was, seeing as it DID raise legitimate concerns concerning the article. I don't know if you read my original article, but I feel that it is far superior to the current one and demonstrates a much better understanding of biological science. Please take a look and give me your thoughts. With all due respect, [[User:Professor|Professor]] 18:54, 29 June 2011 (EDT)
:Hi Professor. Please don't take this personally, but you really could have chosen a better username - real names or something like them are much preferred around here, and a name like 'professor' tends to suggest an attempt to impress with credentials. I'm sure that's not your intention, but one 'professor' amongst many 'first name last initial's is bound to stand out.
:As for the article, your version had much to recommend it but was sadly flawed. This site takes a firmly [[Creationist]] view, so you must have realized that the large block of confidently-presented 'evidence' for an evolutionary theory would be provocative; then you cap it with a needless quote from Dawkins, which is hard to take otherwise than as an affront.
:Speaking for myself, I'd welcome more information about the modern evolutionary view, but this isn't WP - information like that has to put properly in context and not given improper weight. If you want to improve the article, I suggest adding a bit at a time and discussing changes with other editors. Good luck. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:19, 29 June 2011 (EDT)
::That doesn't justify removing evidence. It's factual information--that it disagrees with a certain fundamentalist world view is not my concern or that of any other scientist. Are you suggesting that we lie or distort information because it is not in accordance with our beliefs? Should we engage in [[liberal deceit]] and prevent the truth from being known? It's not only against the teachings of most modern religions to lie: it is also antithetical to the principles of modern society.[[User:Professor|Professor]] 19:37, 29 June 2011 (EDT)
:::Professor, this website, by sheer virtue of this name will always prefer the conservative, american christian viewpoint to anything else. please keep that in mind.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 19:41, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

:::Professor, please don't use words like 'lie' in such a cavalier fashion. I don't doubt that your additions were factual, but the presentation of facts matters a great deal, especially with such a controversial topic. Any discussion of evolutionary ideas must present both sides of the argument - your evolutionary additions are welcome, but the article as you left it was hopelessly biased towards the evolutionary side. No doubt your points can be added to the article, but each put in its proper context and discussed objectively. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:45, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

== Netball redux ==

First, I get the gin part, but dead birds? Do I even want to ask?

Second, I would appreciate it if someone higher than me here at CP would look at the [[Bias in Wikipedia]] entry for netball and gender bias. The part about the editor getting banned for his edits isn't true. He got banned for harassment and for reporting the main author of the WP netball article to her supposed real-life employer. Given the name of the person who added the entry to the CP bias article and who wrote the CP netball article (they used the name of an editor who actually was a supporter of the main author), I suspect either the banned editor or one of his friends couldn't let it go. They made sure to use one of the main author's edits, which then shows her name in the CP references.

I don't like sneaky nasty tricks and this one definitely has the feel of one to me. Thanks! [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:35, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

:The dead birds are the (hopeful) consequence of shooting, a popular sport in the UK. As for the [[Bias in Wikipedia]] article, if I understand you correctly you're not objecting to the basic point of the entry, but to the way its worded? If that's the case I'd say go ahead and change the wording yourself. If your objections are more fundamental, the best thing to do is put a query on the talk page - even better, if you can see from the edit history who added it in the first place, a query on that editor's talk page - asking for clarification. I hope that helps. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 11:20, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

== Digestive System ==

Good morning. It *looks* as though you deleted my request for a citation (if not, I apologize for my mistake and would you please direct me to whoever did).

In the Article "Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge" under the heading "Digestive System" I recently added a request for a citation on the words "It took many centuries before science caught up to the Bible on this." While I am a strong believer that the Bible is loaded with scientific foreknowledge, I believe this section needs a scientific or medical citation to uphold it as valid as (a) all medical/scientific writings I have read on the matter encourage handwashing before eating and (b) Jesus was talking about the uselessness of CEREMONY - not WASHING.

(Personally, I believe the section should be deleted completely, but Andy Schlafley believes otherwise. As he has stated to me that we resolve arguments with reason in here, a citation is a reasonable request. To say "Because Andy Schlafley says so" is not "reason" nor a medical or scientific argument.)

Kindest regards, [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 08:21, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

== FYI re: blocking ==

Andy recommended to me to use a 5-year block instead of an infinite one. See my talk page if you'd like.--[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 08:55, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
:Thanks for the advice - I'll heed it at once. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 08:56, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

== Incivility ==

I wanted to apologize really quickly for the remarks on the debate page. Air conditioner broke today, so I'm a little bit of a bad mood and I let it get to me when editing.--[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 17:01, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

User talk:Benp

2011-07-31T19:42:03Z

MRellek:

Might as well stop procrastinating and get started on this.

As for "harmless card games," are you suggesting that games like poker and blackjack can't help foster amorality and outright immorality? Doubtless that's why Las Vegas is such a bastion of Christian virtue and decency. I personally know of at least one incident in which a child who played one of these fantasy card games was attacked and robbed by an adult because the cards he was carrying were "rare and powerful." --Benp 10:07, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

How is that the fault of the card game?
Since when do they play Magic:TG in Vegas?
What does Vegas have to do with anything?
-TheHeroExcelsior

:You mentioned poker and blackjack as other "harmless" card games. I was pointing out exactly what kind of morality is exhibited by a town DEDICATED to such "harmless" games. It seems entirely relevant to me. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:25, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

It's not the card games that cause the depravity. It's the gambling, drugs, booze, and prostitution that do. Stop blaming the games for the actions of the players. They do not play Magic:TG in Vegas. There is no connection. [[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 10:47, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

:Wait...it's not the card games, it's the gambling? The card games '''are''' the gambling! I'm sorry, but your arguments seem a little confused. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:52, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

I learned to play poker from my grandmother, is she evil too? The player bet on the hands. You don't have to gamble to play cards. [[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 11:02, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

"unless you can offer some substantiative justification for removal of this material beyond the fact that you personally play and like the game (and are thus biased,) I stand by my position that it should remain. --Benp 10:49, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

My counter is this: The article is about Liberal indoctrination, not "things that might cause liberal thinking in select instances." So stick to things that are certain to cause liberal thinking, and please remove conjecture. "Maybe" is not good enough. Where's the stuff on historic revisionism, censoring the pledge, forced sex ed, outlawing prayer? These are the things that indoctrinate children into the liberal mindset. And you want to blame a pen and paper game? [[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 11:07, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

:I take wine at Communion. Is my priest evil for giving it to me? No? And yet you were willing to claim that alcohol causes depravity. Of course, the exact same arguments apply to alcohol as to this game: many people enjoy it responsibly without behaving immorally as a result. Nobody forces people to drink.

:Yet, you're willing to point the finger at alcohol and not at these games (which you personally play and enjoy.) I see a bit of a double standard there.

:I prefer a balanced approach. I would not claim that alcohol causes depravity, but I WOULD acknowledge that it has the potential to be harmful, and I would NOT seek to remove that information from an article. Likewise, I have not claimed that D&D is some universal cause of evil and immoral behavior, but I DO acknowledge that it has the potential to be harmful. Note that I didn't put the material in this article in the first place; I'm simply objecting to your removing it with no justification.

:Where IS the stuff about historic revisionism, censoring the pledge, forced sex ed, and outlawing prayer? That's an excellent question. Why not try to contribute to the article by adding these things, rather than deleting material? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 11:19, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

The Blood of Christ is not alcohol, but I accept your comparison. I agree that some children may not see the difference between game and reality, but I have never met anyone under 14 who played. That is why I concede that my experience cannot be the Final Word on that. Maybe some little kids have played it and gone awry. I will conclude that D&D is only a positive or negative force if used as such. Players have free will in the game, people have free will out here. Our choices dictate our path. I am just worried that we will have to stamp a warning label on everything that might cause liberal thinking. This is my first day as a member of Conservapedia, and it was interesting. Benp, thank you for being a good adversary. You've honed my debate edge. [[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 11:59, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

==Wow==
I thought I remembered you from somewhere. Were you the guy who did the Dawkins biography? [[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 12:17, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

==Sympathies on the front page==
Could we do this? It upsets me to see people trying to score political points from such a tragedy. [[User:PamAyers|PamAyers]] 18:31, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

== PZ Myers ==

Hey, thanks. I added a bunch of stuff. I had long intended to do so. I guess I just needed a little kick in the pants. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 01:38, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

You're welcome. Good call on including the "Don't send these people email" silliness. Posting peoples' email addresses and then claiming that he didn't mean for them to be harassed or emailed is just baldfaced dishonesty on his part; I wonder who he thinks he's fooling? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:50, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

== Someone beat me to it ==

Thanks for the head's up anyway. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:29, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

==Hi==
Hi Ben, thought I would make an account to say I enjoy reading your debates. Guten abend, Deiter.

:Thanks. I disagree with a lot of people here about a lot of things, but I try to be fair about it. Ich bin rechthaberisch, aber aufrichtig. :) --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:49, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

== We may be arguing the same point to one another. ==

I replied on my talk page. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 13:30, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

== Jcane blocked ==

Thanks for the head's up. Hope you like the block message, too. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:47, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

You know, there are a lot of complaints about how unfair the [[liberal deceit]] article is. I wonder if folks like JCane think that this kind of behavior is the way to prove their honesty? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:52, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

==Invitation to join Wikiproject:News==
Benp, since you have contributed news items in the past, you are invited to [[Wikiproject:News#Members|sign up]] as a member of [[Wikiproject:News]]. <nowiki>[[Wikiproject:News/Guidelines|Review]]</nowiki> the Guidelines. Make your suggestions <nowiki>[[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions|here]]</nowiki>. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 09:28, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

==<nowiki>[[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions/Archives]]</nowiki>==
Benp, Thanks for contributing news items. When your suggested news items have been completed, they will be archived under <nowiki>[[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions/Archives#Benp|your name]]</nowiki> so we can keep the suggestions page clear for new items. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:45, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

== Thanks for posting the news about Bill Melendez's death ==

It's saddening, but appreciated. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 01:23, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

== NewsProject - Wanted pages ==

Since you are a member of the news project, I need your help with wanted pages. We now have over 100 wanted pages and I need you to pick a few to work on this coming week. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 23:19, 14 December 2008 (EST)

== I updated my message to you on my talk page. I gave you some sources ==

I updated my message to you on my talk page. I gave you some sources. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:46, 27 February 2009 (EST)

== Conservative Logic ==
Great job on the replacement. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 20:19, 22 May 2009 (EDT)

Thanks. If there's going to be an article, it might as well be a good one. :) --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:20, 22 May 2009 (EDT)

== request ==

I see you have some interest in the [[Richard Dawkins]] article at Conservapedia. Accordingly, I have a small request. Could you please draft a short version of a biography of Dawkins. Please make it shorter than what is found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins#Biography I can post your brief biography in the Richard Dawkins article. Please feel free to ask others to participate in the endeavor I am proposing. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:10, 24 May 2009 (EDT)

Will do. I may not be able to get to it until a little later this week, as I have work and family-related commitments, but I'll get to it as quickly as possible. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:07, 24 May 2009 (EDT)

== Hi... ==

You guys do realize you are on your user page, right? :-) --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:50, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

== Extra privileges ==

Thanks for your high-quality edits for over a year. I've just granted you extra privileges of night editing and blocking, which were overdue.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:36, 20 December 2009 (EST)

:Wow...thank you! I'm honored at the trust, and I'll do my best to live up to it. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:46, 20 December 2009 (EST)

== Thanks, I've got the rest ==

Thanks, Benp. I've got the rest. And watch the Recent Changes for something neat.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:35, 21 December 2009 (EST)

:Will do! Thanks! --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:36, 21 December 2009 (EST)

:You're right--that IS pretty neat. Looks much nicer now! --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:43, 21 December 2009 (EST)

::Yeah, it's cool. By the way, I've really enjoyed and learned from your extremely insightful edits here. Thanks for sharing your wisdom and teaching others here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:47, 21 December 2009 (EST)

:::Thank you for giving me the opportunity! A merry somewhat-early Christmas to you and yours, since I likely won't be on between now and then. :) --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:53, 21 December 2009 (EST)

::::Merry Christmas to you too, Ben! We'll sorely miss any absences by you, but we'll be constantly improving as best we can. Enjoy this special time of the year.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:00, 21 December 2009 (EST)

== Great New Year's Resolution ==

Two Founders a day ... what a great resolution!!! Happy New Year's to you! Godspeed for a good year.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:17, 1 January 2010 (EST)

:Don't slack off - I didn't see any red links turn blue on New Year's Eve. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:50, 2 January 2010 (EST)

::Duly kicked. :) That's two for today--thanks for keeping me on the ball! --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:53, 2 January 2010 (EST)

== Welcome back! ==

Welcome back, Ben! We missed you!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:49, 10 January 2010 (EST)

:Thanks, Andy! Good to be back. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:56, 10 January 2010 (EST)

== Superb addition ==

Thanks for your superb addition to [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness]]!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:09, 25 February 2010 (EST)

== Your new essay ==

Just read your essay on liberalism and intelligence. It is a brilliant dissection of the average liberal psyche, well done! [[User:Myrobi|Myrobi]] 17:10, 1 March 2010 (EST)

== Founding Fathers ==

<big>Congratulations....job well-done, Ben!</big> --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:01, 17 June 2010 (EDT)

== Superb block ==

Superb block and reverts, Ben!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:16, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

== Ben ==

Thank you for your kind words concerning reverting those egregious remarks. I greatly appreciate it.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 12:03, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

== Taking It Elsewhere ==

I still don't understand your distaste for the "long time listener, first time caller". In what way is it different from a non-vote being spurred to vote because of issues that he either wants to support or oppose? The truth is, the sysops set the tone for the site and many new users model their actions after the sysops; this is not always the most productive path. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 14:20, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

:The truth is also that this website gets a very large number of "first time callers" who are parodists and more interested in stirring the pot than in seeing any sort of meaningful resolution. The fact that these "first time callers" tend to show up in waves when there's already discord certainly does nothing to dispel the perception that many of them are here to fan the flames. Now, I'm trying to be nice here and give you and the other "new posters" the benefit of the doubt. I'm not going to start blocking people just because I can. On the other hand, contrary to some perceptions, we're neither blind nor stupid. It's almost impossible to work at this site for any length of time and NOT be aware that there's a website dedicated to gossiping about Conservapedia, and that this dispute is currently the sole topic of gossip there.
:Suffice to say that I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt, but my doubts are significant. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:29, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::I'm aware of the other site but am not a member. I'm just an interested observer (and now member) who has an opinion. Is that permissible? [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 14:32, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

:::Certainly. You're entitled to your opinion, and you've voiced it. You weren't blocked for that; your opinion wasn't deleted. Now I'm asking you to leave it at that. Common courtesy prohibits the use another user's talk page as a public forum for discussion, regardless of who the user may be. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:38, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

As a much longer-term editor than me, would you ''please'' move the conversation on Andy's talk page to the community portal? It's gone beyond crazy there. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:36, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

:Sharon,
:I agree entirely, but I'm not sure it's my place to do so. I've been here for a while, yes, but other than having block rights, I have no more authority than any other user. If it was just new users, I'd be a little less hesitant, but I really don't want to start moving Sysop messages, and they're mixed into the rest of the discussion very thoroughly. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:39, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

== [[User:Ripu]] ==

Quick thought on this user's blocking. It seems that they made edits to the internet slang article that you took offense to. I'm not entirely sure that this was parody and should have resulted in a block. Their edits seem in line with other examples on the page and could have been confusing. Also, the l33t terms and 9001 are internet slang in certain circles. Just my two-cents. --[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 15:42, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Debate:Should RobS lose his Sysop rights?

2011-07-31T19:12:33Z

MRellek: /* Rename headlines */

== Rename headlines ==

I'm almost tempted to rename "Yea" and "Nay" to "I want to be promoted!" and "I want to be banned soon!" respectively. Some truth in advertising would be refreshing ;) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:06, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:Let's be honest, if Conservative, and the others get their way, there will be no one left because anyone with half a brain is supporting Rob (and likely to get banned for it in the end), and those that aren't are probably parodists here for the lolz anyway.--[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 15:12, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

== Time Limit ==

Should there be some sort of time limitation on how long this vote lasts? [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 15:09, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:Given how this vote is more about making a point than actually deciding Rob's fate, does it matter? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:11, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

== spelling ==

The spelling "loose" for "lose" is one of my pet peeves. Sorry, Rob, but you spelled it wrong. Please fix. Rob should not lose his sysop rights, and Conservative should not be allowed to loose his inane ramblings over this website. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 15:09, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:If you feel that way SamHB then add your vote to the main page. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 15:11, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

Debate:Should RobS lose his Sysop rights?

2011-07-31T19:09:30Z

MRellek: Spelling Correction

<center>'''Uhhh, this really isn't a debate. It's a poll. In response to [[User:Conservative]] pressuring the site owner to abandon established site policies and invoke [[mob rule]], please indicate your votes below.''' ''Note:User participation here will be exempt from the 90/10 rule, however there's no guarantee you may not suffer a reprisal block for resisting User:Conservatives efforts to invoke [[mob rule]]. I will however do what I can to help if that were to happen.''</center>
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

==Yea==

==Nay==

*I vote '''nay'''. RobS is trying to bring accountability to the site. There is something admirable in that, and it's a move in the right direction. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 14:56, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
*RobS should keep his rights. If anything, Conservative should lose his. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 15:00, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

*Nay. I can't see a reason why RobS should lose his rights, especially when there are others who seem to actively be harming the site through their actions.--[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 15:03, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
*Obvious '''nay''' for obvious reasons. We need to put an end to arbitrary block times and the constant history deletion of pages (such as the ''Community Portal'') at the very least. As long as the sysops have the right to do whatever they please (while subjecting regular users to rules that are much stricter than for example Wikipedia's policies), the community won't grow and will forever be a paradise for parodists. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:04, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
*I vote no. I haven't been around in quite some time, but I used to be a fairly active user (with block rights etc) and left in part because of some of the same issues RobS has addressed. I too believe these "reforms" are necessary for the site to move forward, and may return to active participation if something along these lines is enacted. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 15:08, 31 July 2011 (EDT) (editing while traveling, please don't ban me for the IP change!) (PS: can some sysop fix the spelling of this page?)

Internet slang

2011-07-31T19:08:13Z

MRellek: Removal of multiple terms.

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

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

== List of Abbreviations==

*'''1:''' Substitution for one.
*'''2:''' Substitution for to, too, and two.
*'''3:''' Substitution for three.
*'''4:''' Substitution for for and four.
*'''1337:''' Read "leet", from the word "elite", substitution for one thousand three hundred thirty seven.
*'''9001:''' Short for term "Over 9000" (an internet meme), substitution for nine thousand and one
*'''AFAICT:''' As far as I can tell.
*'''AFAIK:''' As far as I know.
*'''AFAIR:''' As far as I recall/remember.
*'''AFAIAW:''' As far as I am aware.
*'''AFK:''' Away from keyboard.
*'''ASL:''' A request for Age, Sex, and Location.
*'''ATM:''' At The Moment.
*'''BBL:''' be back later.
*'''BBIAB:''' be back in a bit.
*'''bewbs:''' breasts.
*'''BRB:''' Be Right Back.
*'''btw:''' By the way.
*'''ch00b:''' Person who acts like a n00b, but has skill levels or a kill/death ratio of someone who is considered 1337. Typically spends time bragging, flaming, and asking question he or she should know.
*'''D00d:''' [[L33tsp43k]] spelling of "dude".
*'''ftw:''' For the win.
*'''GDR:''' Grinning, Ducking and Running. Usually typed right after making a groan-inducing joke.
*'''g2g:''' got to go, gotta go.
*'''gg:''' Good game. Somtimes an 'a' is added to make gga: good game all.
*'''gl:''' Good luck.
*'''IANAL:''' Sometimes IANALB, "I am not a lawyer (but)" said right before (usually) poor legal advice.
*'''IIRC:''' If I remember correctly.
*'''IRL:''' In Real Life.
*'''IM:''' Abbreviation for Instant Messaging.
*'''IMHO''' In My Humble Opinion, or just "IMO" - In my opinion
*'''l8r:''' later.
*'''LMAO''' Laughing My A** Off
*'''LOL:''' Laugh Out Loud.
*'''lvl:''' Level.
*'''m8:''' Mate.
*'''Newb''' Person is unskilled at whatever task they are trying to perform due to lack of experience.
*'''Noob''' Person is unskilled at whatever task they are trying to perform due to lack of experience and refuse to acknowledge their difficulty with the task.
*'''Omgwtfbbq''' is an internet slang term used in many MMORPG games like World of Warcraft. It is used as an expression of confusion and when someone asks an absurd newbie question. It is usually meant to be taken sarcastically. Although it can occasionally be used when someone is utterly confused by something that was said. Its various parts stand for, respectively, "Oh My G_d," "what the f___," and "barbecue," each of which can also appear individually, although "bbq," alone, is not actually considered internet slang.
*'''POS:''' Parent Over Shoulder. Usually used in IM conversations to alert the other participant of the presence of an adult/parent, and thus to avoid saying something inappropriate.
*'''Pwn:''' Defeat someone, misspelling of "own".
*'''Pwnt:''' If someone "pwns" you, you have been pwnt. Usually spelled with an 'ed' rather than a 't'.
*'''ROFL:''' Rolling On The Floor Laughing.
*'''Roflcopter:''' An extreme version of "rofl," or, "rolling on the floor laughing." Origionated on World of Warcraft forums.
*'''ty:''' Thank You
*'''TMI:''' Too much information.
*'''U:''' Substitution for you.
*'''Ur:''' Substitution for your, you're, you are.
*'''WTF:''' exclamation of great bewilderment. Acronym for What The F***
*'''WYSIWYG:''' What you see is what you get, also a word processing editor type.
*'''ZOMG:''' An extreme version of "Oh my God!"

==List of Terms==
*Troll
*leet

==Symbols==

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

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

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

[[category:internet culture]]

Debate:Should RobS lose his Sysop rights?

2011-07-31T19:03:11Z

MRellek: /* Nay */

<center>'''Uhhh, this really isn't a debate. It's a poll. In response to [[User:Conservative]] pressuring the site owner to abandon established site policies and invoke [[mob rule]], please indicate your votes below.'''</center>
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

==Yea==

==Nay==

*I vote '''nay'''. RobS is trying to bring accountability to the site. There is something admirable in that, and it's a move in the right direction. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 14:56, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
*RobS should keep his rights. If anything, Conservative should lose his. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 15:00, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

*Nay. I can't see a reason why RobS should loose his rights, especially when there are others who seem to actively be harming the site through their actions.--[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 15:03, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

User talk:MRellek

2011-07-31T14:08:51Z

MRellek: Undo revision 895363 by PatK (talk)

{{welcome}}--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 19:47, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

== Image DEBT ==

Done. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 21:29, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

Federal Debt Limit

2011-07-29T17:57:53Z

MRellek: Removal of unsourced comment with no purpose in article. Redirect also does not make "playing the victim" mindset apparent.

[[File:Spending increase of the Pelosi-Reid and Obama era.JPG|thumb|380px|'''''The unsustainable path of spending increases of the [[110th United States Congress|Pelosi-Reid]] and [[Obama]] era.''''' Source:Federal Reserve Board]]
The '''Federal Debt Limit''', commonly known as the '''debt ceiling''', is the overall limit on federal government borrowing, as authorized by [[Congress]]. It is similar to an individual's credit card limit.

According to the [[Constitution]], the Congress must approve all borrowings on behalf of the United States. Before the 20th century, Congress approved all bond issuances separately and explicitly. With the introduction of the debt ceiling, the treasury now had a line on which it could borrow as needed, without having to go back to Congress for borrowings under the ceiling.

== Components of the debt ==
[[File:Federal Debt graphic PD WC.jpg|thumb|280px|Components of Federal Debt As Percentage of GDP FY1980-FY2007]]

There are two components to the federal debt: the debt held by the public, and intra-governmental debt. The former is defined as the debt held by any individual or entity that is not the federal government, such as a mutual fund, individual investor, foreign government, or a municipal government.<ref>http://www.concordcoalition.org/issue-briefs/2011/0708/understanding-federal-debt-limit</ref> Intra-governmental debt is debt the government owes itself, such as the Social Security Trust Funds, the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, and the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund. <ref>http://www.concordcoalition.org/issue-briefs/2011/0708/understanding-federal-debt-limit</ref> Currently debt held by the public comprises roughly two-thirds of the total federal debt.

== Obama debt ceiling crisis ==
President [[Barack Obama]] voted against raising the debt ceiling in 2006. However, he now wants to raise the debt ceiling to over twice what it stood at in 2006. However, as Congress essentially deem the Obama administration to be a serious credit risk, Obama may not get the debt ceiling increased he wants. This is similar to a credit card company telling a person with either no income or little income who has maxed out on his credit card that he won't get a line increase and must pay off his card, lest he be sued. In fact, it is almost unheard of for a credit card company to give a credit line increase to someone who's maxed out on his credit card.

The last increase in the debt ceiling occurred in early 2010 and it was signed into law by President Obama on February 12, 2010, at which stage the limit stood at $14,294 billion. With large deficits emerging as [[baby boom]]ers retire, some members of Congress expressed concern over the government's dependence on borrowing to meet its obligations. President Obama responded by creating the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (Simpson-Bowles Deficit Reduction Commission), which was charged with identifying “policies to improve the fiscal situation in the medium term and to achieve fiscal sustainability over the long run.”<ref>[http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/ National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform], retrieved from http://www.fiscalcommission.gov , July 28, 2011.</ref> However, President Obama promptly ignored the Commission's recommendations.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2011/06/23/cbo_quotwe_don039t_estimate_speechesquot_258038.html</ref>

The prospect of the Obama administration defaulting on its debt rose greatly when the Democrats insisted on raising taxes to cover their irresponsible spending habits. Obama refused to engage in negotiations, much like a deadbeat who refuses to answer the phone when the creditors are calling. Unfortunately for the world, Obama's personal irresponsibility will hurt many honest hard working people who have done nothing wrong.

=== Background to Obama debt crisis ===
After the failure of President Obama's [[Recovery Summer|Stimulus package]],<ref>[http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/01/obama-s-failure-of-leadership.print.html Obama’s Failure of Leadership], [[Eleanor Clift]], ''[[Newsweek]]'', 10/4/10.</ref> his entire [[White House]] economic team quit.<ref>[http://www.france24.com/en/20100922-summers-latest-member-obama-economic-team-quit-0 Summers latest member of Obama economic team to quit]</ref><ref>[http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/11/23/two-white-house-economic-advisers-to-quit/ http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/11/23/two-white-house-economic-advisers-to-quit/ More White House Economic Advisers to Step Down ]</ref> During the next few years, the deficit was projected to fall somewhat, but if discretionary spending were to stay at the same level, the deficit would not fall enough under President Obama's economic policies to stabilize debt payments. Further, the debt is projected to begin rising more rapidly under Obama's policy because of the rising costs of [[Social Security]], [[Medicare]], and [[Medicaid]].

=== Unsustainability of Obama deficits ===
The Obama deficits are currently more than half the size of total private savings. Even before President Obama's massive increase in deficits, the national savings rate was insufficient to finance job creation (or "domestic private investment").<ref>''[https://www.hsdl.org/?view&doc=145045&coll=limited The Sustainability of the Federal Budget]'', Congressional Research Service, June 28, 2011, p. 2 pdf.</ref> To sustain large deficits, the economy would require a combination of more private saving (less consumption), lower investment (less job creation), and higher borrowing from abroad. The unsustainability of deficits tends to be triggered rapidly, as no investor wants to be the one still holding the government debt when eventual default or hyperinflation occurs.<ref>''The Sustainability of the Federal Budget'', Congressional Research Service, June 28, 2011, p. 5 pdf.</ref>

Foreigners currently hold $4.5 trillion (more than half) of the total privately held government debt. Foreigners are usually less willing to buy and hold government debt because they bear exchange-rate risk. Default or monetization typically leads to currency devaluation and would reduce the debt’s value in foreign currencies. If foreigners were to become less willing to finance the U.S. Government's operations, significantly higher [[interest rate]]s would have to be paid by Americans. Now that some foreign governments hold large portfolios of U.S. Government debt, any particular government would have the incentive to sell its holdings before everyone else if it believes that the debt has become unsustainable. Furthermore, if interest rates and the cost of carrying the debt were to rise suddenly, higher debt payments to foreigners would result in a fall in Americans personal income as wealth is transferred abroad.<ref>''The Sustainability of the Federal Budget'', Congressional Research Service, June 28, 2011, p. 10 pdf.</ref>

Leaving the deficit at an unsustainable size retains the risk that the budget could at some point enter a debt spiral, in which the U.S. Treasury rates rose sharply and suddenly. The direct effect of higher interest rates stemming from greater credit risk would be to reduce the value of existing government debt, as investors would be willing to pay a lower price (i.e., demand a higher rate of return) for Treasury securities to compensate for the greater credit risk. This would cause a negative “wealth effect” for debt holders, and debt holders would be expected to reduce their purchases. Since the publicly held debt is projected to reach $10 trillion by the end of FY2011, the wealth effect could potentially be large. The most damaging wealth effects could come from financial institutions that hold U.S Treasury securities. At the end of 2010, commercial banks held about $300 billion of U.S Treasury securities, while insurance companies, Government Sponsored Entities (GSEs), and bond dealers held another $400 billion. As demonstrated during the [[financial crisis of 2008]], financial firms “leveraged losses” can lead to a credit crunch that affects the economy as a whole.<ref>''The Sustainability of the Federal Budget'', Congressional Research Service, June 28, 2011, pp. 11-12 pdf.</ref>

Aside from foreign buyers of U.S. Government debt, borrowing can only be financed through savings, and government borrowing competes with business borrowing to create jobs for the same pool of national savings. By increasing the demands on that pool of national savings, government borrowing pushes up the cost of all borrowing through higher interest rates, causing businesses to finance less capital spending and job creation than they otherwise would be able to. Less business borrowing for job creation, plant and equipment, and capital spending results in lower [[gross domestic product]], and hence lower future national income, than would otherwise occur. <ref>''The Sustainability of the Federal Budget'', Congressional Research Service, June 28, 2011, p. 16 pdf.</ref>

== History of the debt limit ==

The Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917, which helped finance the United States’ entry into [[World War I]], allowed the U.S. Treasury to issue long-term Liberty Bonds marketed to the public to hold down the federal government's borrowing costs. The 1919 Victory Liberty Bond Act raised the maximum allowable federal debt to $43 billion, although the total outstanding federal debt at the time was only $25.5 billion.

In 1939, Congress eliminated separate limits on bonds and other types of debt, and created the first aggregate limit that covered nearly all public debt. This gave the Treasury freer rein to manage the federal debt as it saw fit. Thus, the Treasury could issue debt instruments with maturities that would reduce interest costs and minimize financial risks stemming from future interest rate changes. The debt limit then was $45 billion with total debt of $40.4 billion.

During [[World War II]] the debt ceiling was raised each year from 1941 through 1945, where it topped out at $300 billion. After the war, it was reduced to $275 billion. The [[Korean War]] was mostly financed by higher [[tax]]es rather than increased debt, and the limit remained at $275 billion until 1954. After 1954, the debt limit was reduced twice and increased seven times, until March 1962 when it again reached $300 billion, its level at the end of World War II.<ref>[http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid='0E%2C*P%5C%3F%3D%23%20%20%20%0A ''The Debt Limit: History and Recent Increases,''] Congressional Research Service, July 1, 2011, pdf pps. 9-10.</ref>

The United States debt ceiling has been raised approximately 84 times since the early 1900's. The table below gives details on the year, and the amount that the ceiling was raised. As seen below, many of the debt ceiling increases have been short term, contrary to Obama's position.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Year
! Amount of Debt
! Sitting President
! Year
! Amount of Debt
! Sitting President
|-
|December 1919
|43.00 billion
|[[Woodrow Wilson]]
|September 1979
|879.00 billion
|[[Jimmy Carter]]
|-
|December 1939
|45.00 billion
|[[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]
|June 1980
|925.00 billion
|[[Jimmy Carter]]
|-
|June 1940
|49.00 billion
|[[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]
|December 1980
|935.10 billion
|[[Jimmy Carter]]
|-
|February 1941
|65.00 billion
|[[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]
|February 1981
|985.00 billion
|[[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
|March 1942
|125.00 billion
|[[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]
|September 1981
|1.080 trillion
|[[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
|April 1943
|210.00 billion
|[[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]
|September 1981
|999.80 billion
|[[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
|June 1944
|260.00 billion
|[[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]
|June 1982
|1.143 trillion
|[[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
|April 1945
|300.00 billion
|[[Harry S. Truman]]
|September 1982
|1.290 trillion
|[[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
|June 1946
|275.00 billion
|[[Harry S. Truman]]
|May 1983
|1.389 trillion
|[[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
|August 1954
|281.00 billion
|[[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]
|November 1983
|1.490 trillion
|[[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
|July 1956
|278.00 billion
|[[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]
|May 1984
|1.520 trillion
|[[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
|February 1958
|280.00 billion
|[[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]
|July 1984
|1.573 trillion
|[[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
|September 1958
|288.00 billion
|[[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]
|October 1984
|1.824 trillion
|[[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
|June 1959
|295.00 billion
|[[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]
|November 1985
|1.904 trillion
|[[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
|June 1960
|293.00 billion
|[[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]
|December 1985
|2.079 trillion
|[[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
|June 1961
|298.00 billion
|[[John F. Kennedy]]
|August 1986
|2.111 trillion
|[[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
|March 1962
|300.00 billion
|[[John F. Kennedy]]
|October 1986
|2.300 trillion
|[[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
|July 1962
|308.00 billion
|[[John F. Kennedy]]
|July 1987
|2.320 trillion
|[[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
|May 1963
|309.00 billion
|[[Lyndon B. Johnson]]
|August 1987
|2.352 trillion
|[[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
|November 1963
|315.00 billion
|[[Lyndon B. Johnson]]
|September 1987
|2.800 trillion
|[[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
|June 1964
|324.00 billion
|[[Lyndon B. Johnson]]
|August 1989
|2.870 trillion
|[[George H. W. Bush]]
|-
|June 1965
|328.00 billion
|[[Lyndon B. Johnson]]
|November 1989
|3.123 trillion
|[[George H. W. Bush]]
|-
|June 1966
|330.00 billion
|[[Lyndon B. Johnson]]
|October 1990
|3.230 trillion
|[[George H. W. Bush]]
|-
|March 1967
|336.00 billion
|[[Lyndon B. Johnson]]
|November 1990
|4.145 trillion
|[[George H. W. Bush]]
|-
|June 1967
|358.00 billion
|[[Lyndon B. Johnson]]
|April 1993
|4.370 trillion
|[[Bill Clinton]]
|-
|April 1969
|377.00 billion
|[[Richard M. Nixon]]
|August 1993
|4.900 trillion
|[[Bill Clinton]]
|-
|June 1970
|395.00 billion
|[[Richard M. Nixon]]
|March 1996
|5.500 trillion
|[[Bill Clinton]]
|-
|March 1971
|430.00 billion
|[[Richard M. Nixon]]
|August 1997
|5.950 trillion
|[[Bill Clinton]]
|-
|March 1972
|450.00 billion
|[[Richard M. Nixon]]
|June 2002
|6.400 trillion
|[[George W. Bush]]
|-
|October 1972
|465.00 billion
|[[Richard M. Nixon]]
|May 2003
|7.384 trillion
|[[George W. Bush]]
|-
|December 1973
|475.7 billion
|[[Richard M. Nixon]]
|November 2004
|8.184 trillion
|[[George W. Bush]]
|-
|June 1974
|495.00 billion
|[[Gerald Ford]]
|March 2006
|8.965 trillion
|[[George W. Bush]]
|-
|February 1975
|577.00 billion
|[[Gerald Ford]]
|September 2007
|9.815 trillion
|[[George W. Bush]]
|-
|November 1975
|595.00 billion
|[[Gerald Ford]]
|July 2008
|10.615 trillion
|[[George W. Bush]]
|-
|March 1976
|627.00 billion
|[[Gerald Ford]]
|October 2008
|11.315 trillion
|[[George W. Bush]]
|-
|June 1976
|700.00 billion
|[[Gerald Ford]]
|February 2009
|12.104 trillion
|[[Barack Obama]]
|-
|October 1977
|752.00 billion
|[[Jimmy Carter]]
|December 2009
|12.394 trillion
|[[Barack Obama]]
|-
|August 1978
|798.00 billion
|[[Jimmy Carter]]
|February 2010
|14.294 trillion
|[[Barack Obama]]
|-
|April 1979
|830.00 billion
|[[Jimmy Carter]]
|
|
|
|}<ref>http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/federalbudgetprocess/a/US-Debt-Ceiling-History.htm</ref>

== External links ==

*[http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/105193.pdf The Debt Limit:History and Recent Increases.]
*[http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/ Bureau of the Public Debt]
*[http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np Public Debt to the Penny]
*[http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/news/Pages/debt-limit.aspx Department of the Treasury]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category:Economics]]

Video game addiction

2011-07-29T17:53:26Z

MRellek: Fix Ref

'''Video game addiction''' is a condition wherein a subject is unable to control his or her consumption of video games. Like other addictions, this can lead to serious personal consequences, such as isolation, neglect of personal relationships and responsibilities, and decreased general health and well-being.

Video game addiction is a relatively new concern, but a growing one as many games, particularly massively-multiplayer online games such as World of Warcraft, are exercises in behavioral psychology designed to encourage addictive behavior patterns.

Although video game addiction has not yet been accepted as a formal psychological disorder by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, it has been considered for such inclusion, and was rejected primarily due to insufficient data. The American Medical Association has determined that more research is necessary; while stressing the importance of not making a premature diagnosis, they also acknowledge the seriousness of the problem, estimating that as many as 5 million children may be suffering from video game addiction. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,286948,00.html FOXNews AMA Will Not Label Video-Game Playing as a Psychiatric Addiction]</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

Anonymous

2011-07-28T02:23:08Z

MRellek: Fixing References tag

Anonymous is the name given to a online group (described by supporters as hacktivists, opponents as terrorists) who carry out attacks on various websites, usually employing various forms of [[network abuse]], amongst other general Internet activities.

The group gained notoriety in recent years with its participation in Operation Payback, which included a series of actions in defence of whistle-blowing organization Wikileaks and its figurehead Julian Assange, Operation Sony and from Westboro Baptist Church's declaration of war on Anonymous, which they mostly ignored.

== History ==

The use of the 'Anonymous' collective name to describe the source of activities dates to 2003 (it has no official founders or membership so dating it's founding is difficult) on various image boards on the Internet, the most famously attributed of which is 4chan.

In its early days its focus was focused on 'trolling' various websites<ref>http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=459214</ref>, usually by including offensive or inappropriate material on the websites of groups with whom they disagree.

In 2008, in response to a Tom Cruise video <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCHkHZIyrdo</ref>, Anonymous became more homogeneous in it's opposition to the Church of Scientology <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCbKv9yiLiQ</ref>. Known as Operation Chanology, it included Denial-of-Service attacks, real life protests and mass publication and spread of information usually withheld by members of the church.

In 2010 it rose to notoriety due to Anonymous' actions against those who opposed copyright violation. Operation Payback was initially about using network abuse in a vain attempt to intimidate large corporations, and later became involved with the support of Wikileaks and Julian Assange.

== Beliefs ==

As Anonymous is a collective, rather than a group, it has no official beliefs and ideals. This has begun to change in last year due to a cell within Anonymous, called AnonOps, carrying out a lot of the operations, but as a collective they are still loosely defined. Many members of anonymous will reject any such group attempting to be more identifiable in the general body.

However, Anonymous, atleast certain segments, is known for it's support of Freedom of Information, Freedom of Speech, Personal Freedom, Transparency within the Government and Universal Access to Human Rights.[http://anonyops.com/Whoarewe.htm]

== Operation Chanology ==

In 2008, after a video of Tom Cruise talking about Scientology was leaked onto YouTube, Anonymous declared its 'destruction' of the Church of Scientology (CoS). Due to the CoS's belief in suppressing information, suppressing it's members, spreading misinformation and abusing taxation laws to remain tax free.

There was also considerable opposition to the core practise in Scientology of having to hand over a significant fortune[http://altreligion.about.com/od/controversymisconception/a/scientology_cos.htm] to be shown what the Scientology believes, which is strongly opposed by the ideal that 'Knowledge is Free.'

== Operation Payback ==

Operation Payback began in 2010 as a counter to those who opposed Internet Piracy. It began in response to Distributed Denial of Service attacks against Torrent websites, with return DDoS attacks against pro-copyright and anti-piracy companies.

The attacks received from criticism from the Pirate Party UK and the United States Pirate Party due to their support for a democratic opposition.[http://news.softpedia.com/news/Pirate-Parties-Ask-Anonymous-to-End-DDoS-Campaign-168050.shtml][http://news.softpedia.com/news/Anonymous-to-Pirate-Parties-We-Won-t-Stop-168306.shtml]

After Wikileaks released the secret Cables many of those who opposed Wikileaks, or retracted their affiliation[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8190541/WikiLeaks-cyberwar-on-Visa-and-MasterCard-disrupts-Christmas-shopping-in-Operation-Payback.html] due to government pressure, became the next targets. The concept of Freedom of Information was supported by Wikileaks so those who opposed the group became targets, but also those who were pressured into retracting by government forces (the US government was blamed significantly for this) opened up a knowledge of a corruption within these governments, due to their intervention in private business.

These Operation also spun Operation Avenge Assange[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/06/anonymous_launches_pro_wikileaks_campaign/], an operation against those who targeted and victimised Julian Assange after the cable leaks.

== Westboro Baptist Church ==

On February 16, 2011, the Westboro Baptist Church issued a declaration of war against the group Anonymous. WBC claimed that Anonymous had threatened to start a war with their website and church. Despite this going against both Rule 14 of the Internet (Do not feed the trolls) and the principle belief of Freedom of Speech, a member of Anonymous called Topiary agreed to speak on the David Pakman Show on February 24[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZJwSjor4hM].

On the show Anonymous explained that it initially had no interest in WBC because it considered them unimportant and trolls but after being harassed on the show the group replaced their sites with a message explaining their lack of interest.

== References ==

<references/>

Chemical Engineering

2011-07-28T02:17:10Z

MRellek:

'''Chemical engineering''' is a branch of [[engineering]] which uses [[math]], [[physics]] and [[chemistry]] to design chemical processes.

Chemical engineers can work in a large range of areas, including:
*[[petroleum engineering]]
*[[nuclear engineering]]
*[[food]] engineering
*[[paper]] production
*synthetic [[flavor]] production

[[Category:Chemical Engineering]]

Barack Hussein Obama

2011-07-27T22:35:48Z

MRellek: Undo revision 893926 by GOP4EVA (talk)

{{Officeholder
|name=Barack Hussein Obama
|image=President Barack Obama.jpg
|party=[[Democrat]]
|spouse=[[Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama]]
|religion=Claims to be Christian
|offices=
{{Officeholder/president
|country=the United States
|number=44th
|terms=January 20, 2009-Present
|vp=[[Joe Biden]]
|preceded=[[George W. Bush]]
|former=n
|succeeded=
}}
{{Officeholder/senator
|state=Illinois
|terms=January 3, 2005 – November 16, 2008
|preceded=Peter Fitzgerald
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Roland Burris]]
}}
}}

'''Barack Hussein Obama II''' (born August 4, 1961) is the 44th President of the [[United States]] and the controversial recipient of the 2009 [[Nobel Prize|Nobel Peace Prize]]. Overcoming a short political career, Obama defeated [[Republican]] nominee [[John McCain]] for the presidency in 2008, campaigning on promises of "hope" and "change". In effect, that change has been an embrace of [[socialism]] and [[liberal]] policies. Barack Obama has been widely criticized by the American [[business]] community and others for his anti-business policies that are killing American jobs during a period of high unemployment.<ref>
*[http://www.usnews.com/opinion/mzuckerman/articles/2010/07/16/obamas-anti-business-policies-are-our-economic-katrina Obama's Anti-business Policies are our Economic Katrina]
*[http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/619dvjlm.asp An Anti-Business President]
*[http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/08/small-businesses-are-not-hiring-why.html Small Businesses are not hiring. Why should they?]
*[http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/dear_mr_president_why_we_are_n.html Dear Mr. President: Why we are not hiring]
</ref>

[[Poverty]]<ref>http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2009/pov09fig04.pdf</ref> has increased markedly in his time in office.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/2010-09-16-poverty-rate-income-numbers_N.htm</ref> By and large, his economic policies to combat the recession have, to date, ranged from ineffective to counterproductive.<ref>"The vast majority (73%) of respondents reported the fiscal stimulus enacted in February 2009 has had no impact on employment to date. While 68% also believe a jobs bill, such as the one recently enacted into law, will have no impact on payrolls, 30% do believe it will boost payrolls moderately". ''Industry Survey'', National Association for Business Economics, April 2010, [http://www.nabe.com/press/ind1004.pdf p. 2 pdf].</ref> Also on the domestic front, Obama passed a major [[health care]] bill in 2009 with no [[bipartisan]] support and 34 Democrats dissenting. In foreign policy Obama has escalated the [[Afghanistan War]] and, against his own Defense Secretary's advice, [[Libyan uprising 2011|attacked Libya]] - a possible violation of the [[War Powers Act]]. After he announced the killing of [[September 11th]] mastermind and terrorist [[Osama bin Laden]], the [[U.S. State Department]] warned of the increased risk to the lives and safety of Americans around the world.<ref>http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/national_world&id=8273909</ref> Bin Ladens death had negligible impact on Obama's approval ratings.

==Early life==
:''Main article : [[Early life and career of Barack Hussein Obama]]''
:''See also : [[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage]]''
Obama was born in Hawaii to Stanley Ann Dunham and [[Barack Obama Sr.]] - who had married just six months prior - on August 4, 1961 in [[Honolulu, Hawaii]]. The couple divorced in 1964. Barack Obama Sr. was not a [[Natural born citizen|citizen of the United States]]. Dunham remarried Lolo Soetoro, an [[Indonesia]]n student. When Obama was six, Soetoro returned to Indonesia, and Dunham and Obama followed.<ref name="db mother">{{cite web|url=http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-05-03/a-singular-woman-by-janny-scott-review-by-stacy-schiff/#|work=The Daily Beast|format=HTML|language=English|title=Dreams of His Mother|author=Stacy Schiff}}</ref> He spent four years in Indonesia before returning to Hawaii to be raised by his grandparents, Madelyn and WW2 veteran Stanley Armour Dunham. He would later attend Occidental College, [[Columbia University]] and then [[Harvard University]] for law school, where he would become the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. It is disputed whether Obama was actually born in the United States, many people believing him to have been born in Kenya.

==Illinois State Senate career==
[[File:O-2002-antiwar-rally-davidson.jpg|right|thumb|250px| Obama speaking at the October 2002 rally in Chicago organized by [[Carl Davidson]].<ref>Davidson is a longtime [[Mao]]ist and champion of the ''Thought of Mao Tse Tung.'' Davidson's anti-Trotskyite polemic, [http://www.wengewang.org/read.php?tid=10925 ''Left in Form, Right in Essence''] defends Maoist doctrine. Retrieved from 对当代托洛茨基主义的批判：英文论集百花齐放 - 中国文革研究网, March 15, 2010.</ref> ''"[H]e is a brutal man who butchers his own people,"'' nevertheless Obama opposed ''"dumb wars".'']]

In 1995 Obama openly sought and obtained the endorsement of the [[Marxist]] [[New Party]] in his quest to be elected to the Illinois State Senate.<ref>[http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7434 NEW PARTY (NP)], discoverthenetwork.org.</ref><ref>Rick Moran. [http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/06/obamas_alliance_with_marxists.html Obama's Alliance with Marxists], ''American Thinker'', June 03, 2008.</ref> He became the [[Democrat]] nominee and ran unopposed to win the election. Obama entered the Illinois Senate promising change to a corrupt system. He mixed often radical votes with more pragmatic agreements. Possibly one of his most radical votes was against requiring medical care for aborted children who survive [[abortion|the procedure]] - in fact the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council ascribed him a 100% rating for his consistently pro-choice votes.<ref name="cbs illinois">{{cite web|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politics/main2369157.shtml|title=Obama Record May Be Gold Mine For Critics|work=CBS|format=HTML|language=English|last=Clark|first=Amy S.|date=Jan. 17, 2007}}</ref> He was criticized for using the statehouse as a stepping stone for a more illustrious career: Steven J. Rauschenberger, a [[Republican]], said prior to Obama's election as president: “He is a very bright but very ambitious person who has always had his eyes on the prize, and it wasn’t Springfield. If he deserves to be president, it is not because he was a great legislator.”<ref name="nyt illinois">{{cite web|work=The New York Times|title=In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd|last=Scott|first=Janny|format=HTML|language=English|date=July 30, 2007|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html}}</ref>

The statehouse was majority Republican, so the Senator was sometimes forced to compromise. He formed allegiances across party lines to pass [[campaign finance]] reform that banned most gifts by lobbyists, prohibited spending campaign money for legislators’ personal use and required electronic filing of campaign disclosure reports.<ref name="nyt illinois"/> Obama also helped pass a so-called “driving-while-black bill”, which required the police to collect data on the race of drivers they stopped as a way to monitor [[racial profiling]].<ref name="nyt illinois"/>

Obama established himself as a chief spokesperson in opposition to the [[War on Terror]] during an October 2002 rally at Federal Plaza in Chicago<ref>The rally was organized by Chicagoans Against War in Iraq (CAWI) later renamed Chicagoans Against War and Injustice. [http://www.noiraqwar-chicago.org/?page_id=2 About CAWI] by Carl Davidson, Nov 02 2006. Retrieved from Chicagoans Against War and Injustice, March 15, 2010.</ref> [[community organizing|organized]] by veteran [[Mao]]ist and webmaster of [[Progressives for Obama]],<ref>[http://www.linkedin.com/in/carldavidson Carl Davidson,] LinkedIn.com, retrieved March 13, 2010.</ref> [[Carl Davidson]].

===Radical foundation and connection to William Ayers===
{{main article|Radical roots of Barack Hussein Obama}}
In 1995 a cadre of like minded individuals gathered in the home of [[Weather Underground]] (WUO) [[terrorist]]s [[Bernardine Dohrn]] and [[William Ayers|William "Bill" Ayers]]. Dohrn,<ref>Georgie Anne Geyer and Keyes Beach "Cuba: School for U.S. Radicals", ''Chicago Daily News/Chicago Sun-Times'' five part series October 1970, excerpted in [http://foia.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=/weather/weath1c.pdf FBI file Weather Underground Organization (Weatherman),] Part 1c pp. 5-7 pdf (113-115 in original). [http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/2009/06/07/clandestine-agents-of-the-cuban-government-ayers-dohrn-myers/]</ref> along with Carl Davidson, are veterans of [[guerrilla warfare]] training in [[Cuba]] prior 1968 Democratic National Convention riots. Ayers and Dohrn have taken credit for, and never denied, bombing the [[U.S. Capitol]], the [[Pentagon]] and the [[State Department]].

Ayers and Dohrn used their celebrity status among [[leftist]]s to launch Obama's career. Ayers, Dohrn and [[Jeff Jones]]<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106653 ''Obama's 'green jobs czar' worked with terror founder] Van Jones served on board of activist group where ex-Weatherman serves as top director'', By Aaron Klein, [[WorldNetDaily]], August 13, 2009.</ref> are authors of ''[[Bill_Ayers#Prairie_Fire_Organizing_Committee_and_Maoist_thought|Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-imperialism]],'' the title taken from ''The Sayings of Mao Zedong.''<ref>[http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/]</ref> The book declares "we are [[communist]] men and women."<ref>Harvey Klehr, ''Far Left of Center: The American Radical Left Today'' (Transaction Books, New Brunswick, 1988), 109.</ref> Ayers later jokingly, publicly admitted to ghostwriting Obama's book, ''Dreams From My Father''<ref>http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/ayers_affirms_he_wrote_dreams.html</ref> and Obama was to appoint several openly avowed Maoists to prominent White House and Executive Branch positions.<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704597704574487431322664964.html</ref>

==U.S. Senate career==
:''See also: [[Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Hussein_Obama#U.S._Senate_.282004-2008.29|Barack Obama:U.S. Senate (2004-2008)]]''
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|left|Senator Barack Obama]]

Following a failed campaign for the U. S. House of Representatives, Obama ran for the open Senate seat from Illinois in 2004 against Republican candidate Jack Ryan. He won the seat after Chicago media outlets The Chicago Tribune newspaper and Chicago ABC affiliate WLS-TV; together with candidate Jack Ryan's Republican Primary opponents, sought and obtained the release of the confidential and personally embarrassing records in his California divorce from actress Jeri Ryan, forcing him to end his campaign. Ryan was replaced by the out-of-state candidate [[Alan Keyes]]. Obama won over Keyes 70% to 27% in the general election. Obama spent very little time in the Senate - "frustrated by his lack of influence and what he called the 'glacial pace' ... [he began] running for president even as he was still getting lost in the Capitol’s corridors."<ref name="nyt senate">{{cite web|work=The New York Times|publisher=The New York Times, Inc.|format=HTML|language=English|title=Obama in Senate: Star Power, Minor Role|author=Kate Zernike and Jeff Zelleny|date=March 9, 2008|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/us/politics/09obama.html}}</ref>

Obama frequently used the [[filibuster]] to obstruct the operations of government,<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020303801_pf.html</ref> voted against the [[minimum wage]]<ref>[http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislatio1/a/HR2206.htm HR 2206 - Emergency Appropriations], Kathy Gill, Your Guide to U.S. Politics: Current Events. May 26 2007.</ref><ref>[http://more.gov.mtopgroup.com/2007/05/votes-hr-2206-iraq-supplemental.html Votes - H.R. 2206: Iraq Supplemental], May 28, 2007. Retrieved from Deeper Inside the Mountain, June 4, 2007.</ref> and debt ceiling increases,<ref>http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/04/obama-once-opposed-debt-ceiling-hike/237129/</ref> and recieved more than $126,000 in campaign contributions from [[Fannie Mae]]. The ''[[National Journal]]'' ranked him the most liberal senator in 2007.<ref name="ranked">{{cite web|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-502163_162-3775451-502163.html|title=National Journal: Obama Most Liberal Senator In 2007|author=Brian Montopoli|date=January 31, 2008|work=CBS}}</ref>

==Presidential Election==
{{main article|Barack Hussein Obama 2008 Presidential campaign}}
Democrats began calling for an Obama candidacy after liberals lauded his 2004 [[Democratic National Convention]] speech.
===Campaign to be the Democratic nominee===
The race for the Democratic ticket originally seemed [[Hillary Clinton]]'s to lose, but was ultimately a close race between Clinton and Obama. Clinton would take a slim advantage in the popular vote, while Obama would carry significantly more states and territories. Obama's advantage with super-delegates over Clinton was about 2-to-1.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Superdelegate endorsements for Friday 6/6|work=Democratic Convention Watch|url=http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/06/superdelegate-endorsements-for-friday.html}}</ref> Obama was able to attract the support of [[liberals]] by pointing out that he had come out against the [[Iraq War]] "from the beginning" whereas Clinton had voted in favor of the war in 2002.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-01-31-democrats-debate_N.htm|title=Obama, Clinton stress differences on Iraq, issues|author=David Jackson|work=USA Today|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref>
===Campaign for the Presidency===
Obama campaigned against Senator [[John McCain]] in the general election. To the chagrin of Clinton supporters, he selected Senator [[Joe Biden]] to be his running mate, whereas McCain selected [[Governor]] of [[Alaska]] [[Sarah Palin]]. The Obama and Biden ticket would win the election, and Obama would become the nation's first [[African American]] president.

====Jeremiah Wright====
:''See also: [[Barack Obama and Liberation Theology]]''
One major dilemma that arose for Obama during his campaign was his connection to his preacher [[Jeremiah Wright]]. Obama and his wife (raised a Baptist) were members of the Trinity [[United Church of Christ]]<ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1776246/posts</ref> in Chicago, a chruch that embraced [[black liberation theology]] and its emphasis on empowering so-called "oppressed groups" against "establishment forces". This denomination was the first in America to ordain gays as ministers.<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html, Obama's church pushes controversial doctrines, March 20, 2008</ref> Church pastor Jeremiah Wright had been making inflammatory comments and posting his sermons online for sale. These include the statement "G-d damn America," and in describing the September 11th attacks, "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."<ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4443788 Obama's Pastor: G-d Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11]</ref> In addition, Rev. Wright blamed America saying "We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being [[anti-Semitic]]."

In April 2008, after 20 years in the church, candidate Obama made public statements poised to set him at odds with the man who conducted his wedding and baptized his children. With the negative publicity persisting, a month later Obama ended the friendship, left Wright's church, and blamed the media.<ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/31/obama-resigns-church-membership-in-chicago/], Obama Drops Church Membership in Chicago, May 31, 2008</ref> Obama claimed “It’s not fair to the other members of the church who seek to worship in peace...", and distanced himself from Wright's sermons as "a bunch of rants that aren't grounded in the truth."<ref>USA TODAY, ''Obama breaks with former pastor, Candidate cites rants on U.S. role in terror, AIDS'', by Kathy Kiely and David Jackson [http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20080430/1a_offlede30_dom.art.htm]</ref><ref>''Obama Says He Is Outraged By Wright's "Rants"''[http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_080430.htm]</ref>

==Presidential career==
{{main article|Obama administration}}
[[File:Obama and George H. W. Bush.jpg|thumb|right|300px|President Barack Obama meets with former President George H. W. Bush in the Oval Office, Feb. 15, 2011. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza).]]
Under Obama's stewardship the United States has suffered the largest [[Federal budget deficit|deficit]]s<ref>http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10708/11-06-mbr.htm</ref><ref>http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/118xx/doc11873/NovemberMBR.pdf</ref> in history and a credit downgrade from the rating agency Standard & Poor.<ref>http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/04/18/the-sp-outlook-and-obama/</ref> When his [[economic stimulus]] program was adopted unemployment rose and stagnated in the 10% range, <ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704476104575439172480870774.html?mod=googlenews_wsj</ref> leaving tens of millions without [[hope]] of finding a job.<ref>[http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS11300000&years_option=specific_years&include_graphs=true&to_month=1&from_month=2 United States Department of Labor], Bureau of Labor Statistics. Data extracted on: July 19, 2010 (4:31:11 PM).</ref>

Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen, writing in the [[Wall Street Journal]], noted, "Rather than being a unifier, Mr. Obama has divided America on the basis of race, class and partisanship." The commentators also note Obama's approach to governance has encouraged radical leftists to pursue a similar strategy on his behalf. Mary Frances Berry, former head of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, acknowledged that the [[Obama administration]] has taken to polarizing America around the issue of race as a means of diverting attention from other issues, saying, "Having one's opponent [[race card|rebut charges of racism]] is far better than discussing [[Unemployment|joblessness]]."<ref>http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Mary_Frances_Berry_91E3D9D5-C40D-440C-9D48-1C50CBC60C87.html</ref> Caddell and Schoen, who worked for President Carter and Clinton, respectively, further stated, "Mr. Obama has also cynically [[class warfare|divided the country on class lines]]. He has taken to playing the populist card time and time again. He bashes Wall Street and insurance companies whenever convenient to advance his programs, yet he has been eager to accept campaign contributions and negotiate with these very same banks and [[corporation]]s behind closed doors in order to advance his political agenda... President Obama's divisive approach to governance has weakened us as a people and paralyzed our political culture."<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748703700904575391553798363586.html</ref>

===Domestic policy===
====Popular bills====
Obama's first act of office was to sign the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act - effectively nullifying the [[Supreme Court]] case ''Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.'', which ruled that Ledbetter had to have filed a pay [[discrimination]] suit within 180 days of the first time Ledbetter was payed less than her male peers;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/us/politics/30ledbetter-web.html|work=The New York Times|format=HTML|language=English|title=Obama Signs Equal-Pay Legislation|author=Sheryl Gay Stolberg|date=January 29, 2009}}</ref> the law made corporations subject to suit within 180 days of each time the employee was unfairly paid.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20090213.html?=features|work=FindLaw|author=Joanna L. Grossman|date=Feb. 13, 2009|format=HTML|language=English|title=The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009}}</ref>

On January 2, 2011, Obama signed the James Zadroga [[9/11]] Healthcare and Compensation Act.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2011/jan/02/obama-signs-zadroga-act-law/|publisher=New York Public Radio|title=Obama Signs Zadroga Act into Law|author=Fred Mogul|date=January 02, 2011|work=wNYC|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> The act, which afforded 9/11 first responders who were sickened by the dust from the collapse of the [[World Trade Center]] health care and compensation, passed [[Congress]] after its sponsored agreed to scale down the pricing from 7.4 to 4.2 billion dollars.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2010/dec/22/zadroga-911-bill-passes-senate/|publisher=New York Public Radio|work=wNYC|format=HTML|language=English|title=Congress Approves 9/11 Health Bill|date=December 22, 2010}}</ref>

====Economic plan====
[[File:Keynes.jpg|thumbnail|right|190px|[[Barack Obama]] advocates the use of [[Keynesian economics|Keynesian economic concepts]] despite the fact that the [[John Maynard Keynes and pederasty|pedophile]] [[John Maynard Keynes]] was incompetent and a fraud.<ref>
*[http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/fabian-john-maynard-keynes-the-stealthy-enemy-of-human-freedom/ John Maynard Keynes the stealthy enemy of human freedom]
*[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-02-22/deathbed-of-keynesian-economics-will-be-in-u-k-matthew-lynn.html Deathbed of Keynesian Economics will be in the UK]
*[http://www.iwf.org/inkwell/show/23102.html Will the G8 Repudiate the Philosophy of Living Beyond Our Means?]
*[http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch09.html KEYNES AT HARVARD Economic Deception as a Political Credo BY ZYGMUND DOBBS]
</ref> ]]
{{see also|Obamunism|American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009}}
Critics of the Obama administration have coined the word "[[Obamunism]]" to describe Barack Obama's [[socialism|socialistic]] and "[[fascism]] light" [[economic planning]] policies ([[Benito Mussolini]] defined fascism as the wedding of state and corporate powers. Accordingly, trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] labels [[Obama administration corporate bailouts|Obama's corporate bailouts]] as being "fascism light" in nature).<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/daily-intel/2009/07/20/obamunism-inc|work=The Big Money|publisher=WashingtonPost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC|format=HTML|language=English|title=Obamunism, Inc.|author=David Sessions|date=July 20, 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.smallbusinessadvocate.com/small-business-interviews/gerald-celente-6944|author=Jim Blasingame|title=Is the government creating a bailout bubble?}}</ref> Obamunism can also refer to Obama's [[Obama administration fiscal policy|ruinous fiscal policies]] and [[Obama administration monetary policy|reckless monetary policies]].<ref name="gerard">{{cite web|url=http://seekingalpha.com/article/120883-monetary-policynot-obama-s-stimulusis-what-needs-watching|title=Monetary Policy-Not Obama's Stimulus-Is What Needs Watching|author=Gerard Jackson|date=February 16, 2009|work=Seeking Alpha}}</ref><ref name="bam">{{cite web|work=New York Post|date=May 17, 2009|url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/05172009/postopinion/editorials/bams_wise_words_169731.htm|title=BAM'S WISE WORDS}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/|title=Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures|work=The Foundry|publisher=The Heritage Foundation|author=Conn Carroll|date=March 24th, 2009}}</ref>

[[Wall Street]] firms and banks that were bailed out were among Obama's biggest campaign supporters.<ref>http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638</ref> Therefore, the Obama administration bailouts of corrupt, unproductive, and reckless Wall Street firms was hardly surprising, although it certainly was not helpful in making the United States economy more productive and prosperous. A 2005 study found that government corporate bailouts are often done for mere political considerations and the economic resources allocated exhibit significantly worse economic performance than resources allocated using purely business considerations.<ref>http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=676905</ref> Proponents of [[free market]] capitalism said Bernanke should not have bailed out failing firms and instead should have allowed free market capitalism to quickly recover as it did in the depression of 1920 without government intervention (free market capitalists assert that government intervention drags out economic recessions and depressions).<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czcUmnsprQI</ref>

Top trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] predicts that the corrupt economic policies of the Obama administration will lead to a second [[Great Depression|great depression]] (Celente predicted the 1987 US stock market crash, the dot.com crash, the US 2008/2009 recession, and the collapse of the USSR in the early 1990s) and may lead to a "second [[American Revolution]]" (Celente predicted the [[Tea Party Movement|tax protests]] that are now occurring in America).<ref name="celente1">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MMX3SKzrfU&feature=channel_page</ref><ref name="celente2">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sy9bfw1ebgw&feature=response_watch</ref> Celente also asserts that the costly and inefficient temporary short term methods that the Obama administration is using to alleviate economic problems in the short term (which is causing massive increases in [[Obama administration deficit spending]]) is only making matters worse and will not prevent the worse economic depression in United States history from occurring.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_C8K7rWkGGw</ref><ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LBffdIW0XA&feature=response_watch</ref>

The Obama administration has been sharply criticized for [[Obama administration deficit spending|its massive deficit spending]] and [[Obama administration monetary policy|its reckless monetary policy]] via vast increases in the [[money supply]].<ref name="gerard"/><ref name="bam"/><ref>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/</ref> Celente predicts that if a "second American Revolution" occurs in a peaceful and productive manner, it may include a [[Third Party System|third party movement]] of governance that will advocate a more [[free market]] [[capitalism]] approach to the American economy and a more strict interpretation of the [[United States Constitution|United States constitution]] as far as the authors' [[original intent]].<ref name="celente1"/><ref name="celente2"/>

During what the [[White House]] billed as [[Recovery Summer]], one half million workers per week continued losing their jobs. His signature legislative achievement, [[ObamaCare]], the federal courts have found to be [[unconstitutional]]<ref>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-13/u-s-health-care-law-requirement-thrown-out-by-judge.html</ref> and is credited as a major cause of uncertainty, high [[unemployment]],<ref>http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33220</ref> lagging job creation,<ref>http://blog.heritage.org/2010/08/05/it%E2%80%99s-official-medicare%E2%80%99s-finances-shadowed-by-uncertainty/</ref> and risk of a credit default crisis.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/28/AR2010032802353.html</ref><ref>http://www.thestreet.com/story/10703361/cramer-obamacare-will-topple-the-market.html</ref>

His 2012 Budget plan has been roundly criticized in the mainsream and liberal press as not a serious effort to deal with the nation's economic crisis.<ref>[http://republican.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=blogs.view&blog_id=1551d6f5-2ac9-4b8d-97ab-74def354024e Newspapers Call Out White House: ‘What Would That Path Be, Mr. President?’]</ref>

=====Healthcare=====
{{main article|Obamacare}}
On March 23, 2010, Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). The act had originated in the House of Representatives and passed September 17, 2009. The act was amended and passed the Senate prior to [[Democrat]] [[Ted Kennedy]]'s passing along party lines - just a filibuster-proof majority at 60-39. In a de facto rejection of the bill, [[Massachusetts]] voters elected a [[Republican]] candidate, [[Scott Brown]], who promised to vote against the bill,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/scott-brown-wins-massachusetts-senate-race.html|work=The Washington Post|author=Chris Cillizza|date=January 19, 2010|title=Scott Brown wins Massachusetts Senate special election race|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref> but another Senate vote would not occur. After Obama made a promise to issue an [[executive order]] that would ultimately prohibit the use of taxpayer subsidies to pay for [[abortion]] services,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/22/nation/la-na-healthcare-passage22-2010mar22/3|work=The Los Angeles Times|format=HTML|language=English|title=House passes historic healthcare overhaul|date=March 22, 2010|author=Noam N. Levey and Janet Hook}}</ref> the [[House of Representatives]] would pass the bill as it left the Senate 219-212, with 34 Democrats and all other parties dissenting.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-21/politics/health.care.main_1_health-care-entire-house-democratic-caucus-pre-existing-conditions?_s=PM:POLITICS|date=March 21, 2010|author=Alan Silverleib|work=CNN|format=HTML|language=English|title=House passes health care bill on 219-212 vote}}</ref>

Amongst other things, the act mandates that the population purchase health care coverage or face punitive tax measures, and on this basis has been constitutionally challenged in the federal courts, with mixed results (three courts have upheld the act, two have declared it unconstitutional); thus, the Act is likely destined for [[Supreme Court]] reviewal.

====Gulf oil spill====
{{main article|Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster}}
President Obama authorized offshore oil drilling in the [[Gulf of Mexico]]<ref>[http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0430/Gulf-of-Mexico-oil-spill-imperils-Obama-s-offshore-drilling-plan Gulf of Mexico oil spill imperils Obama's offshore drilling plan,] By Mark Clayton, ''Christian Science Monitor'', April 30, 2010.</ref> stating, "oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills"<ref>White House Press Release, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-a-discussion-jobs-and-economy-charlotte-north-carolina Remarks by the President in a Discussion on Jobs and the Economy in Charlotte, North Carolina,] Office of the Press Secretary, April 02, 2010. Retrieved from whitehouse.gov 3 May 2010.</ref> and was widely criticized for his mishandling of the "[[Gulf oil spill disaster|worst environmental disaster]] in US history."<ref>[http://www.examiner.com/x-33986-Political-Spin-Examiner~y2010m4d29-Worst-environmental-disaster-in-US-history-Oil-slick-in-Gulf-of-Mexico-is-set-on-fire Worst environmental disaster in US history,] Maryann Tobin, ''Examiner'', April 29, 2010.</ref><ref>[http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/the-oil-spill-is-obamas-fault/?src=twt&twt=NytimesKrugman Conscience of a Liberal: The Oil Spill Is Obama’s Fault,] Paul Krugman, ''New York Times'', April 30, 2010.</ref>

====Don't Ask Don't Tell====
{{main article|Don't Ask Don't Tell}}
Candidate Obama promised to repeal a policy that originated in the Clinton era that prohibited inquiries into military personnel's [[sexual orientation]] while also barring "out" [[homosexuals]] from serving in the military. [[Liberals]] expressed anger when time passed and no effort to repeal the law was seen;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/21/obama-to-delay-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell/|work=The Washington Times|format=HTML|title=Obama to delay ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ repeal|language=English|author=Rowan Scarborough|date=November 21, 2008}}</ref> in fact, Obama's [[justice department]] filed a brief arguing against the [[Supreme Court]] granting a [[writ of certiorari]] to a gay soldier challenging the law (the writ was not granted). In response, the soldier, James Pietrangelo II, a former Army infantryman and lawyer, said, “[Obama's] a coward, a bigot and a pathological liar. This is a guy who spent more time picking out his dog, Bo, and playing with him on the White House lawn than he has working for equality for gay people."<ref>{{cite web|work=Time Magazine|publisher=Time Inc.|format=HTML|url=http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1903545,00.html?imw=Y|title=Dismay Over Obama's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Turnabout|author=Mark Thompson|date=Jun. 09, 2009}}</ref>

On December 15th, 2010, a bill was introduced in the [[House of Representatives]] to repeal the law - it passed a day later by a vote of 250-175;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll638.xml|title=FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 638|format=HTML|work=Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives}}</ref> it passed the Senate three days later 65-31.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00281|work=The U.S. Senate|title=U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress - 2nd Session|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> Obama signed the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 on December 22nd.<ref name="g dadt">{{cite web|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/22/obama-repeals-dont-ask-dont-tell|work=The Guardian|format=HTML|language=English|title='Don't ask, don't tell' repealed as Obama signs landmark law|date=22 December 2010}}</ref>

The [[Pentagon]] itself could not immediately implement the repeal and questioned whether it would hurt combat readiness.<ref name="g dadt"/> Senator [[John McCain]], the senior Republican on the Armed Services Committee, opposed the bill, saying "It may be premature to make such a change at this time and in this manner, without further consideration of this report and further study of the issue by Congress – for of all the people we serve, one of our highest responsibilities is to the men and women of our armed services, especially those risking their lives in combat.”<ref>{{cite web|url=http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/02/mccain-on-dont-ask-dont-tell-dont-rush/|title=McCain on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’: Don’t Rush|date=December 2nd, 2010|format=HTML|author=David M. Herszenhorn|language=English|work=The New York Times}}</ref>

===Foreign policy===
[[File:Western Wall Obama.jpg|thumb|left|320px|At [[Western Wall]], Jerusalem, 2008.]]
As Senator, Obama was highly critical of President Bush and promised change. As President, Obama has tripled down in Afghanistan, widened the war into Pakistan, multiplied drone attacks, bombed Yemen and Somalia, and started an undeclared NATO war in Libya. On presidential war powers, surveillance questions, Guantanamo, detention policy and habeas corpus, Obama has similarly stayed the course, or expanded Bush's precedents. In a speech on May 19, 2011 Obama fully embraced the [[Bush Doctrine]] of preventative war.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-news-in-obamas-speech/2011/05/19/AF4dFN7G_story.html</ref>

<blockquote>
The New America Foundation, which tracks the strikes, has listed 23 raids since the beginning of April, 2011, all but one in Pakistan’s tribal regions of North and South Waziristan. A June 20 attack was reported in Kurram, an area north of North Waziristan along the Afghanistan border.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
The drone program has become increasingly controversial as the Obama administration has expanded its use beyond the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Lethal missiles have been launched from unmanned aircraft in at least five countries in addition to Pakistan: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, and, most recently, Somalia. The military’s Joint Special Operations Command used a drone last June to attack what officials said were two senior members of the Al Shabab militant group on the Somali coast. [http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2011/07/04/cia_halts_drone_launches_from_pakistan_base/]
</blockquote>

====Commander-in-chief====
By Obama's second year as Commander-in-Chief, 559 American troops died in Iraq and Afghanistan - significantly more than the 469 who died during Presisdent [[George W. Bush]]'s final year in office. And growing numbers of civilian contractors also have fallen. In the first half of 2010, 250 contractors reportedly died in Iraq and Afghanistan - more than the 235 military personnel who fell during the same period.<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/05/24/114662/what-price-war.html#ixzz1Nz07pg5O</ref>

=====Afghanistan=====
{{main article|Afghanistan War}}
Obama escalated troop strength<ref name="pbs">{{cite web|url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamaswar/themes/strategy.html#ixzz1LhWNImZp|title=Obama's New Strategy (March '09)|author=George Packer, Seth Jones, David Kilcullen, Rory Stewart, Andrew Exum, Col. Andrew Bacevich (Ret.)|work=PBS|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref> and defense costs in Afghanistan from $43.5 billion in George Bush's last year to $113.7 billion for 2011.<ref>Congressional Research Service, quoted in Gregory Anthony, ''What price war?''</ref> Adviser to General [[Stanley McChrystal]] David Kilcullen wrote, "One of the big strategic shifts is the use of language now which talks about Pakistan and Afghanistan as the same theater. Now we talked about Af-Pak long before the Obama administration came about, but the public use of that term, and the description of it as the Afghanistan-Pakistan campaign, sends a new message to people about how the administration is going to think about Afghanistan and Pakistan."<ref name="pbs"/> This became evident when, under the orders of Obama, a military SEALs team killed September 11th mastermind [[Osama bin Laden]] in Abottabad, Pakistan.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newsweek.com/2011/05/05/commander-in-chief.html|title=Commander in Chief|author=Daniel Romano and Daniel Klaidman|date=May 05, 2011|work=Newsweek|publisher=The Newsweek/Daily Beast Company LLC|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref>

=====Iraq=====
{{main article|Operation Iraqi Freedom}}
Obama campaigned on a promise to end the War in Iraq, however 50,000 U.S. troops remain in the country.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.cnn.com/2010-08-31/politics/obama.oval.office.address_1_iraq-requests-united-states-and-iraq-troop-surge?_s=PM:POLITICS|work=CNN|title=Obama: 'Time to turn the page' as Iraq combat mission ends|date=August 31, 2010|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref>

=====Guantanamo Bay=====
{{main article|Guantanamo Bay}}
One of Obama's campaign promises was that he would close the American detention center at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba - detainees would be flown to other countries while the ones awaiting trial would enter the American court system. Two days after taking office he signed an order directing the military to do so.<ref name="salon">{{cite web|url=http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/04/25/obama_guantanamo_rhetoric|work=Salon|title=The Obama/Gitmo timeline|author=Natasha Lennard|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> But, in November 2009 Obama admitted that his self imposed deadline of January 2010 would be missed, and in March 2011 the president went back on his campaign promise, signing an executive order to create a formal system of indefinite detention for the prisoners.<ref name="salon"/>

=====Libya=====
{{main article|Libyan uprising 2011}}
In February 2011, the political unrest that had spread through the Arab world showed up as protests in Libya. Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi - dictator of Libya for 41 years - responded to the activism with a wave of violence.<ref name="nyt libya">{{cite web|url=http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/libya/index.html|work=The New York Times|publisher=The New York Times Inc.|format=HTML|language=English|title=Libya — Protests and Revolt (2011)}}</ref> The [[United Nations Security Council]] voted unanimously to impose [[sanctions]], and later authorized all members to take action to protect civilians. Obama, acting without approval from Congress and at the beckoning of the [[United Nations]], directed American forces to take out Libya's air defense system.<ref name="nyt libya"/> Obama later said, "[I]f we waited one more day Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world."<ref>{{cite web|author=Barack Obama|url=http://www.npr.org/2011/03/28/134935452/obamas-speech-on-libya-a-responsibility-to-act|title=Obama's Speech On Libya: 'A Responsibility To Act'|date=March 28, 2011|publisher=National Public Radio ([[NPR]])|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref> [[Alan J. Kuperman]] - writing an editorial for the ''[[Boston Globe]]'' - suggested this statement was false, writing, "[I]ntervention did not prevent genocide, because no such bloodbath was in the offing. To the contrary, by emboldening rebellion, US interference has prolonged Libya’s civil war and the resultant suffering of innocents."<ref name="kuperman">{{cite web|author=Alan J. Kuperman|work=The Boston Globe|url=http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-14/bostonglobe/29418371_1_rebel-stronghold-civilians-rebel-positions|title=False pretense for war in Libya?|date=April 14, 2011}}</ref> Kuperman, a professor of public affairs at the University of Texas who authored a book called ''The Limits of Humanitarian Intervention'', further stated that the rebels had tricked the world into thinking a bloodbath was at hand and that Obama had lied to the American people in order to act on this theory.<ref name="kuperman"/>
<blockquote>
Gaddafi [never] threaten civilian massacre in Benghazi, as Obama alleged. The “no mercy’’ warning, of March 17, targeted rebels only, as reported by The New York Times, which noted that Libya’s leader promised amnesty for those “who throw their weapons away.’’ Khadafy even offered the rebels an escape route and open border to Egypt, to avoid a fight “to the bitter end.’’ <ref> [http://politicalcartel.org/2011/04/17/libya-and-the-obama-doctrine/ Libya and the “Obama Doctrine”.] </ref>
</blockquote>

However Gaddafi wrote to Obama:

<blockquote>
Gaddafi said he bore no ill will toward Obama. "We have been hurt more morally than physically because of what had happened against us in both deeds and words by you," he wrote. "Despite all this you will always remain our son whatever happened. We still pray that you continue to be president of the USA. We endeavour and hope that you will gain victory in the new election campaign." The letter, dated 5 April 2011 in Tripoli, is signed "Mu'aumer Qaddaffi, Leader of the Revolution".<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/06/gaddafi-obama-nato-libya?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487]</ref>
</blockquote>

Critics point out the only thing worse than starting a "stupid, unnecessary war" against a madman is losing it.<ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/271847/war-libya-dumb-and-dumber-victor-davis-hanson</ref>

==See also==

*[[Political positions of Barack Obama]]
*[[Barack Obama and uncharitableness]]

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

{{USPresidents}}
{{2008 presidential candidates}}
[[Category: Barack Hussein Obama]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:Obama Administration]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barack Hussein}}

User talk:Elbow

2011-07-25T22:42:13Z

MRellek:

== [[Entitlements]] ==

What do you even mean by "tax reductions for the wealthy". They still pay taxes, and are not exempt due to their income. This is not an example of an entitlement.--[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 18:35, 25 July 2011 (EDT)

The ones that Bush enacted, which were extended last winter. People with a certain income level had their taxes reduced (I never said they were exempt). They are wealthy people. Why is it not an example of an entitlement?

:The definition of entitlements provided here is poor. It is most certainly not an entitlement as the traditional definition is the access to benefits or rights, and is generally used to refer to programs such as Medicare.--[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 18:42, 25 July 2011 (EDT)

User talk:Austenbosten

2011-07-25T22:38:04Z

MRellek: Created page with "{{welcome}}--~~~~"

{{welcome}}--[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 18:38, 25 July 2011 (EDT)

Entitlements

2011-07-25T22:36:30Z

MRellek: Undo revision 893361 by Elbow (talk)

'''Entitlements''' are benefits which the [[government]] provides to Americans who qualify because of their age, income, and/or status.

Example include benefits payable to children who live below the poverty line, the disabled, and veterans.

[[Category:United States Government]]

User talk:Elbow

2011-07-25T22:35:11Z

MRellek: Created page with " == Entitlements == What do you even mean by "tax reductions for the wealthy". They still pay taxes, and are not exempt due to their income. This is not an example of an e..."

Entitlements

2011-07-25T22:27:25Z

MRellek: Removal of Vandalism

Christianity

2011-07-24T20:19:46Z

MRellek: Undo revision 892989 by Scubasteve1 (talk)

{{Christianity}}
'''Christianity''' is the world's largest [[religion]], having 2.2 billion followers on all continents. It is a [[monotheistic]] religion that professes belief in [[Jesus]] (in the Hebrew original, "Yeshua HaMashiach") as the Son of [[God]]. Followers of Jesus are called Christians, meaning "of Christ" or "belonging to Christ".<ref>[http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=2661&dict=CALD Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary]</ref> The early Christian faith was sometimes called ''That Way'', (Acts 19:1,9,23; 24:22), and its adherents were also called ''Nazarenes'' (Acts 24:5), evidently after the city of [[Nazareth]] where Jesus lived. The [[Acts of the Apostles|Book of Acts]] (Acts:11:26) records that "the disciples were called Christians first in [[Antioch]]." The title ''Christian'' is also used in Acts 26:28 and 1 Peter 4:16.

== Main Christian Divisions ==
[[Image:Anglican Christ Church.jpg|thumb|left|150px|Anglican Christ Church in Western Australia]]
'''The three largest self-governing bodies of Christians are:'''

* The [[Roman Catholic Church]] (approx. 1.1 billion baptized members) traces its roots back to [[Saint Peter]] whom Catholics believe established their church and the succession of [[Pope]]s as the spiritual leaders of Christendom.

* The [[Orthodox Church]]es (approx. 300 million baptized members) trace their roots back to the Apostles, and are organized in Autocephalous national or regional churches in communion with each other. Differing theological perspectives led to the [[Great Schism]] between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches in A.D. 1054.

* [[Protestantism]]: the largest Communions are the [[Anglican Church|Anglicans]] (approx. 115 million baptized members) and the [[Lutheran]] World Federation (approx. 68 million baptized members). Protestantism has its origins in the European [[Reformation]]. It broke from the Roman Catholic Church under [[Martin Luther]] when differences over the nature of [[faith]] and works in the role of [[Christianity#salvation|salvation]], as well as other practices of the Catholic Church that Luther saw as unBiblical, were raised.

== Christian Beliefs ==
Christian beliefs [[Christian apologetics|are well supported via a large body of compelling evidence]]. Theologians, over two millennia, have debated a definitive summary of the Christian faith. While its interpretations vary drastically, probably the most commonly accepted statement of the faith is the [[Nicene Creed| Nicea-Constantinopolitan Creed]].

Christians and Christian denominations agree on many points of doctrine while disagreeing on some. According to an online Harris poll from 2003, 99% of all American Christians believe in [[God]], 96% in the [[Resurrection of Jesus Christ|resurrection of Jesus Christ]], 93% in [[Heaven]], 93% in the virgin birth, 92% in the survival of the soul after death, 82% in [[Hell]], 50% in ghosts, 27% in astrology and 21% in reincarnation. <ref>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=359</ref> Note that the latter two beliefs are in opposition to the religious tenents of most Christian denominations.

Nonetheless, the Nicea-Constantinopolitan Creed offers a general overall picture of what Christian theology looks like, and serves as a useful outline and historic standard. Other creeds may prove helpful in research. See the [[Apostles' Creed]] and the [[Athanasian Creed]].

===God===
{{main|God}}
God is a triune being. Though there is only one Divine nature there are three Divine Personages: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The three Persons are collectively called the [[Trinity]] or the Holy Trinity. While God is tripartite, this does not imply that Christians are polytheists. The doctrine of the Trinity is central to Christian theology, although several denominations that usually are considered Christian are non-Trinitarian. The God of the Christian is the creator of all things, is everywhere present, exists in all times, is transcendent, all-knowing (omniscient), just, and all-powerful (omnipotent).

A major theme of the Bible is [[love]]. In the Hebrew [[Old Testament]] the idea is expressed in the Hebrew word ''hessed'', which is variously translated as loyal love, tender mercy, steadfast love, mercy, goodness, etc. in the [[New Testament]] the same idea is expressed in the Greek word ''agape'', which is variously translated as love, compassion, charity, etc.

===Jesus===
[[Image:Jesus' Baptism.jpg|180px|left|]]
During the reign of [[Augustus Caesar|Caesar Augustus]] the Son (i.e. the second Person of the Trinity) took flesh from a virgin woman and was incarnated as a man. He was born in the town of [[Bethlehem]] and was given the name [[Jesus]]. At approximately the age of thirty he was baptised by his cousin [[John the Baptist]] and began to preach in the area of [[Judea]] and [[Galilee]]. About three years later, his teachings and works of mercy prompted the Jewish authorities to plot Jesus' death. Jesus was [[crucified]]. He rose from the dead and was seen by over 500 people. He ascended to Heaven. The four [[Gospels]] contain the basic account of what Jesus did and said.

Jesus summarized his moral teachings in two commandments from the Old Testament:

"'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets." ([[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]] 22:37-39; [[Book of Deuteronomy|Deuteronomy]] 6:5; Leviticus 19:18)

===Morality===
The fundamental principle in Christian moral teaching is [[love]] and forgiveness, as expressed by the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and the New Testament. In the Hebrew [[Old Testament]] the idea is expressed in the Hebrew word ''hessed'', which is variously translated as loyal love, tender mercy, steadfast love, mercy, goodness, etc. in the [[New Testament]] the same idea is expressed in the Greek word ''agape'', which is variously translated as love, compassion, charity, etc.

There has been endless debate over how a person should express love for God in his or her moral behavior. This moral dialogue found expression in the New Testament, where the [[Apostle Paul]] addressed such controversies as [[circumcision]] ([[Epistle to the Romans|Romans]] 2:25-29), eating meat that was sacrificed to [[pagan]] deities (1 Corinthians 8), speculating about myths and genealogies (1 Timothy 1:3-5), and observing ceremonial dates and seasons (Galatians 4:9-11).

Regardless of a person's ethical interpretations, adherents commonly point to New Testament passages John 3:16 and 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 as scriptural depictions of love. The former states that <blockquote>"God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."</blockquote> The latter characterizes love, saying <blockquote>"Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things."</blockquote>

Jesus Christ affirmed, "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." (John 13:35) In trying to understand the reason for the growth of Christianity in a pagan culture, it has been noted that while love of one's neighbor is not an exclusively Christian virtue, it appears that the primitive Christian church practiced it much more effectively than any other group.<ref>E.R. Dodds, 1970:136-137</ref>

In addition to sacrificially showing care for those within the community as well as to those without, (cf. Gal. 6:10) the Christians elevated the sanctity of life, opposing abortion, infanticide, child abandonment, suicide, and gladiatorial contests.<ref>Kenneth Scott Latourette, ''A history of Christianity'' p. 244</ref><ref> Ted Cabal, Chad Owen Brand, Paul Copan, The Apologetics Study Bible, 274 </ref> While the primitive church tolerated the existing and pervasive cultural economic institution of slavery in the [[Roman Empire]], the mandate of equal pay and just treatment (Col. 4:1; Eph. 6:9) greatly ameliorated the treatment of slaves, while advising them to seek freedom if possible, (1Cor. 7:21) and requiring that the escape slave Onesimus be received back not "as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved". (Philemon 1:6) The Christian ethos of love also motivated a great expansion in the building of hospitals.<ref>Albert John Ochsner, Meyer Joseph Sturm, ''The organization, construction and management of hospitals'', p. 17</ref><ref>Roderick E. McGrew, ''Encyclopaedia of Medical Care'', p. 135</ref> By 500 A.D., most large towns in in the Roman Empire had erected them.<ref>George D. Pozgar, ''Legal aspects of health care administration', p. 2</ref>

===Atonement===
[[Image:Dalí The Christ of St. John of the Cross.jpg|thumb|The Christ of St. John of the Cross by [[Salvador Dalí]], 1951.]]
Christians believe with the New Testament that the death of Jesus, in conjuction with His resurrection, is an indispensable event for the reconciliation of lost sinners with God. There are three elements they see to the understanding of His death on the cross.

- Jesus having the knowledge that His path would lead to his own death, desired and willed that that take place, and persevered in that path though there was opportunity for Him to avoid it. "I have power to take my life and I have power to lay down my life. I lay down my life for the sheep."

- Jesus saw that in His death there would be a way for people to be brought back to the God from whom they were alienated and lost because of their sins. This would involve a substitution of Himself to effect, i.e. atone for, that development. "For the Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve and give His life as a ransom for many." How this would take place was not new to the Jews of His day from their understanding of contemporary everyday practice of substitute payment - as in redemption of the first-born (Pidyon Ha Ben), or in the understanding of what aggadic stories such as the Binding of [[Isaac]] implied (see [[Midrash]]), but it was not the prevalent view that the Messiah was to be that payment. Though while alive on earth, he had hinted at it in sayings such as "unless a seed falls and dies, it remains alone, but when it dies, it brings forth..", it was only after He had risen from the dead that He explained Scripture (the Old Testament) clearly about the necessity of His death to have taken place. The disciples would henceforth preach, and Peter among them, that the death of Jesus the Messiah and His resurrection was for-planned and for-ordained by God the Father, and foretold in the Scripture (Isaiah 53).

- Christians of all generations have looked to the perfect Atonement, and the hope for reconciliation, accomplished by Jesus on the cross, to provide the means of understanding the solution to the vexing problems of the mind and of life itself.

===Salvation===
The Bible teaches that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). This is often interpreted to mean that everyone has displeased God and is now separated from him in a kind of alienation and enmity that results from the fundamental conflict between selfish human interests and God's interests (Romans 8:5-8; James 4:4). Jesus offered a solution to this Biblical dilemma in that, by repentance of sins and faith in him (Jesus), their sins would be forgiven. He said that "...the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins." ([[Gospel of Mark|Mark]] 2:10) Jesus also said, "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." (Mark 2:17).

Jesus Christ taught that "unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God" ([[Gospel of John|John]] 3:3). Protestant Evangelical Christianity often uses the terms "saved" and "born again" to mean conversion, while other Christians, such as the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, use the phrase ''born again'' as a synonym for [[baptism|baptized]].

Christians are expected to continue living by Christ's teachings (John 8:31), as is appropriate for "children of Light" (Ephesians 5:8-10). Some believe that this is necessary in order to be saved. Others say that this is a common misconception of the text, that it refers instead to the "fruits" of saving faith. Christians in the [[Reformed]] tradition (following the teaching of the 16th century French lawyer and theologian [[John Calvin]]) say that salvation cannot be lost. One Bible passage often cited is John 10:28-29 in which Jesus said of his own Apostles that they could not be snatched from his hand.

== Resurrection of Jesus Christ ==
[[Image:Jesus resurrected.jpg|thumb|left|200px|"The Resurrection" by Carl Heinrich Bloch]]
The [[Resurrection of Jesus Christ|resurrection of Jesus Christ]] is critical to the Christian faith. The Apostle Paul wrote, "if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain" (I Cor:15:14). Traditionally, Christianity has believed in a physical resurrection of Jesus Christ.<ref>http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/crj0056a.txt</ref>

In recent history, Gary Habermas is considered a leading [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] for defending the resurrection of Jesus.<ref>Habermas, Gary, [http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/dialog_rexperience/dialog_rexperiences.htm Experiences of the Risen Jesus: The Foundational Historical Issue in the Early Proclamation of the Resurrection], ''Dialog: A Journal of Theology'', Vol. 45; No. 3 (Fall, 2006), pp. 288-297.</ref><ref>"Wildcat" and Holding, J.P., [http://www.tektonics.org/books/lichabrvw.html Book review of "The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus"], 22nd June, 2004 (Tektonics)</ref><ref>Habermas, Gary, [http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/NTeSources/NTArticles/CTR-NT/Habermas-Resurrection1-CTR.pdf Jesus' Resurrection and Contemporary Criticism: An Apologetic] ''Criswell Theological Review'' 4.1 (1989) 159-74.</ref><ref>Habermas, Gary, [http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/crj_explainingaway/crj_explainingaway.htm Explaining Away Jesus' Resurrection:
The Recent Revival of Hallucination Theories], Christian Research Journal / vol. 23, no. 4, 2001.</ref><ref>Habermas, Gary, [http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/historical_apologetics/habermas-nt.html Why I Believe The New Testament Is Historically Reliable] (Apologetics.com)</ref>
Other notable defenders of the resurrection include: [[William Lane Craig]],<ref>Craig, William Lane, [http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/historical.html Articles: Historical Jesus]</ref> [[Lee Strobel]], [[Josh McDowell]],<ref>McDowell, Josh, [http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html Evidence for the Resurrection], 1992.</ref> [[Edwin M. Yamauchi]],<ref>Jamauchi, Edwin M., [http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/yama.html Easter: Myth, Hallucination, or History?]</ref> [[N.T. Wright]]<ref>Wright, N.T., [http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Early_Traditions.htm Early Traditions and the Origins of Christianity], ''Sewanee Theological Review'' 41.2, 1998.</ref> and [[Michael Horner]].<ref>Horner, Michael, [http://www.michaelhorner.com/articles/resurrection/index.html Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?]</ref>

===The Meaning of the Resurrection for Christians===
The fact of the Resurrection of Christ is also believed to produce certain effects on the lives of Christians.

1. It is because Jesus rose from the dead that believers now can resort to a living Savior to help and deliver them from sin and from situations overwhelming for them by their own powers.

2. The New Testament sees in the resurrection of Christ a certain vindication of what apparently to the world and to all beings was a failure and an overcoming of Him by His crucifixion.

3. The coming of Jesus back to life means to the believer that, indeed, his sins are totally forgiven. This is because believers know that His death was as a payment for sins - a "wage of death" for our sins that He received in our stead. If He remained dead, believers would know that the wage had not been fully paid.

4. It is a now-living Savior that Christians know can go before them, can closely lead them through life - as He did when He was on earth. This makes following Him practical and real.

5. The New Testament reveals that it is the Risen Christ who received from the Father the Holy Spirit and He, through Himself, ascended to the Father, has given the Holy Spirit to us. This gives the believer in Christ both the knowledge and the power to live a godly life and live a life that can be an intimately and personally directed one.

6. The resurrected Christ was no mere reassembling of the molecules and particles of the Body that had been crucified. It was, indeed, a physical body, but one that was fully glorified. It was a "spiritual body". Christians know that likewise, they will one day be granted the nature of a spiritual body, and be full of health. They therefore are full of hope and consolation, and consider that, even now in this life, there is an overcoming through Him.

==Evangelism==
In what is called the [[Great Commission]], Jesus sent his disciples out into the world to preach the Gospel (literally "good news") and make disciples.
:'''Great Commission'''
:''But the eleven disciples proceeded to [[Galilee]], to the mountain which Jesus had designated. When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful. And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in [[heaven]] and on [[earth]]." Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the [[#God the Father|Father]] and the [[#God the Son|Son]] and the [[#God the Holy Spirit|Holy Spirit]], teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."'' --[[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]] 28:16-20 [[New American Standard Bible|NASB]]
[[Image:Gleyre The Departure of the Apostles.jpg|thumb|240px|The Departure of the Apostles by [[Charles Gleyre]].]]
 

==Internet Evangelism==

see also: [[Internet evangelism]]

Campus Crusade for Christ International (CCCI) is one of the world's largest evangelism organizations within Christendom and has over 25,000 full time missionaries. In 2006, Alan Beeber of CCCI predicted that internet evangelism will result in more conversion that all other forms of evangelism for CCCI combined.<ref>http://www.lausanneworldpulse.com/pdf/issues/LWP0206.pdf</ref> At [[YouTube]], Christians and Christian creationists have faced problems with [[atheist bullying|atheist cyberbullies]], but they [[Essay: Sharing your Christian/creationist videos on the internet|have developed methods to overcome this problem]].

==Early Church Community and Commitment: The Biblical Period==

The Bible records that that, at least initially, the church saw itself as united. In the community:

"...they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. {43} And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. {44} And all that believed were together, and had all things common; {45} And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. {46} And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved." "And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common."(Acts 2:42-47; 4:32)

This community was soon "scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles," due to determined persecution which resulted in the dispersed disciples going "every where preaching the word." (Acts 8:1,4) Christian communities were primarily to be found in two separate cultural and liguistic entities--the Greek and Latin-speaking empires of Europe and the mid-east, and the Aramaic speaking sphere of the Parthian empire of the mid-east and far-east. This latter sphere encompassed not only the eastern portions of Syria, the Arabian peninsula, and Persia, but also extended to portions of southern India and even China. To this day there are many [[Aramaic Church]] members in the Kerala province of south India.

==Early Church Community and Commitment: the Post-Biblical Period==

'''Justin martyr 100 A.D. - 165 A.D. From the "First Apology" (Defense)
'''

<blockquote>
But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to genoito [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion. (Chapt. LXV - administration of the sacraments)</blockquote>

<blockquote>
And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist = the Thanksgiving], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone... (Chapt. LXVl - of the Eucharist)
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead...(Chapt.LXVll - weekly worship of the Christians)
</blockquote>

'''Tertullian (A.D. 160 -220), an Early ecclesiatical leader and writer, in his ''Apology'' (response to pagan charges) in describing the early church community wrote, ca. AD 197: '''

:We are a body knit together by one faith, one discipline and one hope. We meet together as a congregation, uniting together to offer prayer to God. We pray for the emperors and all in authority, for the welfare of the world, for peace and for the delay of the final end. We read our holy scriptures to nourish our faith, hope, steadfastness and good habits. We hear exhortations and rebukes. We take such judging very seriously – as befits those who believe they are in the sight of God – especially seriously when anyone sins so grievously we have to cut them off from our prayer, our congregation and all sacred things. Our elders preside over us, obtaining that honor not by money, but by their established character. There is no buying and selling in the things of God. Though we have a fund, but not because people can buy religion. Once a month, anyone who wants to makes a small donation – but only he who is able and willing; there is no compulsion. It is not spent on feasts, but to support and bury poor people, to provide for orphans, the elderly old persons, victims of shipwreck and those in prison for their faith.<ref>Defense by Tertullian (39), Trans. Rev. S. Thelwall. Modernized, abridged and introduced by Stephen Tomkins. Edited and prepared for the web by Dan Graves.</ref>

'''Pliny the Younger, the Roman governor of Pontus & Bithynia (northern Turkey) from A.D. 111-113, reporting to emperor Trajan of Christians, whom such pagan rulers found intolerable:'''

:... Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.

:They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food.<ref>Pliny the Younger Letters, 10.96 </ref>

== Resources related to becoming a Christian ==
[[File:Hoffman Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane.jpg|thumbnail|170px|[[Jesus Christ|Christ]] in the Garden of Gethsemane by Heinrich Hofmann.]]
''see also:'' [[Resources on becoming a Christian]]

'''Below are some resources on becoming a [[Christian]]:'''

*[http://www.jesusfilm.org/film-and-media/watch-the-film Jesus film - free access]

*[http://www.thewordfortoday.org/?page=C2000 Free audio Bible and Bible audio streaming]

*[http://www.allaboutgod.com/ AllAboutGod.com]

*[[Christian apologetics|Evidence for Christianity]]

*[[Video testimonies of Christians]]

*[http://www.gotquestions.org/repentance.html Repentance]

'''Tips on choosing a Christian church:'''

*[http://www.allaboutreligion.org/choosing-a-christian-church-faq.htm Choosing a Christian Church]

'''Spiritual growth as a Christian:'''

*[http://www.navpress.com/product/9781576839324/The-Pursuit-of-Holiness-Jerry-Bridges The Pursuit of Holiness] by Jerry Bridges
*[http://www.navpress.com/product/9780891099413/The-Practice-of-Godliness-Jerry-Bridges The Practice of Godliness] by Jerry Bridges
*[http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/529785.The_Complete_Book_of_Discipleship The Complete Book of Discipleship: On Being and Making Followers of Christ]

==Also See==
[[Image:Orthodox churches icon artwork.jpg|thumb|Orthodox Church's icon artwork.]]
'''Denominations or branches of Christianity'''
*[[Roman Catholic Church]]
*[[Eastern Churches -- Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East]]
*[[Protestantism|Protestant]]
**[[Amish]]
**[[Anglican]] ([[Church of England]])
***[[Episcopal Church]] (USA affiliate)
**[[Baptist]]
**[[Congregationalist]]
**[[Disciples of Christ]] and [[Churches of Christ]]
**[[Evangelical Christianity]]
**[[Friends]]
**[[Fundamentalism]]
**[[Liberal Christianity]]
**[[Lutheran]]
**[[Mennonite]]
**[[Methodist]]
**[[Pentecostal]]
**[[Plymouth Brethren]]
**[[Presbyterian]]
**[[Reformed]]
**[[Seventh-day Adventist]]

'''Disputed'''
*[[Christian Science]]
*[[Jehovah's Witnesses]]
*[[Latter-day Saints]]
*[[Unitarian]]

'''Other articles'''
*[[Aramaic Church]]
*[[Cathedral]]
*[[Catholicism]]
*[[Christian apologetics]] (Defense of Christianity)
*[[Christianity and Science]]
*[[Church]]
*[[Conservative Christianity]]
*[[Eucharist]]
*[[Evangelical Apostolic Church of North America (Syro-Chaldean)]]
*[[Christian apologetics|Evidence for Christianity]]
*[[Gospel reading in the Church: the Turgama]]
*[[Inspiration of Holy Scripture: An Eastern Christian and Jewish Perspective]]
*[[Jesus Christ]]
*[[Judaism]]
*[[Messiah]]
*[[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]]
*[[Passover Seder]]
*[[Persecution of Christians]]
*[[Red-letter Christian]]
*[[Sign of the Cross]]
*[[Essay: The Way of Salvation]]
*[[Gates of Hell]]
*[[Anti Abortion activism: a personal essay]]
*[[Transmigration of Words in Religion: an essay]]

'''Internet evangelism:'''

*[[Essay: Sharing your Christian and creationist videos on YouTube and the internet]]

==Further reading==
===Encyclopedias===
* Bodensieck, Julius, ed. ''The Encyclopedia of the Lutheran Church,'' (3 vol 1965), ECLS perspective
* Brauer, Jerald C. ''The Westminster Dictionary of Church History'' (1971), 880pp
* [http://newadvent.org/cathen/index.html ''The Catholic Encyyclopedia'' (1907-1913)], old but highly detailed and online
** '' New Catholic Encyclopedia'', edited by the Catholic University of America, 17 vol. 1967-1979.
*Cross, F. L., and E. A. Livingstone, eds. ''The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church'' (3rd ed. 1997), 1840pp; [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Dictionary-Christian-Church/dp/0192802909/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b excerpt and text search]; online at [[OUP]]
* Elwell, Walter A., ed. ''Evangelical Dictionary of Theology‎'' (2001) 1312 pages; articles by over 200 Evangelical or Fundamentalist scholars
*Hastings, Adrian et al. eds. ''The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought'' (2000) 808pp; 600 articles by 260 Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox scholars; [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0198600240/ref=sib_dp_pt/105-4292297-2766841#reader-link excerpt and text search]; online at [[OUP]]
*''New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge'' (1911), ), major sources of older scholarly articles; mainline Protestant perspective
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc01.toc.html Vol. 1: Aachen - Basilians]
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc02.toc.html Vol. 2: Basilica - Chambers]
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc03.toc.html Vol. 3: Chamier - Draendorf]
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc04.toc.html Vol. 4: Draeseke - Goa]
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc05.toc.html Vol. 5: Goar - Innocent]
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc06.toc.html Vol. 6: Innocents - Liudger]
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc07.toc.html Vol. 7: Liutprand - Moralities]
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc08.toc.html Vol. 8: Morality - Petersen]
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc09.toc.html Vol. 9: Petri - Reuchlin]
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc10.toc.html Vol. 10: Reutsch - Son]
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc11.toc.html Vol. 11: Son of Man - Tremellius]
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc12.toc.html Vol. 12: Trench - Zwingli]
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc13.toc.html Vol. 13: Index]

===Histories===
*Briggs, J. H. Y., Robert D. Linder, and David F. Wright. ''Introduction to the History of Christianity: First Century to the Present Day'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-History-Christianity-Century-Present/dp/0800638123/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200823548&sr=8-4 excerpt and text search]
*Gonzalez, Justo L. '' A History of Christian Thought: Volume 1: From the Beginnings to the Council of Chalcedon'' (2nd ed. 1987); [http://www.amazon.com/History-Christian-Thought-Beginnings-Chalcedon/dp/0687171822/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200823941&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search vol 1]; ''A History of Christian Thought: Volume 2: From Augustine to the Eve of the Reformation'' (2nd ed. 1987) [http://www.amazon.com/History-Christian-Thought-Augustine-Reformation/dp/0687171830/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200823941&sr=8-3 excerpt and text search vol 2]; ''A History of Christian Thought: Volume 3: From the Protestant Reformation to the Twentieth Century'' (1987) [http://www.amazon.com/History-Christian-Thought-Protestant-Reformation/dp/0687171849/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200808706&sr=8-12 excerpt and text search vol 3]
*Horsley, Richard A. ''Christian Origins: A People's History Of Christianity, Vol. 1'' (2006), 318pp [http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Origins-Peoples-History-Christianity/dp/080063411X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200886474&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
*Latourette, Kenneth Scott. ''A History of Christianity'' (2 vol 1975) [http://www.amazon.com/History-Christianity-Beginnings-1500-Revised/dp/0060649526/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200823548&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search vol 1, to 1500], by leading Baptist scholar
*Latourette, Kenneth Scott. ''A history of the expansion of Christianity'' (7 vol 1939-1970), monumental history of missionary work worldwide
*MacCulloch, Diarmaid. ''The Reformation'' (2005), influential recent survey [http://www.amazon.com/Reformation-Diarmaid-MacCulloch/dp/014303538X/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200808706&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
*McGonigle, Thomas D., and James F. Quigley. ''A history of the Christian Tradition: From Its Jewish Orgins to the Reformation'' (1988); ''A History of the Christian Tradition, Vol. II: From the Reformation to the Present'' (1996) [http://www.amazon.com/History-Christian-Tradition-Vol-Reformation/dp/0809136481/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200808706&sr=8-15 excerpt and text search vol 2]
*Pelikan, Jaroslav. ''Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine'' (5 vol 1975-91) [http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Tradition-Development-Doctrine-Medieval/dp/0226653757/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201083460&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search v. 3, 600 AD -1300]]; [http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Tradition-Development-Reformation-1300-1700/dp/0226653773/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201083460&sr=8-4 excerpt and text search vol 4, 1300-1700]; [http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Tradition-History-Development-Doctrine/dp/0226653803/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201083460&sr=8-3 excerpt and text search vol 5, 1700-present] This is the standard history of Christian doctrine.
*Ward, Keith. ''Christianity: A Beginner's Guide'' (2008), 195pp

===United States===
* Ahlstrom, Sydney E. ''A religious history of the American people‎'' (1979) 1192 pages; classic history from broad perspective [http://books.google.com/books?id=5kFF6a1viGcC&dq=inauthor:ahlstrom&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=30&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES excerpt and text search]
* Balmer, Randall. ''Encyclopedia of Evangelicalism'' (2nd ed. 2004), 655pp [http://www.questia.com/library/book/encyclopedia-of-evangelicalism-by-randall-balmer.jsp ''Encyclopedia of Evangelicalism'' online edition]
* Lippy, Charles H. and Peter W. Williams, eds. ''Encyclopedia of the American religious experience: studies of traditions and movements'' (3 vol 1988) 1872 pages; standard reference work; long essays by scholars
* Noll, Mark A. '' A history of Christianity in the United States and Canada‎'' (1992), by leading Evangelical historian [http://books.google.com/books?id=VGF3wbzzy9QC&dq=intitle:christianity+inauthor:noll&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=30&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES excerpt and text search]
* Queen, Edward L. et al, eds. Encyclopedia of American Religious History'' (3rd ed. 2 vol. 2009) 1200pp
* Reid, Daniel G. et al. eds., ''Dictionary of Christianity in America'' (199)
* Wooley, Davis C. ed. '' Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists‎'' (5 vol 1958-19820; 2565 pages

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

==External Links==
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/christians/ What Liberals Say - Category: Christians], [[Accuracy In Media]]
*[http://www.christian.com Christian] Social Network
[[Category:Christianity| ]]
[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Worldviews]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]

Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-07-24T20:17:24Z

MRellek: Removal of Photo that has no relationship to article.

[[File:Darwin_monkey_cartoon.jpg|thumb|180px|Caricature of [[Charles Darwin]] ]]
The [[theory of evolution]] does not permit the existence of any counterexamples. '''If any of the counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails'''. Moreover, if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that<ref>Many of the counterexamples are indisputable, rendering each of their probabilities of being correct nearly 100%.</ref>), then the odds that these 76 counterexamples are ''all'' incorrect and that evolution is true is only 2%.
==Counterexamples==
===Logical examples===
# The annual rate of extinction of species far exceeds any plausible rate of generation of species. Expanding the amount of time for evolution to occur makes evolution even less likely.
# Lack of genetic diversity among the ''Homo sapiens'' species. Were evolution and the Old Earth theory true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>[[File:Ara macao -on a small bicycle-8.jpg|thumbnail|300px|right|[[Parrot]] feathers are a problem for evolutionists. For more information, please see [http://creation.com/parrot-fashion parrot feathers]
 
 
see picture source and license [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ara_macao_-on_a_small_bicycle-8.jpg here]]]
# Parsimonious repetition of design elements throughout Creation, e.g. the eye's appearance in remarkably different species. For such complex structures to [[convergent evolution|arise repeatedly via evolution]] is [[statistical_impossibility | impossible]], as evolution is an inherently random and historically contingent process.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/homology.asp</ref>
# ''Pleiotropy'', the fact that a change of a single gene can have several different effects, renders the "improvement" of animals by random mutation impossible, as any mutation with a potentially beneficial effect will be coupled with one or more other potentially lethal effects.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/beneficial-mutations-in-bacteria</ref>
# The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of dinosaurs<ref>http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf</ref><ref>[http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/early-evolution-of-feathers.html]</ref>
# For evolution to be true, every male dog, cat, horse, elephant, giraffe, fish and bird had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going. <ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90743</ref>
# There are no historical records of anyone directly observing one species evolving into another, which would certainly be something worth writing about. Surely of the millions of species we have, someone would have witnessed ''one'' come into existence had it evolved.
# If evolution were to explain where human beings come from, then every personality type should benefit human life. This is clearly untrue because the world is filled with liars, psychopaths, and murderers. These traits clearly do not benefit humanity.
# Evolution is internally inconsistent. It posits that all life must continuously improve, but on the other hand, it holds that some creatures, like the horseshoe crab, the alligator, the shark, and the [[coelacanth]],<ref>http://www.dinofish.com/</ref> have remained virtually unchanged for improbably long time periods.
# According to evolutionary theory, cavemen with no scientific or genetic knowledge domesticated the wolf (''canis lupus'') into a different species - the dog (''canis familiaris''). However, many experts on dog genetics have created hundreds of different dog breeds over the years through selective mating, but they are all the same species. If the cavemen could create new species seemingly by accident, it stands to reason that experts could do so with intentional effort. But since this has not been done, the wolf-dog example seems false.
# The bacterial flagellum has been proven to be useless when missing a single part of the mechanism. It stands to reason that this must have been created fully formed, and cannot have evolved from a simpler form. The term for this phenomenon is [[irreducible complexity]], and it can be seen in countless biological features.

===Lack of mechanism===
[[Image:Feather image.jpg|thumb|300px|right|[[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: "It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random [[mutation]]s."<ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]</ref>]]
# Animals flee to high ground ''before'' a deadly tsunami hits their shoreline, defying any plausible [[materialistic]] explanation.<ref>http://www.deseretnews.com/article/600105348/Utah-scientific-Did-animals-sense--and-flee--the-tsunamis-in-S-Asia.html</ref>
# Mutations cause a loss of information, rendering it mathematically impossible for mutations to advance the complexity of life. Similarly, [[entropy]] (disorder) increases over time, making it impossible for order to increase on its own. According to [[Cornell University]] [[genetics|geneticist]] [[John C. Sanford]], not even the energy of the Sun, which might otherwise reduce entropy in a system not thermodynamically isolated such as the Earth, is capable of turning back the inexorable decline of our planet's collected genomes. <ref>[http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/respected-cornell-geneticist-rejects-darwinism-in-his-recent-book/]</ref> It seems reasonable to infer, then, that the [[End Times]] will come before or during the eventual collapse of the world's [[ecosystems]] that will come as a result of this irreversible deterioration.
# "Social insects" such as bees, ants, and termites, which have extremely ornate caste systems. Where an insect fits is determined by its diet when young. Evolution requires that both the genetics for the various castes, the genetics for caste determination, and the genetics for ''behavior'' allowing caste determination all appeared simultaneously. Akin to the concept of [[irreducible complexity]], but on a higher (social) order, this is impossible given random chance.
# [[Ant]]s and other social [[insect]]s, for at least two reasons: First, their complex social structure is evidence of [[intelligent design]]; second, since the overwhelming majority of individuals are workers and do not reproduce, they cannot perpetuate their genetic material, as evolution requires.
# Evolution cannot explain artistic beauty, such as the brilliant autumn foliage and staggering array of beautiful marine fish, both of which originated before any human to view them; this lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation.
# Evolution cannot explain how beauty is in the eye of the beholder, if evolution said that beauty were useful then we would all expect to see the same things as beautiful.
# The fact that [[cicada]]s appear like clockwork every 13 years for some species, and every 17 years for others<ref>http://inside.msj.edu/academics/faculty/kritskg/cicada/faq.html</ref>
# The extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds, which lack any plausible materialistic explanation<ref>[[migration]]</ref>
# Evolution does not account for the immense amount of [[information]] in the genome, as well as the origin of the information-processing systems in the cell. Information always has a sender, who must be God in this case.
# The manner in which chickens return to their chicken coops at the same time, and enter the chicken coops in the same order, each day
# Symbiosis - There are many examples where creatures rely on each other to survive which could not arise through evolution. Grass cannot survive without a certain fungus that helps it fix nitrogen from the atmosphere and the fungus can't survive without the grass. They must have appeared on earth at the same time.<ref>[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070410084136.htm]</ref>[[File:Autumn.jpg|292px|right|thumbnail|The beauty of [[God]]'s [[creation]], such as [[autumn]] foliage, cannot adequately be explained through the evolutionary [[paradigm]]. See: [[Argument from beauty]]
 
 
([http://www.flickr.com/photos/universalpops/5236103680/ Flickr] picture, see:'' [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement])]]
# Consciousness - No animal displays self-awareness (such as clothing), morality, tool-making, or self-sacrifice to the same extent that man does. It is unclear how a random mutation could have arisen which accounts for humanity's significantly higher cognitive ability.
# Humans exhibit behaviors such as performing [[science]], creating [[art]] and [[music]], [[dance|dancing]], and a number of other intellectual and artistic behaviors which could not have been produced by random mutations. There is no known evolutionary reason why these should be favored.
# Trematode parasites, like many other kinds, lack a plausible evolutionary phylogeny, though they can easily be explained by a teleological design.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/trematodes.html</ref>
# In addition, evolution cannot explain the many complex sex-determining systems. For example, in most mammals, females have two X chromosomes whereas males have an X and Y chromosome, but in birds, many insects, and other organisms, the situation is reversed. In flies, sex is determined the ratio of non-sex chromosomes to X chromosomes (so that males have only one X whereas females have two). It is impossible for evolution to create these new sex-determining systems ''ex nihilo''.
# Several species of fish in the Arctic ocean have chemical substances in their blood that essentially act as an anti-freeze. Evolution requires gradual change, leaving no plausible explanation as to how the fish survived before developing this trait.
# The blood of tunicates such as the sea squirt is based on the rare element [[vanadium]] instead of the abundant [[iron]] used in other vertebrates, which would have required a complete re-tooling of its entire circulatory biochemistry <ref>http://www.earthlife.net/inverts/ascidiacea.html</ref>.
# Animals exist in isolated places without any plausible motivation or means for getting there, such as on remote islands or more than 1200 feet high on top of the vertical cliffs of [[Devils Tower]]. Even humans (though large and intelligent) were unable to ascend the peak until 1893, and required specialized climbing equipment.

===Maladaptation===
[[Image:Jellyfish.jpg|right|thumb|[[Jellyfish]] ]]
# [[Jellyfish]] in [[Hawaii]] swarm to the beaches roughly 9 to 10 days after each full [[moon]], for no apparent evolutionary reason<ref>http://www.aloha.com/~lifeguards/jelyfish.html</ref>
# Variation in chromosome count (ploidy) is impossible in evolution. One member of a species with 2 sets of chromosomes cannot mate with a member with 4. Thus, for the chromosome count of a species to change (and thus account for the variety of counts in nature) a vast portion of a species would have to evolve a new chromosome set simultaneously.
# The [[human]] [[prostate]] surrounds the [[urethra]] and in doing so provides many benefits. Evolutionists consider the structure to be poor design, which should mean that natural selection would have eliminated that design.<ref>Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5757 The Prostate Gland–is it ‘badly designed’?], 1st August 2008 (Creation Ministries International)</ref>
# Inability to account for widely observed altruism among animals, as it ''reduces'' an animal's ability to survive. “The existence of altruism between different species — which is not uncommon — remains an obstinate enigma.”<ref>''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'' [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html]</ref> Not surprisingly, atheist evolutionists have done their utmost to ''deny'' animal altruism (See especially [[Richard Dawkins]]' ''[[The Selfish Gene]]'', which denies altruism without providing any evidence to back up his enormous claim)
# Too many deleterious mutations. Each generation of humans has far more negative mutations than the posited natural selection can remove. Evolution is thus impossible as species would become nonviable long before they could diverge.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>
# Evolution should have removed HIV from the human race as we would have built an immunity to it, much like bacteria do to anti-biotics, yet we have not. In fact the continued existence of disease is proof against evolution as natural selection would have left only humans who were immune to them.
# Schizophrenia is a disorder that causes a person to be unable to distinguish fantasy from reality. It is an inherited disorder and affects nearly 1 in 100 people. Scientists still have yet to explain what causes it, but one this is for certain, if evolution were true, it should have eliminated such an obvious disability long ago.
# Male-pattern [[baldness]] has no evolutionary explanation. It is not observed in non-human species, and because it decreases the likelihood of finding a mate, it should have been selected out a long time ago.
# [[Menopause]] renders women infertile, but this is clearly counter to evolutionary advantage. Evolutionists claim that only individuals capable of mating are useful to the species (see above discussion regarding social insects), so menopause should have been selected against by now to give women the best chance for producing the maximum number of offspring. However, several theories have been put forward to explain the apparent paradox. Firstly, that since the risks associated of bearing children increase after a certain age, it is little advantage in running the risk, especially as the mother may already have children that rely on her for survival. Secondly, in terms of groups, the menopause leads to 'post-reproductive grandmothers' who can assist their own offspring with raising their children <ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11223885</ref>
# PrP, the gene responsible for the protein implicated in causing prion diseases like [[Creutzfeldt-Jacob_Disease]], has ''no beneficial function''. If evolution were correct, this gene could not persist in the population, but would quickly be selected against.

===Wrong predictions===
[[Image:Harvester-ants.jpg|thumb|205px|right|Ant behavior is the result of [[intelligent design]]. 19th century [[Europe|European]] naturalists were wrong about [[ant]] behavior. The [[Bible]] was correct about ant behavior.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm</ref>]]
# "[T]he loss and addition of large DNA sequence blocks are present in humans and gorillas, but not in chimps" even though "the gorilla is lower on the primate tree than the chimp and supposedly more distant to humans. How could these large blocks of DNA--from an evolutionary perspective--appear first in gorillas, disappear in chimps, and then reappear in humans?"<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/4624/</ref>
# Lack of any vestigial organs in the human body. While evolutionists used to claim dozens or even hundreds of human traits and organs were vestigial, useless items disused through evolution, we now know what functions they all have, including the appendix (the classic example). <ref>Ken Ham and Carl Wieland, ''Your Appendix: It's There for a Reason.'' (1997)</ref>
# Lack of any demonstrable vestigial parts of the human [[genome]]. While evolutionists often claim that regions of the genome are "[[junk DNA]]" and would not have been placed there by a designer, none have actually shown this to be true, and much so-called "junk DNA" has been shown to be useful.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html</ref>
# While evolutionists argue that there are examples of "[[argument from poor design|bad design]]" in the bodies of many organisms, such as "flaws" in the human spine and sinus system, evolutionists fail to realize that, by their own theory, natural selection should have removed these things! The simpler explanation, that these represent degeneration from an original, created perfect form, is the superior one.
# We have the perfect number of [[teeth]] to fit in our [[mouth]]s. While creationism perfectly accounts for that result, evolutionism predicts a contrary result: As our [[face]]s evolved from chimpanzee-like faces to human faces, the shortening of the muzzle would have caused the teeth to become overcrowded in the mouth.
# Human fertility is rapidly declining, disproving evolutionary improvement in humans and also suggesting a brief timeline for human existence.
# Evolutionist theory predicts that in the case of [[convergent evolution]], a particular structure such as an eye that evolves in an optimal form in one species can later evolve in a suboptimal form in a different species. No such result has ever been observed.
# Constantly mutating, drug-resistant [[pathogen]]s such as [[MRSA]] have been demonstrated to be the result of devolution rather than evolution.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/Genesis-of-Germs-The,5181,224.aspx Genesis of Germs], from [[Answers in Genesis]]</ref> This is the exact opposite of what evolutionary theory predicts.

===Missing fossils===
[[Image:800px-Baleen Whale Physical Characteristics svg.png|right|300px|thumbnail|The remarkable [[whale]], which is a [[mammal]], has no plausible evolutionary ancestor.]]
# The remarkable [[whale]], which is a mammal, has no plausible evolutionary ancestor.
# No transitional forms appear for horses, instead different and distinct horse-like animals appear in the fossil record<ref>[[Ray Comfort]], in the Forward to the 150th anniversary edition of "On the Origin of Species"</ref>
# The enormous gaps and lack of intermediate species in the [[fossils|fossil]] record, once all the frauds are removed.
# No clear transition from unicellular to multicellular organisms.
# Mammalian fur and body hair. There is no known evolutionary pathway for the development of fur, and no fossil evidence of hair evolving from scales, even though it survives very well.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_4/Bergman.htm</ref>
# A lack of any evolution from prehistoric forms has been demonstrated for many species.
# '''Where are the human ancestors?''' (That is, the ones that weren't [http://www.conservapedia.com/Piltdown_Man frauds].)

===Paradoxical fossils===
# The fact that new discoveries, such as ''[[Raptorex]],'' routinely call into question key dogmas of evolutionism and require the "immutable" laws of evolution to be reassessed. By contrast, creationism has prevailed in the face of scientific discoveries for six thousand years.

=== Irreducible Complexity===
# The [[immune system]] is irreducibly complex, as without one which is thoroughly developed, an organism would not be able to resist any infection<ref>Behe, Michael J. 1996. ''Darwin's Black Box'', New York: The Free Press, pp. 117-139.</ref><ref>[http://biology.creighton.edu/courses/BIO432/Evolution%2005.htm]</ref>
# The extraordinarily long neck of the [[giraffe]]. It serves no function (the theory that giraffes use the long neck to eat from high tree branches was never true). The presence of valves in the neck (which are necessary because of its great length) raises a question of how one could have arisen without the other being there first.<ref>[http://www1.pacific.edu/~e-buhals/GIRAFFE2.htm]</ref>[[Image:BacterialFlagellum.jpg|thumb|200px|right|[[flagellum|Bacterial Flagellum]] with rotary motor, courtesy of Access Research Network (Art Battson)]]
# The long legs of the [[giraffe]]: if a random mutation led to long legs without a long neck or vice versa, the animal would be unable to survive.
# The development of wings, as intermediary wing stubs would have no use, and be a competitive disadvantage.
# The [[flagellum]] a multi-part cellular motor which fails to function if a single part is removed is the classic example of [[irreducible complexity]] and cannot arise according to the theory of evolution.<ref>[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html]</ref>
# Many [[bat]]s which live in caves employ a type of sonar in order to navigate and find prey. Evolutionists propose that the bat evolved from a squirrel-like animal, but a squirrel would have no use for a sonar system. The bats can't fly without sonar, and an animal that can't fly doesn't need it. Therefore, bats must have been created with fully functioning sonar and flight.
# The organ and brain development required for retinal imagery require a base level of complexity, making a primitive form useless and impossible under evolution.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_1/retinal_imagery.htm</ref>
# Blood clotting is a unique process unlike any other in the body, without which the smallest cut could be life-threatening. Only a fully developed clotting system is functional and therefore could not have evolved through intermediate stages.
# The [[ear]] contains three tiny [[bone]]s that transmit sound waves from the eardrum to the cochlea.<ref>[http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/bigear.html Neuroscience for Kids: The Ear]</ref> Because of the complicated arrangement of those bones, transitional forms (which have never been found) would have served no purpose.
# Bony skeletons represent an example of irreducible complexity, since only a fully formed, complete skeleton is of any use whatsoever, while having only one or some few number of bones in an otherwise invertebrate creature is hardly advantageous. It is inconceivable to think that some random mutation could have resulted in the formation if an entire bone system in a creature which was previously invertebrate.

===Uncategorized===

# The common "Chimney Swift" is a bird having behavior often mistaken for that of a bat<ref>http://www.suite101.com/content/facts-about-chimney-swifts-a25479</ref> -- a mammal -- thereby suggesting a common designer rather than an evolutionary process; the Chimney Swift also migrates all the way from North America to Peru every winter, without any plausible evolution-based guiding mechanism.
# There is excellent evidence indicating that [[dinosaurs]] and man coexisted.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Dinosaur#History_of_dinosuars</ref>
# No one has ever observed a new species emerge from an old one, either in captivity or the wild. Surely, if evolution were real someone, somewhere would have seen this.
# Evolution would result in modern languages having one common ancestral language, and for nearly a century linguists insisted that there must be one. There is not, and linguists now accept that there are completely independent families of languages.
# [[Pterosaurs]]; a scientist recently stated that they could not have flown, but why then did they evolve wings?<ref>http://www.physorg.com/news142086647.html</ref>
# No other animal exhibits [[religion]]. A far better explanation than random mutations is that humans were given the capacity to be religious by a loving God who wants a relationship with His creations.
# Evolution requires that random mutations can cause one [[kind]] to change into another, but this has never been observed.
# The existence of two symmetrical kidneys, which are unnecessary in most people, lacks a plausible evolutionary explanation based on functionality alone. Because evolution falsehoods mislead most people into thinking they need their second kidney, "the average waiting time for the organs from a deceased donor in the United States is five years" and "3,916 patients waiting for a kidney in 2006 died before one became available."<ref>[http://www.scienceline.org/2009/03/04/levitan-health-living-kidney-donor-transplant/] This article observes, "As a recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found, living kidney donors live as long or longer and enjoy better quality of life than the general population."</ref>
# Circadian phenomena -- internal 24-hour clock mechanisms of humans and other living beings -- defy material explanation. Examples include how some people are unable to change the timing of their need for sleep for each day, and how plants exhibit clock-like behavior regardless of their exposure to sunlight. In addition, there is a weekly clock cycle for many phenomena, which has a clear biblical basis but defies any materialistic explanation.<ref>http://www.biblestudy.org/godsrest/mysterious-seven-day-cycle-in-plants-animals-man-2.html</ref>
# If religion were as harmful as evolutionists claim, natural selection would have phased it out, but it continues, meaning evolutionists are wrong about both evolution and the supposed harmful effects of religion.
# Scientists have found proof that the first chicken came before the first egg,<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38238685/ns/technology_and_science-science/</ref> consistent with a special creation of chickens but not with a gradual descent with modifications from a proto-chicken and proto-egg.

== Logical Conclusion ==
As scientific theories require that their laws be immutable, the existence of merely one counterexample disproves the truth of the rule. Thus, if evolution fails to account for any one of these items (or countless others), it must be discarded.

{{evolution}}

== See also ==

*[[Atheism]]
*[[Evolution and atheism]]
*[[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]
*[[Counterexamples to Global Warming]]
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]
*[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]
*[[Counterexamples to the Bible]]

== External Links ==
*[http://creation.com/ Creation Ministries International]

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

[[Category:Counterexamples]]
[[category:Evolution]]

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-07-24T20:16:21Z

MRellek:

[[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive1|Archive 1]]
[[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive2|Archive 2]]

How about the idea that no one has ever observed a new species emerge from an old one, either in captivity or the wild? Surely, if evolution were real someone, somewhere would have seen this. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 16:49, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:They have. Look at the Pacific Robin, Drosophila flies, and the Apple maggot fly. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 14:43, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::There's no evidence that those didn't always exist, but simply weren't discovered until recently. Open your mind and try again. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 15:01, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Actually those species have been observed, but that is an example of [[microevolution]], not "true" [[macroevolution]]. If you are looking for entirely new animals or plants popping up, it will probably never happen. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 15:46, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

=== PZ Meyers Photo ===

Just out of curiosity, why is the photo of PZ Meyers in this article at all? Also, the "excellent evidence" for why dinosaurs and man coexisted is a link to the Conservapedia dinosaur article. I move that due to multiple issues with this picture (no purpose in this article, caption having nothing to do with article / bad sourcing) that it be removed from this page. Honestly looking at this page, it appears that this picture might have been added as parody to deface what is otherwise an excellent debunking of evolution. --[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 15:57, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:For now I have removed the photo in question, although I am willing to have a discussion on this, but please if you revert this change provide at least one reason why it should be in the article. --[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 16:16, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-07-24T20:11:17Z

MRellek: /* PZ Meyers Photo */

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-07-24T19:57:48Z

MRellek:

[[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive1|Archive 1]]
[[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive2|Archive 2]]

How about the idea that no one has ever observed a new species emerge from an old one, either in captivity or the wild? Surely, if evolution were real someone, somewhere would have seen this. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 16:49, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:They have. Look at the Pacific Robin, Drosophila flies, and the Apple maggot fly. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 14:43, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::There's no evidence that those didn't always exist, but simply weren't discovered until recently. Open your mind and try again. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 15:01, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Actually those species have been observed, but that is an example of [[microevolution]], not "true" [[macroevolution]]. If you are looking for entirely new animals or plants popping up, it will probably never happen. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 15:46, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

=== PZ Meyers Photo ===

Just out of curiosity, why is the photo of PZ Meyers in this article at all? Also, the "excellent evidence" for why dinosaurs and man coexisted is a link to the Conservapedia dinosaur article. I move that due to multiple issues with this picture (no purpose in this article, caption having nothing to do with article / bad sourcing) that is be removed from this page. --[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 15:57, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

Women in Science and Mathematics

2011-07-20T02:10:04Z

MRellek: Correction of Error

Although there have been relatively fewer females in science and mathematics historically, modern women are increasingly pursuing careers in science. The number of females earning advanced degrees in science and math has significantly increased since 1980, and if male interest in science and enginnering degrees continute to lag, women are poised to overtake men in earning [[Stem|STEM]] degrees.<ref>http://sites.nationalacademies.org/xpedio/groups/pgasite/documents/webpage/pga_049141.pdf</ref>

Here are a few noteworthy female scientists and mathematicians:

*Florence Bascom—First female american geologist,

*Jocelyn Bell—Astronomer, discovered the first pulsar.

*Gerty Theresa Cori—Recieved the noble prize for her discovery of the process by which glycogen (a carbohydrate used by animals for energy storage, analogous to starch in plants) is broken down into lactic acid. <ref>http://nndb.com/people/144/000128757/</ref>

*Edith Flanigen— Developed molecular sieves and invented the process for forming synthetic emeralds, important to early lasers.

*Rosalind Franklin— Used the process of x-ray crystallography to determine the molecular shape of DNA, her work was then used by Watson and Crick to form the Double Helix theory of DNA structure. Died before she could be awarded the Nobel Prize along with Watson and Crick.

*Elaine Fuchs—Biochemist who's research on the molecular chemistry of skin revolutionized dermatology.

*Sophie Germain (mathematician)

*M. Katharine Holloway & Chen Zhao— co-developed protease inhibitors, antiviral chemicals used to extend the lives of AIDS victims.

*Hypatia—First notable female mathematician, born in 370 AD, provided revolutionary commentary on several ancient mathematical works, such as "Apollonius".

*[[Ada Lovelace]]—Collaborated with [[Charles Babbage]] on what was arguably the first computer (though it was never built) and arguably the first computer programmer (though there is controversy on this.)

*Mary Lyon— Pioneered lab experience as an integral part of undergraduate chemistry education after founding one of the first women's colleges in the United States.

*Barbara McClintock— Made groundbreaking developments in the study of the cytogenetics and the visualization of the corn genome, received the Nobel prize in Medicine for her efforts in 1983.

*Lise Meitner—Physicist, discovered nuclear fission, with Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassner. Namesake of [[Meitnerium]].

*[[Grace Murray Hopper]]—A very early [[computer programmer]], led the development of the first high-level computer language, [[COBOL]].

*Emma Noether (mathematician)

*Ida Noddack (physicist)

*[[Marie Sklodowska Curie]]—Physicist/chemist, discovered [[Polonium]] and [[Radium]], namesake of [[Curium]].

*Nettie Maria Stevens—Ended the debate on sex determination through her research on the X and Y chromosomes.

==References==
<references/>

Federal Debt Limit

2011-07-20T01:48:34Z

MRellek:

[[File:Federal Debt graphic PD WC.jpg|thumb|280px|Components of Federal Debt As Percentage of GDP FY1980-FY2007]]
The '''Federal Debt Limit''', commonly known as the '''debt ceiling''' is the overall limit on federal government borrowing, as authorized by [[Congress]]. It is similar to an individual's credit card limit.

According to the Constitution, the Congress must approve all borrowings on behalf of the United States. Before the 20th century, Congress approved all bond issuances separately and explicitly. With the introduction of the debt ceiling, the treasury now had a line on which it could borrow as it needed to without having to go back to Congress for borrowings under the ceiling.

== Components of the Debt ==

There are two components to the Federal Debt, the debt held by the public, and intragovernmental debt. The debt held by the public is debt held by any individual or entity that is not the federal government such as a mutual fund, individual investor, foreign government, or a municipal government <ref>http://www.concordcoalition.org/issue-briefs/2011/0708/understanding-federal-debt-limit</ref>. Intragovernmental debt is debt the government owes itself such as the Social Security Trust Funds, the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, and the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund <ref>http://www.concordcoalition.org/issue-briefs/2011/0708/understanding-federal-debt-limit</ref>. Currently Debt held by the public is roughly 2/3 of the total Federal Debt.

== History of the "Debt Limit" ==

The Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917, which helped finance the United States’ entry into [[World War I]], allowed the U.S. Treasury to issue long-term Liberty Bonds marketed to the public to hold down the federal government's borrowing costs. The 1919 Victory Liberty Bond Act raised the maximum allowable federal debt to $43 billion, although the total outstanding federal debt at the time was only $25.5 billion.

In 1939, Congress eliminated separate limits on bonds and other types of debt, and created the first aggregate limit that covered nearly all public debt. This gave the Treasury freer rein to manage the federal debt as it saw fit. Thus, the Treasury could issue debt instruments with maturities that would reduce interest costs and minimize financial risks stemming from future interest rate changes. The debt limit then was $45 billion with total debt of $40.4 billion.

During [[World War II]] the debt ceiling was raised each year from 1941 through 1945, where it topped out at $300 billion. After the war, it was reduced to $275 billion. The [[Korean War]] was mostly financed by higher [[tax]]es rather than increased debt, and the limit remained at $275 billion until 1954. After 1954, the debt limit was reduced twice and increased seven times, until March 1962 when it again reached $300 billion, its level at the end of World War II.<ref>[http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid='0E%2C*P%5C%3F%3D%23%20%20%20%0A ''The Debt Limit: History and Recent Increases,''] Congressional Research Service, July 1, 2011, pdf pps. 9-10.</ref>

The United States Debt Ceiling has been raised approximately 84 times since the early 1900's. The table below gives details on the year, and the amount that the ceiling was raised.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Year
! Amount of Debt
! Sitting President
|-
| February 2010
| 14.294 trillion
| [[Barack Obama]]
|-
| December 2009
| 12.394 trillion
| [[Barack Obama]]
|-
| February 2009
| 12.104 trillion
| [[Barack Obama]]
|-
| October 2008
| 11.315 trillion
| [[George W. Bush]]
|-
| July 2008
| 10.615 trillion
| [[George W. Bush]]
|-
| September 2007
| 9.815 trillion
| [[George W. Bush]]
|-
| March 2006
| 8.965 trillion
| [[George W. Bush]]
|-
| November 2004
| 8.184 trillion
| [[George W. Bush]]
|-
| May 2003
| 7.384 trillion
| [[George W. Bush]]
|-
| June 2002
| 6.400 trillion
| [[George W. Bush]]
|-
| August 1997
| 5.950 trillion
| [[Bill Clinton]]
|-
| March 1996
| 5.500 trillion
| [[Bill Clinton]]
|-
| August 1993
| 4.900 trillion
| [[Bill Clinton]]
|-
| April 1993
| 4.370 trillion
| [[Bill Clinton]]
|-
| November 1990
| 4.145 trillion
| [[George H. W. Bush]]
|-
| October 1990
| 3.230 trillion
| [[George H. W. Bush]]
|-
| November 1989
| 3.123 trillion
| [[George H. W. Bush]]
|-
| August 1989
| 2.870 trillion
| [[George H. W. Bush]]
|-
| September 1987
| 2.800 trillion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| August 1987
| 2.352 trillion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| July 1987
| 2.320 trillion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| October 1986
| 2.300 trillion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| August 1986
| 2.111 trillion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| December 1985
| 2.079 trillion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| November 1985
| 1.904 trillion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| October 1984
| 1.824 trillion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| July 1984
| 1.573 trillion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| May 1984
| 1.520 trillion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| November 1983
| 1.490 trillion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| May 1983
| 1.389 trillion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| September 1982
| 1.290 trillion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| June 1982
| 1.143 trillion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| September 1981
| 1.080 trillion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| September 1981
| 999.80 billion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| February 1981
| 985.00 billion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| December 1980
| 935.10 billion
| [[Jimmy Carter]]
|-
| June 1980
| 925.00 billion
| [[Jimmy Carter]]
|-
| September 1979
| 879.00 billion
| [[Jimmy Carter]]
|-
| April 1979
| 830.00 billion
| [[Jimmy Carter]]
|-
| August 1978
| 798.00 billion
| [[Jimmy Carter]]
|-
| October 1977
| 752.00 billion
| [[Jimmy Carter]]
|-
| June 1976
| 700.00 billion
| [[Gerald Ford]]
|-
| March 1976
| 627.00 billion
| [[Gerald Ford]]
|-
| November 1975
| 595.00 billion
| [[Gerald Ford]]
|-
| February 1975
| 577.00 billion
| [[Gerald Ford]]
|-
| June 1974
| 495.00 billion
| [[Gerald Ford]]
|-
| December 1973
| 475.7 billion
| [[Richard M. Nixon]]
|-
| October 1972
| 465.00 billion
| [[Richard M. Nixon]]
|-
| March 1972
| 450.00 billion
| [[Richard M. Nixon]]
|-
| March 1971
| 430.00 billion
| [[Richard M. Nixon]]
|-
| June 1970
| 395.00 billion
| [[Richard M. Nixon]]
|-
| April 1969
| 377.00 billion
| [[Richard M. Nixon]]
|-
| June 1967
| 358.00 billion
| [[Lyndon B. Johnson]]
|-
| March 1967
| 336.00 billion
| [[Lyndon B. Johnson]]
|-
| June 1966
| 330.00 billion
| [[Lyndon B. Johnson]]
|-
| June 1965
| 328.00 billion
| [[Lyndon B. Johnson]]
|-
| June 1964
| 324.00 billion
| [[Lyndon B. Johnson]]
|-
| November 1963
| 315.00 billion
| [[Lyndon B. Johnson]]
|-
| May 1963
| 309.00 billion
| [[Lyndon B. Johnson]]
|-
| July 1962
| 308.00 billion
| [[John F. Kennedy]]
|-
| March 1962
| 300.00 billion
| [[John F. Kennedy]]
|-
| June 1961
| 298.00 billion
| [[John F. Kennedy]]
|-
| June 1960
| 293.00 billion
| [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]
|-
| June 1959
| 295.00 billion
| [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]
|-
| September 1958
| 288.00 billion
| [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]
|-
| February 1958
| 280.00 billion
| [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]
|-
| July 1956
| 278.00 billion
| [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]
|-
| August 1954
| 281.00 billion
| [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]
|-
| June 1946
| 275.00 billion
| [[Harry S. Truman]]
|-
| April 1945
| 300.00 billion
| [[Harry S. Truman]]
|-
| June 1944
| 260.00 billion
| [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]
|-
| April 1943
| 210.00 billion
| [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]
|-
| March 1942
| 125.00 billion
| [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]
|-
| February 1941
| 65.00 billion
| [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]
|-
| June 1940
| 49.00 billion
| [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]
|-
| December 1939
| 45.00 billion
| [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]
|-
| December 1919
| 43.00 billion
| [[Woodrow Wilson]]
|}<ref>http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/federalbudgetprocess/a/US-Debt-Ceiling-History.htm</ref>

== Debt Ceiling 2011 Controversy ==

[[Barack Obama]] voted against raising the debt ceiling in 2006. Now, he wants to raise the debt ceiling to over twice what it was raised to in 2006. However, Obama may not get the debt ceiling increased by Congress who essentially deem the Obama administration to be a serious credit risk. This is similar to a credit card company telling a person with either no income or little income who has maxed out on his credit card that he won't get a line increase and must pay off his card lest he be sued. In fact, it is almost unheard of for a credit card company to give a credit line increase to someone who's maxed out on his credit card.

The last increase in the debt ceiling occurred in early 2010 and President Obama signed it into law on February 12, 2010. The limit stood at $14,294 billion. With large deficits emerging as [[baby boom]]ers retire, some members of Congress expressed concern over the government's dependence on borrowing to meet its obligations. President Obama responded by creating the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (Simpson-Bowles Deficit Reduction Commission), charged with identifying “policies to improve the fiscal situation in the medium term and to achieve fiscal sustainability over the long run.”<ref>Congressional Research Service, pp. 24-25 pdf.</ref> President Obama promptly ignored the Commission's recommendations.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2011/06/23/cbo_quotwe_don039t_estimate_speechesquot_258038.html</ref>

Obama's failure to take personal responsibility and instead his resorting to blaming others is a typical liberal victimhood mindset.

The prospect of the Obama administration defaulting on its debt rose greatly when the Democrats insisted on raising taxes to cover for their irresponsible spending habits. Obama refuses to engage in negotiations, similar to a deadbeat who refuses to answer the phone when the creditors are calling. Unfortunately, for the world, Obama's personal irresponsibility will hurt many honest hard working people who have done nothing wrong.

== External links ==

*[http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/105193.pdf The Debt Limit:History and Recent Increases.]
*[http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/ Bureau of the Public Debt]
*[http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np Public Debt to the Penny]
*[http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/news/Pages/debt-limit.aspx Department of the Treasury]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category:Economics]]

Federal Debt Limit

2011-07-20T01:41:36Z

MRellek:

[[File:Federal Debt graphic PD WC.jpg|thumb|280px|Components of Federal Debt As Percentage of GDP FY1980-FY2007]]
The '''Federal Debt Limit''', commonly known as the '''debt ceiling''' is the overall limit on federal government borrowing, as authorized by [[Congress]]. It is similar to an individual's credit card limit.

According to the Constitution, the Congress must approve all borrowings on behalf of the United States. Before the 20th century, Congress approved all bond issuances separately and explicitly. With the introduction of the debt ceiling, the treasury now had a line on which it could borrow as it needed to without having to go back to Congress for borrowings under the ceiling.

== Components of the Debt ==

There are two components to the Federal Debt, the debt held by the public, and intragovernmental debt. The debt held by the public is debt held by any individual or entity that is not the federal government such as a mutual fund, individual investor, foreign government, or a municipal government <ref>http://www.concordcoalition.org/issue-briefs/2011/0708/understanding-federal-debt-limit</ref>. Intragovernmental debt is debt the government owes itself such as the Social Security Trust Funds, the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, and the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund <ref>http://www.concordcoalition.org/issue-briefs/2011/0708/understanding-federal-debt-limit</ref>. Currently Debt held by the public is roughly 2/3 of the total Federal Debt.

== History of the "Debt Limit" ==

The Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917, which helped finance the United States’ entry into [[World War I]], allowed the U.S. Treasury to issue long-term Liberty Bonds marketed to the public to hold down the federal government's borrowing costs. The 1919 Victory Liberty Bond Act raised the maximum allowable federal debt to $43 billion, although the total outstanding federal debt at the time was only $25.5 billion.

In 1939, Congress eliminated separate limits on bonds and other types of debt, and created the first aggregate limit that covered nearly all public debt. This gave the Treasury freer rein to manage the federal debt as it saw fit. Thus, the Treasury could issue debt instruments with maturities that would reduce interest costs and minimize financial risks stemming from future interest rate changes. The debt limit then was $45 billion with total debt of $40.4 billion.

During [[World War II]] the debt ceiling was raised each year from 1941 through 1945, where it topped out at $300 billion. After the war, it was reduced to $275 billion. The [[Korean War]] was mostly financed by higher [[tax]]es rather than increased debt, and the limit remained at $275 billion until 1954. After 1954, the debt limit was reduced twice and increased seven times, until March 1962 when it again reached $300 billion, its level at the end of World War II.<ref>[http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid='0E%2C*P%5C%3F%3D%23%20%20%20%0A ''The Debt Limit: History and Recent Increases,''] Congressional Research Service, July 1, 2011, pdf pps. 9-10.</ref>

The United States Debt Ceiling has been raised approximately 84 times since the early 1900's. The table below gives details on the year, and the amount that the ceiling was raised.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Year
! Amount of Debt
! Sitting President
|-
| February 2010
| 14.294 trillion
| [[Barack Obama]]
|-
| December 2009
| 12.394 trillion
| [[Barack Obama]]
|-
| February 2009
| 12.104 trillion
| [[Barack Obama]]
|-
| October 2008
| 11.315 trillion
| [[George W. Bush]]
|-
| July 2008
| 10.615 trillion
| [[George W. Bush]]
|-
| September 2007
| 9.815 trillion
| [[George W. Bush]]
|-
| March 2006
| 8.965 trillion
| [[George W. Bush]]
|-
| November 2004
| 8.184 trillion
| [[George W. Bush]]
|-
| May 2003
| 7.384 trillion
| [[George W. Bush]]
|-
| June 2002
| 6.400 trillion
| [[George W. Bush]]
|-
| August 1997
| 5.950 trillion
| [[Bill Clinton]]
|-
| March 1996
| 5.500 trillion
| [[Bill Clinton]]
|-
| August 1993
| 4.900 trillion
| [[Bill Clinton]]
|-
| April 1993
| 4.370 trillion
| [[Bill Clinton]]
|-
| November 1990
| 4.145 trillion
| [[George H. W. Bush]]
|-
| October 1990
| 3.230 trillion
| [[George H. W. Bush]]
|-
| November 1989
| 3.123 trillion
| [[George H. W. Bush]]
|-
| August 1989
| 2.870 trillion
| [[George H. W. Bush]]
|-
| September 1987
| 2.800 trillion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| August 1987
| 2.352 trillion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| July 1987
| 2.320 trillion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| October 1986
| 2.300 trillion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| August 1986
| 2.111 trillion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| December 1985
| 2.079 trillion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| November 1985
| 1.904 trillion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| October 1984
| 1.824 trillion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| July 1984
| 1.573 trillion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| May 1984
| 1.520 trillion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| November 1983
| 1.490 trillion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| May 1983
| 1.389 trillion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| September 1982
| 1.290 trillion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| June 1982
| 1.143 trillion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| September 1981
| 1.080 trillion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| September 1981
| 999.80 billion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| February 1981
| 985.00 billion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| December 1980
| 935.10 billion
| [[Jimmy Carter]]
|-
| June 1980
| 925.00 billion
| [[Jimmy Carter]]
|-
| September 1979
| 879.00 billion
| [[Jimmy Carter]]
|-
| April 1979
| 830.00 billion
| [[Jimmy Carter]]
|-
| August 1978
| 798.00 billion
| [[Jimmy Carter]]
|-
| October 1977
| 752.00 billion
| [[Jimmy Carter]]
|-
| June 1976
| 700.00 billion
| [[Gerald Ford]]
|-
| March 1976
| 627.00 billion
| [[Gerald Ford]]
|-
| November 1975
| 595.00 billion
| [[Gerald Ford]]
|-
| February 1975
| 577.00 billion
| [[Gerald Ford]]
|-
| June 1974
| 495.00 billion
| [[Gerald Ford]]
|-
| December 1973
| 475.7 billion
| [[Richard M. Nixon]]
|-
| October 1972
| 465.00 billion
| [[Richard M. Nixon]]
|-
| March 1972
| 450.00 billion
| [[Richard M. Nixon]]
|-
| March 1971
| 430.00 billion
| [[Richard M. Nixon]]
|-
| June 1970
| 395.00 billion
| [[Richard M. Nixon]]
|-
| April 1969
| 377.00 billion
| [[Richard M. Nixon]]
|-
| June 1967
| 358.00 billion
| [[Lyndon B. Johnson]]
|-
| March 1967
| 336.00 billion
| [[Lyndon B. Johnson]]
|-
| June 1966
| 330.00 billion
| [[Lyndon B. Johnson]]
|-
| June 1965
| 328.00 billion
| [[Lyndon B. Johnson]]
|-
| June 1964
| 324.00 billion
| [[Lyndon B. Johnson]]
|-
| November 1963
| 315.00 billion
| [[Lyndon B. Johnson]]
|-
| May 1963
| 309.00 billion
| [[Lyndon B. Johnson]]
|-
| July 1962
| 308.00 billion
| [[John F. Kennedy]]
|-
| March 1962
| 300.00 billion
| [[John F. Kennedy]]
|-
| June 1961
| 298.00 billion
| [[John F. Kennedy]]
|-
| June 1960
| 293.00 billion
| [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]
|-
| June 1959
| 295.00 billion
| [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]
|-
| September 1958
| 288.00 billion
| [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]
|-
| February 1958
| 280.00 billion
| [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]
|-
| July 1956
| 278.00 billion
| [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]
|-
| August 1954
| 281.00 billion
| [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]
|-
| June 1946
| 275.00 billion
| [[Harry S. Truman]]
|-
| April 1945
| 300.00 billion
| [[Harry S. Truman]]
|-
| June 1944
| 260.00 billion
| [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]
|-
| April 1943
| 210.00 billion
| [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]
|-
| March 1942
| 125.00 billion
| [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]
|-
| February 1941
| 65.00 billion
| [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]
|-
| June 1940
| 49.00 billion
| [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]
|-
| December 1939
| 45.00 billion
| [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]
|-
| December 1919
| 43.00 billion
| [[Woodrow Wilson]]
|}<ref>http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/federalbudgetprocess/a/US-Debt-Ceiling-History.htm</ref>

== Debt Ceiling 2011 Controversy ==

[[Barack Obama]] voted against raising the debt ceiling in 2006. Now, he wants to raise the debt ceiling to over twice what it was raised to in 2006. However, Obama may not get the debt ceiling increased by Congress who essentially deem the Obama administration to be a serious credit risk. This is similar to a credit card company telling a person with either no income or little income who has maxed out on his credit card that he won't get a line increase and must pay off his card lest he be sued. In fact, it is almost unheard of for a credit card company to give a credit line increase to someone who's maxed out on his credit card.

The last increase in the debt ceiling occurred in early 2010 and President Obama signed into law on February 12, 2010. The limit stood at $14,294 billion. With large deficits emerging as [[baby boom]]ers retire, some members of Congress expressed concern over the government's dependence on borrowing to meet its obligations. President Obama responded by creating the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (Simpson-Bowles Deficit Reduction Commission), charged with identifying “policies to improve the fiscal situation in the medium term and to achieve fiscal sustainability over the long run.”<ref>Congressional Research Service, pp. 24-25 pdf.</ref> President Obama promptly ignored the Commission's recommendations.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2011/06/23/cbo_quotwe_don039t_estimate_speechesquot_258038.html</ref>

Obama's failure to take personal responsibility and instead his resorting to blaming others is a typical liberal victimhood mindset.

The prospect of the Obama administration defaulting on its debt rose greatly when the Democrats insisted on raising taxes to cover for their irresponsible spending habits. Obama refuses to engage in negotiations, similar to a deadbeat who refuses to answer the phone when the creditors are calling. Unfortunately, for the world, Obama's personal irresponsibility will hurt many honest hard working people who have done nothing wrong.

== External links ==

*[http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/105193.pdf The Debt Limit:History and Recent Increases.]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category:Economics]]

Talk:Federal Debt Limit

2011-07-20T01:29:45Z

MRellek: /* Debt Graphic */

== Page Rewrite ==

This page is in need of a major rewrite / expansion. The current information in it is entirely not sourced and reads as an opinion piece. Also, it would read better if it was split into a couple of sections. I think it would read better with the information on what the Debt Ceiling is in a section, and then the controversy surrounding Obama's desire to raise it in another section. I will try to begin working on it in the upcoming week and hopefully we will be able to get a more articulate article out of this. --[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 10:00, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
:Are there any facts in the article that you dispute? Do you dispute that the debt limit is required by the Constitution, that it is similar to a credit card limit or that Obama wants to raise taxes? The lamestream media has been covering for the gangster in chief by attempting to blame conservatives for Obama's spending binge. Conservapedians won't stand for the same here. [[User:HP|HP]] 01:04, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
::The article needs sources. I do not dispute the information, but we need to reference our claims. Please feel free to add additional material and help cite some of what is already listed. --[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 16:22, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

== Debt Graphic ==

I like the idea of the graphic, however I cannot read the current graphic. I do not know if this is isolated to me, or if perhaps we could find a better one that has the text for what the graphic is illustrated still on it, as the legend appears to be missing. --[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 21:23, 19 July 2011 (EDT)
: The above issue was fixed almost immediately. --[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 21:29, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Federal Debt Limit

2011-07-20T01:23:38Z

MRellek:

User talk:BryanM

2011-07-19T20:26:31Z

MRellek: Created page with "{{welcome}}--~~~~"

{{welcome}}--[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 16:26, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Federal Debt Limit

2011-07-19T20:22:04Z

MRellek:

Federal Debt Limit

2011-07-19T20:19:34Z

MRellek: Finished table of debt ceiling history

The '''debt ceiling''' is the overall limit on federal government borrowing, as authorized by [[Congress]]. It is similar to an individual's credit card limit.

According to the Constitution, the Congress must approve all borrowings on behalf of the United States. Before the 20th century, Congress approved all bond issuances separately and explicitly. With the introduction of the debt ceiling, the treasury now had a line on which it could borrow as it needed to without having to go back to Congress for borrowings under the ceiling.

== History of Debt Ceiling ==

The United States Debt Ceiling has been raised approximately 84 times since the early 1900's. The table below gives details on the year, and the amount that the ceiling was raised.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Year
! Amount of Debt
! Sitting President
|-
| February 2010
| 14.294 trillion
| [[Barack Obama]]
|-
| December 2009
| 12.394 trillion
| [[Barack Obama]]
|-
| February 2009
| 12.104 trillion
| [[Barack Obama]]
|-
| October 2008
| 11.315 trillion
| [[George W. Bush]]
|-
| July 2008
| 10.615 trillion
| [[George W. Bush]]
|-
| September 2007
| 9.815 trillion
| [[George W. Bush]]
|-
| March 2006
| 8.965 trillion
| [[George W. Bush]]
|-
| November 2004
| 8.184 trillion
| [[George W. Bush]]
|-
| May 2003
| 7.384 trillion
| [[George W. Bush]]
|-
| June 2002
| 6.400 trillion
| [[George W. Bush]]
|-
| August 1997
| 5.950 trillion
| [[Bill Clinton]]
|-
| March 1996
| 5.500 trillion
| [[Bill Clinton]]
|-
| August 1993
| 4.900 trillion
| [[Bill Clinton]]
|-
| April 1993
| 4.370 trillion
| [[Bill Clinton]]
|-
| November 1990
| 4.145 trillion
| [[George H. W. Bush]]
|-
| October 1990
| 3.230 trillion
| [[George H. W. Bush]]
|-
| November 1989
| 3.123 trillion
| [[George H. W. Bush]]
|-
| August 1989
| 2.870 trillion
| [[George H. W. Bush]]
|-
| September 1987
| 2.800 trillion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| August 1987
| 2.352 trillion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| July 1987
| 2.320 trillion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| October 1986
| 2.300 trillion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| August 1986
| 2.111 trillion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| December 1985
| 2.079 trillion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| November 1985
| 1.904 trillion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| October 1984
| 1.824 trillion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| July 1984
| 1.573 trillion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| May 1984
| 1.520 trillion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| November 1983
| 1.490 trillion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| May 1983
| 1.389 trillion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| September 1982
| 1.290 trillion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| June 1982
| 1.143 trillion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| September 1981
| 1.080 trillion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| September 1981
| 999.80 billion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| February 1981
| 985.00 billion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| December 1980
| 935.10 billion
| [[Jimmy Carter]]
|-
| June 1980
| 925.00 billion
| [[Jimmy Carter]]
|-
| September 1979
| 879.00 billion
| [[Jimmy Carter]]
|-
| April 1979
| 830.00 billion
| [[Jimmy Carter]]
|-
| August 1978
| 798.00 billion
| [[Jimmy Carter]]
|-
| October 1977
| 752.00 billion
| [[Jimmy Carter]]
|-
| June 1976
| 700.00 billion
| [[Gerald Ford]]
|-
| March 1976
| 627.00 billion
| [[Gerald Ford]]
|-
| November 1975
| 595.00 billion
| [[Gerald Ford]]
|-
| February 1975
| 577.00 billion
| [[Gerald Ford]]
|-
| June 1974
| 495.00 billion
| [[Gerald Ford]]
|-
| December 1973
| 475.7 billion
| [[Richard M. Nixon]]
|-
| October 1972
| 465.00 billion
| [[Richard M. Nixon]]
|-
| March 1972
| 450.00 billion
| [[Richard M. Nixon]]
|-
| March 1971
| 430.00 billion
| [[Richard M. Nixon]]
|-
| June 1970
| 395.00 billion
| [[Richard M. Nixon]]
|-
| April 1969
| 377.00 billion
| [[Richard M. Nixon]]
|-
| June 1967
| 358.00 billion
| [[Lyndon B. Johnson]]
|-
| March 1967
| 336.00 billion
| [[Lyndon B. Johnson]]
|-
| June 1966
| 330.00 billion
| [[Lyndon B. Johnson]]
|-
| June 1965
| 328.00 billion
| [[Lyndon B. Johnson]]
|-
| June 1964
| 324.00 billion
| [[Lyndon B. Johnson]]
|-
| November 1963
| 315.00 billion
| [[Lyndon B. Johnson]]
|-
| May 1963
| 309.00 billion
| [[Lyndon B. Johnson]]
|-
| July 1962
| 308.00 billion
| [[John F. Kennedy]]
|-
| March 1962
| 300.00 billion
| [[John F. Kennedy]]
|-
| June 1961
| 298.00 billion
| [[John F. Kennedy]]
|-
| June 1960
| 293.00 billion
| [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]
|-
| June 1959
| 295.00 billion
| [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]
|-
| September 1958
| 288.00 billion
| [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]
|-
| February 1958
| 280.00 billion
| [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]
|-
| July 1956
| 278.00 billion
| [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]
|-
| August 1954
| 281.00 billion
| [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]
|-
| June 1946
| 275.00 billion
| [[Harry S. Truman]]
|-
| April 1945
| 300.00 billion
| [[Harry S. Truman]]
|-
| June 1944
| 260.00 billion
| [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]
|-
| April 1943
| 210.00 billion
| [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]
|-
| March 1942
| 125.00 billion
| [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]
|-
| February 1941
| 65.00 billion
| [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]
|-
| June 1940
| 49.00 billion
| [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]
|-
| December 1939
| 45.00 billion
| [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]
|-
| December 1919
| 43.00 billion
| [[Woodrow Wilson]]
|}<ref>http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/federalbudgetprocess/a/US-Debt-Ceiling-History.htm</ref>

== Debt Ceiling 2011 Controversy ==

[[Barack Obama]] voted against raising the debt ceiling in 2006. Now, he wants to raise the debt ceiling to over twice what it was raised to in 2006. However, Obama may not get the debt ceiling increased by Congress who essentially deem the Obama administration to be a serious credit risk. This is similar to a credit card company telling a person with either no income or little income who has maxed out on his credit card that he won't get a line increase and must pay off his card lest he be sued. In fact, it is almost unheard of for a credit card company to give a credit line increase to someone who's maxed out on his credit card.

Obama's failure to take personal responsiblity and instead his resorting to blaming others is a typical liberal victimhood mindset and pervades the inner city culture greatly.

The prospect of the Obama administration defaulting on its debt rose greatly when the Democrats insisted on raising taxes to cover for their irresponsible spending habits. Obama refuses to engage in negotiations, similar to a deadbeat who refuses to answer the phone when the creditors are calling. Unfortunately, for the world, Obama's personal irresponsibilty will hurt many honest hard working people who have done nothing wrong.
==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category:Economics]]

Federal Debt Limit

2011-07-19T20:13:30Z

MRellek: /* History of Debt Ceiling */

The '''debt ceiling''' is the overall limit on federal government borrowing, as authorized by [[Congress]]. It is similar to an individual's credit card limit.

According to the Constitution, the Congress must approve all borrowings on behalf of the United States. Before the 20th century, Congress approved all bond issuances separately and explicitly. With the introduction of the debt ceiling, the treasury now had a line on which it could borrow as it needed to without having to go back to Congress for borrowings under the ceiling.

== History of Debt Ceiling ==

The United States Debt Ceiling has been raised approximately 84 times since the early 1900's. The table below gives details on the year, and the amount that the ceiling was raised.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Year
! Amount of Debt
! Sitting President
|-
| February 2010
| 14.294 trillion
| [[Barack Obama]]
|-
| December 2009
| 12.394 trillion
| [[Barack Obama]]
|-
| February 2009
| 12.104 trillion
| [[Barack Obama]]
|-
| October 2008
| 11.315 trillion
| [[George W. Bush]]
|-
| July 2008
| 10.615 trillion
| [[George W. Bush]]
|-
| September 2007
| 9.815 trillion
| [[George W. Bush]]
|-
| March 2006
| 8.965 trillion
| [[George W. Bush]]
|-
| November 2004
| 8.184 trillion
| [[George W. Bush]]
|-
| May 2003
| 7.384 trillion
| [[George W. Bush]]
|-
| June 2002
| 6.400 trillion
| [[George W. Bush]]
|-
| August 1997
| 5.950 trillion
| [[Bill Clinton]]
|-
| March 1996
| 5.500 trillion
| [[Bill Clinton]]
|-
| August 1993
| 4.900 trillion
| [[Bill Clinton]]
|-
| April 1993
| 4.370 trillion
| [[Bill Clinton]]
|-
| November 1990
| 4.145 trillion
| [[George H. W. Bush]]
|-
| October 1990
| 3.230 trillion
| [[George H. W. Bush]]
|-
| November 1989
| 3.123 trillion
| [[George H. W. Bush]]
|-
| August 1989
| 2.870 trillion
| [[George H. W. Bush]]
|-
| September 1987
| 2.800 trillion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| August 1987
| 2.352 trillion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| July 1987
| 2.320 trillion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| October 1986
| 2.300 trillion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| August 1986
| 2.111 trillion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| December 1985
| 2.079 trillion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| November 1985
| 1.904 trillion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| October 1984
| 1.824 trillion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| July 1984
| 1.573 trillion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| May 1984
| 1.520 trillion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| November 1983
| 1.490 trillion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| May 1983
| 1.389 trillion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| September 1982
| 1.290 trillion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| June 1982
| 1.143 trillion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| September 1981
| 1.080 trillion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| September 1981
| 999.80 billion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| February 1981
| 985.00 billion
| [[Ronald W. Reagan]]
|-
| December 1980
| 935.10 billion
| [[Jimmy Carter]]
|-
| June 1980
| 925.00 billion
| [[Jimmy Carter]]
|-
| September 1979
| 879.00 billion
| [[Jimmy Carter]]
|-
| April 1979
| 830.00 billion
| [[Jimmy Carter]]
|-
| August 1978
| 798.00 billion
| [[Jimmy Carter]]
|-
| October 1977
| 752.00 billion
| [[Jimmy Carter]]
|-
| June 1976
| 700.00 billion
| [[Gerald Ford]]
|-
| March 1976
| 627.00 billion
| [[Gerald Ford]]
|-
| November 1975
| 595.00 billion
| [[Gerald Ford]]
|-
| February 1975
| 577.00 billion
| [[Gerald Ford]]
|-
| June 1974
| 495.00 billion
| [[Gerald Ford]]
|-
| December 1973
| 475.7 billion
| [[Richard M. Nixon]]
|-
| October 1972
| 465.00 billion
| [[Richard M. Nixon]]
|-
| March 1972
| 450.00 billion
| [[Richard M. Nixon]]
|-
| March 1971
| 430.00 billion
| [[Richard M. Nixon]]
|-
| June 1970
| 395.00 billion
| [[Richard M. Nixon]]
|-
| April 1969
| 377.00 billion
| [[Richard M. Nixon]]
|-
| June 1967
|
| [[Lyndon B. Johnson]]
|-
| March 1967
|
| [[Lyndon B. Johnson]]
|-
| June 1966
|
| [[Lyndon B. Johnson]]
|-
| June 1965
|
| [[Lyndon B. Johnson]]
|-
| June 1964
|
| [[Lyndon B. Johnson]]
|-
| November 1963
|
| [[Lyndon B. Johnson]]
|-
| May 1963
|
| [[Lyndon B. Johnson]]
|-
| July 1962
|
| [[John F. Kennedy]]
|-
| March 1962
|
| [[John F. Kennedy]]
|-
| June 1961
|
| [[John F. Kennedy]]
|-
| June 1960
|
| [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]
|-
| June 1959
|
| [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]
|-
| September 1958
|
| [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]
|-
| February 1958
|
| [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]
|-
| July 1956
|
| [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]
|-
| August 1954
|
| [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]
|-
| June 1946
|
| [[Harry S. Truman]]
|-
| April 1945
|
| [[Harry S. Truman]]
|-
| June 1944
|
| [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]
|-
| April 1943
|
| [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]
|-
| March 1942
|
| [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]
|-
| February 1941
|
| [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]
|-
| June 1940
|
| [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]
|-
| December 1939
|
| [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]
|-
| December 1919
|
| [[Woodrow Wilson]]
|}<ref>http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/federalbudgetprocess/a/US-Debt-Ceiling-History.htm</ref>

== Debt Ceiling 2011 Controversy ==

[[Barack Obama]] voted against raising the debt ceiling in 2006. Now, he wants to raise the debt ceiling to over twice what it was raised to in 2006. However, Obama may not get the debt ceiling increased by Congress who essentially deem the Obama administration to be a serious credit risk. This is similar to a credit card company telling a person with either no income or little income who has maxed out on his credit card that he won't get a line increase and must pay off his card lest he be sued. In fact, it is almost unheard of for a credit card company to give a credit line increase to someone who's maxed out on his credit card.

Obama's failure to take personal responsiblity and instead his resorting to blaming others is a typical liberal victimhood mindset and pervades the inner city culture greatly.

The prospect of the Obama administration defaulting on its debt rose greatly when the Democrats insisted on raising taxes to cover for their irresponsible spending habits. Obama refuses to engage in negotiations, similar to a deadbeat who refuses to answer the phone when the creditors are calling. Unfortunately, for the world, Obama's personal irresponsibilty will hurt many honest hard working people who have done nothing wrong.
==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category:Economics]]

Federal Debt Limit

2011-07-19T20:06:24Z

MRellek: Filled table in through 1967

The '''debt ceiling''' is the overall limit on federal government borrowing, as authorized by [[Congress]]. It is similar to an individual's credit card limit.

According to the Constitution, the Congress must approve all borrowings on behalf of the United States. Before the 20th century, Congress approved all bond issuances separately and explicitly. With the introduction of the debt ceiling, the treasury now had a line on which it could borrow as it needed to without having to go back to Congress for borrowings under the ceiling.

== History of Debt Ceiling ==

The United States Debt Ceiling has been raised approximately 84 times since the early 1900's. The table below gives details on the year, and the amount that the ceiling was raised.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Year
! Amount of Debt
! Sitting President
|-
| February 2010
| 14.294 trillion
| [[Barack Obama]]
|-
| December 2009
| 12.394 trillion
| [[Barack Obama]]
|-
| February 2009
| 12.104 trillion
| [[Barack Obama]]
|-
| October 2008
| 11.315 trillion
| [[George W. Bush]]
|-
| July 2008
| 10.615 trillion
| [[George W. Bush]]
|-
| September 2007
| 9.815 trillion
| [[George W. Bush]]
|-
| March 2006
| 8.965 trillion
| [[George W. Bush]]
|-
| November 2004
| 8.184 trillion
| [[George W. Bush]]
|-
| May 2003
| 7.384 trillion
| [[George W. Bush]]
|-
| June 2002
| 6.400 trillion
| [[George W. Bush]]
|-
| August 1997
| 5.950 trillion
| [[Bill Clinton]]
|-
| March 1996
| 5.500 trillion
| [[Bill Clinton]]
|-
| August 1993
| 4.900 trillion
| [[Bill Clinton]]
|-
| April 1993
| 4.370 trillion
| [[Bill Clinton]]
|-
| November 1990
| 4.145 trillion
| [[George Herbert Walker Bush]]
|-
| October 1990
| 3.230 trillion
| [[George Herbert Walker Bush]]
|-
| November 1989
| 3.123 trillion
| [[George Herbert Walker Bush]]
|-
| August 1989
| 2.870 trillion
| [[George Herbert Walker Bush]]
|-
| September 1987
| 2.800 trillion
| [[Ronald Wilson Reagan]]
|-
| August 1987
| 2.352 trillion
| [[Ronald Wilson Reagan]]
|-
| July 1987
| 2.320 trillion
| [[Ronald Wilson Reagan]]
|-
| October 1986
| 2.300 trillion
| [[Ronald Wilson Reagan]]
|-
| August 1986
| 2.111 trillion
| [[Ronald Wilson Reagan]]
|-
| December 1985
| 2.079 trillion
| [[Ronald Wilson Reagan]]
|-
| November 1985
| 1.904 trillion
| [[Ronald Wilson Reagan]]
|-
| October 1984
| 1.824 trillion
| [[Ronald Wilson Reagan]]
|-
| July 1984
| 1.573 trillion
| [[Ronald Wilson Reagan]]
|-
| May 1984
| 1.520 trillion
| [[Ronald Wilson Reagan]]
|-
| November 1983
| 1.490 trillion
| [[Ronald Wilson Reagan]]
|-
| May 1983
| 1.389 trillion
| [[Ronald Wilson Reagan]]
|-
| September 1982
| 1.290 trillion
| [[Ronald Wilson Reagan]]
|-
| June 1982
| 1.143 trillion
| [[Ronald Wilson Reagan]]
|-
| September 1981
| 1.080 trillion
| [[Ronald Wilson Reagan]]
|-
| September 1981
| 999.80 billion
| [[Ronald Wilson Reagan]]
|-
| February 1981
| 985.00 billion
| [[Ronald Wilson Reagan]]
|-
| December 1980
| 935.10 billion
| [[Jimmy Carter]]
|-
| June 1980
| 925.00 billion
| [[Jimmy Carter]]
|-
| September 1979
| 879.00 billion
| [[Jimmy Carter]]
|-
| April 1979
| 830.00 billion
| [[Jimmy Carter]]
|-
| August 1978
| 798.00 billion
| [[Jimmy Carter]]
|-
| October 1977
| 752.00 billion
| [[Jimmy Carter]]
|-
| June 1976
| 700.00 billion
| [[Gerald Ford]]
|-
| March 1976
| 627.00 billion
| [[Gerald Ford]]
|-
| November 1975
| 595.00 billion
| [[Gerald Ford]]
|-
| February 1975
| 577.00 billion
| [[Gerald Ford]]
|-
| June 1974
| 495.00 billion
| [[Gerald Ford]]
|-
| December 1973
| 475.7 billion
| [[Richard Milhouse Nixon]]
|-
| October 1972
| 465.00 billion
| [[Richard Milhouse Nixon]]
|-
| March 1972
| 450.00 billion
| [[Richard Milhouse Nixon]]
|-
| March 1971
| 430.00 billion
| [[Richard Milhouse Nixon]]
|-
| June 1970
| 395.00 billion
| [[Richard Milhouse Nixon]]
|-
| April 1969
| 377.00 billion
| [[Richard Milhouse Nixon]]
|-
| June 1967
|
|
|-
| March 1967
|
|
|-
| June 1966
|
|
|-
| June 1965
|
|
|-
| June 1964
|
|
|-
| November 1963
|
|
|-
| May 1963
|
|
|-
| July 1962
|
|
|-
| March 1962
|
|
|-
| June 1961
|
|
|-
| June 1960
|
|
|-
| June 1959
|
|
|-
| September 1958
|
|
|-
| February 1958
|
|
|-
| July 1956
|
|
|-
| August 1954
|
|
|-
| June 1946
|
|
|-
| April 1945
|
|
|-
| June 1944
|
|
|-
| April 1943
|
|
|-
| March 1942
|
|
|-
| February 1941
|
|
|-
| June 1940
|
|
|-
| December 1939
|
|
|-
| December 1919
|
|
|}<ref>http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/federalbudgetprocess/a/US-Debt-Ceiling-History.htm</ref>

== Debt Ceiling 2011 Controversy ==

[[Barack Obama]] voted against raising the debt ceiling in 2006. Now, he wants to raise the debt ceiling to over twice what it was raised to in 2006. However, Obama may not get the debt ceiling increased by Congress who essentially deem the Obama administration to be a serious credit risk. This is similar to a credit card company telling a person with either no income or little income who has maxed out on his credit card that he won't get a line increase and must pay off his card lest he be sued. In fact, it is almost unheard of for a credit card company to give a credit line increase to someone who's maxed out on his credit card.

Obama's failure to take personal responsiblity and instead his resorting to blaming others is a typical liberal victimhood mindset and pervades the inner city culture greatly.

The prospect of the Obama administration defaulting on its debt rose greatly when the Democrats insisted on raising taxes to cover for their irresponsible spending habits. Obama refuses to engage in negotiations, similar to a deadbeat who refuses to answer the phone when the creditors are calling. Unfortunately, for the world, Obama's personal irresponsibilty will hurt many honest hard working people who have done nothing wrong.
==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category:Economics]]

Federal Debt Limit

2011-07-19T19:39:40Z

MRellek: Add Reference

Federal Debt Limit

2011-07-19T19:37:55Z

MRellek: Created table for debt ceiling increases (Need to finish filling in)

Eft

2011-07-19T16:38:15Z

MRellek:

a young [[newt]]

{{Delete}}

Talk:Federal Debt Limit

2011-07-17T14:00:31Z

MRellek: Created page with " == Page Rewrite == This page is in need of a major rewrite / expansion. The current information in it is entirely not sourced and reads as an opinion piece. Also, it would re..."

Woot

2011-07-16T23:35:07Z

MRellek:

'''Woot''' is an American Internet retailer that was founded and based in [[Dallas, Texas|Dallas]]. Founded in 2004, the website has grown over the years and expanded into other categories with spinoff sites such as Wine.Woot. Woot operates as a [[Deal of the Day]] website, usually offering one heavily discounted deal per day. In 2010, Woot was acquired by [[Amazon.com]]. <ref>[http://www.woot.com/Blog/ViewEntry.aspx?Id=13389 The Blog - June 30, 2010 - BREAKING: Woot To Be Acquired By Amazon, Then Left To Amuse Ourselves]</ref>

== Sales Approach ==

Woot is one of the original (and most successful) [[Deal of the Day]] websites. Woot's popularity has lead to many other business adopting this model. Woot's model typically allows users to buy upto three items per day of the deal, however there are items that are more limited depending on the item. Items are typically shipped via FedEx SmartPost.

An item is posted to Woot's website every night at midnight Central Time. This item is typically available for 24 hours although the item can sell out over the course of the day. In the case of an item that sells out, Woot will not feature a new item until Midnight.

Woot has been known to occasionally offer items that are no longer in stock causing heavy shipping delays. This is a rare practice however. <ref>http://www.woot.com/Forums/ViewPost.aspx?PostID=4352112</ref><ref>http://www.woot.com/WhatIsWoot.aspx#q3</ref>

== Marketing style ==

The company is keenly aware of its costumers and is irreverent in its product descriptions. Oftentimes the description will mock the product, the company, or even Woot. Negatives form the product are often highlighted and will be used as jokes. Serious details such as the actual product description is listed below the Woot written description. The community will often do their own research and post their opinions as well as links to product reviews and other costs on the user forums. The Woot staff will read through the community posts and pick important ones listed as "quality" and features them at the top of the forum.

==Special Features==

Woot features a number of special sales days.

=== Woot-Off ===

Occasionally, (usually roughly once a month or corresponding with special holidays), Woot will feature a special sales feature known as a "Woot-Off". This sale is denoted by flashing alarm lights on the webpage and a progress bar denoting the amount of a certain product left. They are an unknown amount of time usually dependent on how long products take to sell out. As soon as the progress bar reaches zero, a new product will be posted in its place.

==== Bag of Crap ====

Bags of Crap, also known as BOC and many other names by the Woot community, are sold generally during a Woot-Off. These events are wildly popular and generally lead to a server crash. Often these items will sell out within seconds. In the BOC it is generally expected that a BOC has several "crappy" items and one "good" item. The collective value of the BOC is higher than the nominal cost, $3.00, of the BOC.

=== X-for-Tuesday ===

Woot generally offers a X-for-Tuesday deal every Tuesday. This deal is used to offer some multiple of a product such as such as 3-for-Tu3sday, 4-for-4uesday, 5-for-Tue5day, 6-for-Tue6day, or the most common 2-for-Tuesday.

== Other Woot sites ==

Woot's popularity has lead to several spin-off sites being created. Most of these follow the same model as the original site.

=== Wine Woot ===

Wine Woot was launched in the Summer of 2006 and offers wine and generally "higher end" products. Wine Woot is only allowed to be delivered to a limited number of states due to various state legislation. Wine Woot provides a list of states that are available to ship to for each item. Wine Woot typically features a "Woot-Off" type sale when the main website is having its "Woot-Off".

=== Shirt Woot ===

Woot Shirts holds a daily design based off of some topic that has been declared in the morning. The designs that receive the most votes are then produced and sold the following day. Winners of the design receive payment for the design and royalties for the first day of sale on the shirt. The designs are silk-screened at Woot's main facility. Shirts that win the contest are offered at a discounted rate their first day. They are generally available for sale for multiple days after in what is known as the Reckoning on a separate page.

Unlike the main Woot site, Woot Shirts offers international shipping and free standard shipping in the US.

Woot will offer a Random Shirt day, at discounted cost for shirts that have been discontinued.

=== Kids Woot ===
Kids Woot was launched on August 18, 2009. The items featured on Kids Woot are generally geared towards children, and range from baby toys to electronics. Kids Woot also features a "Woot-Off" on days that the original site has one.

=== Moofi Woot ===
Moofi (Woot! upside down) is a unique spin-off of the Woot model as it can have several deals running at the same time. The Moofi subdomain links directly to the Woot! main page, so to find new Moofi deals it is nescessary to search for Moofi on the Deals.Woot page.

== References ==
<references/>

==External links==

{|
|-
|
* [http://www.woot.com/ Woot Home Page]
* [http://www.woot.com/Blog/ Woot Blog]
* [http://www.woot.com/Forums/ Woot Community]
* [http://kids.woot.com/ Kids Woot]
* [http://shirt.woot.com/ Shirt Woot]
* [http://wine.woot.com/ Wine Woot]
|}

Woot

2011-07-15T02:20:51Z

MRellek:

'''Woot''' is an American Internet retailer that was founded and based in [[Dallas, Texas|Dallas]]. Founded in 2004, the website has grown over the years and expanded into other categories with spinoff sites such as Wine.Woot. Woot operates as a [[Deal of the Day]] website, usually offering one heavily discounted deal per day. In 2010, Woot was acquired by [[Amazon.com]]. <ref>[http://www.woot.com/Blog/ViewEntry.aspx?Id=13389 The Blog - June 30, 2010 - BREAKING: Woot To Be Acquired By Amazon, Then Left To Amuse Ourselves]</ref>

== Sales Approach ==

Woot is one of the original (and most successful) [[Deal of the Day]] websites. Woot's popularity has lead to many other business adopting this model. Woot's model typically allows users to buy upto three items per day of the deal, however there are items that are more limited depending on the item. Items are typically shipped via FedEx SmartPost.

An item is posted to Woot's website every night at midnight Central Time. This item is typically available for 24 hours although the item can sell out over the course of the day. In the case of an item that sells out, Woot will not feature a new item until Midnight.

Woot has been known to occasionally offer items that are no longer in stock causing heavy shipping delays. This is a rare practice however. <ref>http://www.woot.com/Forums/ViewPost.aspx?PostID=4352112</ref><ref>http://www.woot.com/WhatIsWoot.aspx#q3</ref>

== Marketing style ==

The company is keenly aware of its costumers and is irreverent in its product descriptions. Oftentimes the description will mock the product, the company, or even Woot. Negatives form the product are often highlighted and will be used as jokes. Serious details such as the actual product description is listed below the Woot written description. The community will often do their own research and post their opinions as well as links to product reviews and other costs on the user forums. The Woot staff will read through the community posts and pick important ones listed as "quality" and features them at the top of the forum.

==Special Features==

Woot features a number of special sales days.

=== Woot-Off ===

Occasionally, (usually roughly once a month or corresponding with special holidays), Woot will feature a special sales feature known as a "Woot-Off". This sale is denoted by flashing alarm lights on the webpage and a progress bar denoting the amount of a certain product left. They are an unknown amount of time usually dependent on how long products take to sell out. As soon as the progress bar reaches zero, a new product will be posted in its place.

==== Bag of Crap ====

Bags of Crap, also known as BOC and many other names by the Woot community, are sold generally during a Woot-Off. These events are wildly popular and generally lead to a server crash. Often these items will sell out within seconds. In the BOC it is generally expected that a BOC has several "crappy" items and one "good" item. The collective value of the BOC is higher than the nominal cost, $3.00, of the BOC.

=== X-for-Tuesday ===

Woot generally offers a X-for-Tuesday deal every Tuesday. This deal is used to offer some multiple of a product such as such as 3-for-Tu3sday, 4-for-4uesday, 5-for-Tue5day, 6-for-Tue6day, or the most common 2-for-Tuesday.

== Other Woot sites ==

Woot's popularity has lead to several spin-off sites being created. Most of these follow the same model as the original site.

=== Wine Woot ===

Wine Woot was launched in the Summer of 2006 and offers wine and generally "higher end" products. Wine Woot is only allowed to be delivered to a limited number of states due to various state legislation. Wine Woot provides a list of states that are available to ship to for each item. Wine Woot typically features a "Woot-Off" type sale when the main website is having its "Woot-Off".

=== Shirt Woot ===

Woot Shirts holds a daily design based off of some topic that has been declared in the morning. The designs that receive the most votes are then produced and sold the following day. Winners of the design receive payment for the design and royalties for the first day of sale on the shirt. The designs are silk-screened at Woot's main facility. Shirts that win the contest are offered at a discounted rate their first day. They are generally available for sale for multiple days after in what is known as the Reckoning on a separate page.

Unlike the main Woot site, Woot Shirts offers international shipping and free standard shipping in the US.

Woot will offer a Random Shirt day, at discounted cost for shirts that have been discontinued.

=== Kids Woot ===
Kids Woot was launched on August 18, 2009. The items featured on Kids Woot are generally geared towards children, and range from baby toys to electronics. Kids Woot also features a "Woot-Off" on days that the original site has one.

=== Moofi Woot ===
Moofi (Woot! upside down) is a unique spin-off of the Woot model as it can have several deals running at the same time. The Moofi subdomain links directly to the Woot! main page, so to find new Moofi deals it is nescessary to search for Moofi on the Deals.Woot page.

== References ==
<references/>
* [http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1073341,00.html ''Time'' magazine's "50 Coolest Websites 2005"]
* [http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1790096,00.asp ''PC Magazine'' site review]
* [http://www.fool.com/news/commentary/2005/commentary05110408.htm ''Motley Fool'' article]
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/28/technology/circuits/28woot.html New York ''Times'' article]

==External links==

{|
|-
|
* [http://www.woot.com/ Woot Home Page]
* [http://www.woot.com/Blog/ Woot Blog]
* [http://www.woot.com/Forums/ Woot Community]
* [http://kids.woot.com/ Kids Woot]
* [http://shirt.woot.com/ Shirt Woot]
* [http://wine.woot.com/ Wine Woot]
|}