Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Kent Hovind

2008-05-19T02:23:56Z

MaveYEL: /* Controversy */

'''Dr. Kent Hovind''' (born 1953), called "Dr. Dino" because his expertise is in dinosaurs, is a prominent and controversial [[Young Earth Creationism|young Earth creationist]].
He founded [[Creation Science Evangelism Ministry]] in 1989<ref>http://www.drdino.com/</ref> and has a doctoral degree in Christian education from [[Patriot University]].

In 2001, Hovind opened a theme park in Pensacola, Florida called [[Dinosaur Adventure Land]], filled with exhibits putting forth a case for Young Earth Creationism.

== Controversy ==

Critics of Hovind question the quality of his doctoral thesis and the academic standards of the university from which he received it, believing both to be subpar for institutions of higher learning.<ref>[http://chem.tufts.edu/science/Stear-NoAiG/no-AiG/bartelt_dissertation_on_hovind_thesis.htm Karen Bartelt, Ph.D. "The Dissertation Kent Hovind Doesn't Want You To Read."]</ref>

Hovind has been criticized by fellow Young Earth Creationists for repeatedly using arguments that are unsound both Biblically and scientifically.<ref>Wieland, Carl, Ham, Ken, and Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2571/ Maintaining Creationist Integrity] October 2002</ref>

He is currently serving a ten-year term in U.S. federal prison for 58 tax offenses, obstructing federal agents and related charges.<ref>''"10 years for 'Dr. Dino'"'', Michael Stewart. Pensacola News Journal, 19 January 19, 2007</ref>
Hovind has maintained that there should have been no taxes because he runs a religious organization.

Hovind, with his son Eric Hovind, had released a set of videos titled "Answering the Critics" whereby they answered some common criticisms of themselves, usually from Internet sources. Hovind claimed he did not want to answer all the critics because he believed many critics criticize him without wanting to get any answers from him, so it was best to ignore them and continue preaching to those who really want to listen.<ref>Answering the Critics #1</ref>

== $250,000 Offer ==

Hovind is well known for his standing US$250,000 offer to anyone who can "prove evolution".<ref>http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=67</ref>
The offer has gone unclaimed.
Contributors at [[Talk.origins|TalkOrigins]], a pro-evolution web-site, have pointed out that Hovind's challenge includes not just biological evolution but also [[abiogenesis]], [[cosmology]] and other things, and have claimed that the challenge is worded in a way that makes it impossible to fulfill since it requires proving the negative statement that "evolution" is the only possible explanation for the existence of life.<ref>Isaak, Mark, (Ed.) [http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA341.html Claim CA341], 2006</ref>
==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Hovind, Kent}}

[[Category:Young Earth Creationists]]

Kent Hovind

2008-05-12T12:33:37Z

MaveYEL: /* Controversy */

'''Dr. Kent Hovind''' (born 1953), called "Dr. Dino" because his expertise is in dinosaurs, is a prominent and controversial [[Young Earth Creationism|young Earth creationist]].
He founded [[Creation Science Evangelism Ministry]] in 1989<ref>http://www.drdino.com/</ref> and has a doctoral degree in Christian education from [[Patriot University]].

In 2001, Hovind opened a theme park in Pensacola, Florida called [[Dinosaur Adventure Land]], filled with exhibits putting forth a case for Young Earth Creationism.

== Controversy ==

Critics of Hovind question the quality of his doctoral thesis and the academic standards of the university from which he received it, believing both to be subpar for institutions of higher learning.<ref>[http://chem.tufts.edu/science/Stear-NoAiG/no-AiG/bartelt_dissertation_on_hovind_thesis.htm Karen Bartelt, Ph.D. "The Dissertation Kent Hovind Doesn't Want You To Read."]</ref>

Hovind has been criticized by fellow Young Earth Creationists for repeatedly using arguments that are unsound both Biblically and scientifically.<ref>Wieland, Carl, Ham, Ken, and Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2571/ Maintaining Creationist Integrity] October 2002</ref>

He is currently serving a ten-year term in U.S. federal prison for 58 tax offenses, obstructing federal agents and related charges.<ref>''"10 years for 'Dr. Dino'"'', Michael Stewart. Pensacola News Journal, 19 January 19, 2007</ref>
Hovind has maintained that there should have been no taxes because he runs a religious organization.

Hovind, with his son Eric Hovind, had released a set of videos titled "Answering the Critics" whereby they answered some common criticisms of themselves, usually from Internet sources. Hovind claimed he did not want to answer all the critics because he believed many critics criticize him without wanting to get any answers from him, so it was best to ignore them and continue preaching to those who really want to listen.

== $250,000 Offer ==

Hovind is well known for his standing US$250,000 offer to anyone who can "prove evolution".<ref>http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=67</ref>
The offer has gone unclaimed.
Contributors at [[Talk.origins|TalkOrigins]], a pro-evolution web-site, have pointed out that Hovind's challenge includes not just biological evolution but also [[abiogenesis]], [[cosmology]] and other things, and have claimed that the challenge is worded in a way that makes it impossible to fulfill since it requires proving the negative statement that "evolution" is the only possible explanation for the existence of life.<ref>Isaak, Mark, (Ed.) [http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA341.html Claim CA341], 2006</ref>
==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Hovind, Kent}}

[[Category:Young Earth Creationists]]

Talk:Roman Catholicism

2008-05-01T02:21:38Z

MaveYEL: /* Are Roman Catholics Christians? */

==This is a rough start and others will need to help==
I'm out of my depth here. I really wanted to write something that explains that "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" are not synonyms. I think what I've written is sorta-kinda-roughly correct, and I'm not knowingly trying to push any particular point of view. If I've inadvertently stepped on any Roman Catholic, Orthodox, or Anglican toes here, my apologies, and please fix whatever I've gotten wrong. (Try to keep it "as simple as possible, but no simpler.") [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:15, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Generally, catholic (lowercase) means "universal", whereas Catholic refers to the RCC, by default. If speaking of an Orthodox Catholic church usually it's denoted as to which branch is being discussed. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 13:39, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, "Catholic" doesn't refer to the Roman Catholic Church. The "Roman Catholic Church" refers to a specific Rite of the Catholic Church. It's the largest rite, by far, but is not the only rite in the Catholic Church. (These rites are also distinct from the Orthodox Churches. They have little to do with the Great Schism.) I'll try to see if I can clean this up a bit. As it now stands, it's more wrong than right. [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 22:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::In the last edit, we lost the information about non-Roman and non-Latin rites:
::''Catholics, on the other hand, believe that the Roman Catholic Church, as the single true church founded by Christ, is the universal Catholic Church. Some prefer not to refer to their own church as the "Roman" Catholic Church, on the grounds that such formulations implicitly deny this point of doctrine.''
::I'd argue that it's not the ''Roman'' Catholic Church that is the single true church, but, rather, the ''Catholic'' Church. I understand that in the US (and in the west, in general) the two terms seem interchangeable, but I'd rather not lose the distinction between Roman Catholic and Catholic.[[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 03:01, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Moved here, until sourced:
:Findings of an investigation determined that sexual abuse of children could probably be almost halved if women were allowed to be ordained in the church.
I've never seen any such study, and I'm not sure how it would even be determined. I also changed hebephilia to ephebophilia, which is more commonly used (both words mean an attraction towards adolescents). [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 22:06, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

==Lone sentence==

:Roman Catholics claim to be the apostolic successors of Saint Peter, who was given authority over his flock in the Bible.

Can this be merged? Was at [[Roman Catholics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:35, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:This should be attributed to the Pope, not specifically to Catholics themselves.[[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 10:14, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

<s>==Second Vatican Council==
This should be its own subsection as "The Church" prior and post to the Council were almost two different churches?[[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 10:15, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
</s>

Oops, wrote too soon, I didn't realize the "Roman Catholic Church" article already existed.[[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 10:16, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

==Controversy?==
I dont know if it is so smart to put that in yet. I mean like put some factual stuff then put in the controversy, because making an article negative is not very appeasing to a reader. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 08:41, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

What do you expect on this site? Conservapedia has a deeply unhealthy obsession with paedophiles and gay sex. Really makes me worried about a lot of the editors. --[[User:Bible Mike|Bible Mike]] 10:27, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

lol i do not have an obsession witht that. that is nasty. ew why would you ever say that? --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 10:29, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

This paragraph is just a bad copy of wikipedia and media, in their obvious attempt to discredit the Roman Catholic church and the worthy work in education of children. Child abuse is a mortally sin, no doubt and deserves severe prosecution, but where are the facts showing that child abuse happens more often by catholic clergymen than by other teachers or male relatives? --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 18:09, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

==Requirements==
Currently, the article states:
:To belong to the Catholic Church one must accept as factually true the gospel of our lord Jesus Christ. "The chief teachings of the Catholic church are: God’s objective existence; God’s interest in individual human beings, who can enter into relations with God (through prayer); the Trinity; the divinity of Jesus; the immortality of the soul of each human being, each one being accountable at death for his or her actions in life, with the award of heaven or hell; the resurrection of the dead; the historicity of the Gospels; and the divine commission of the church. In addition the Roman Catholic Church stresses that since the members, living and dead, share in each other’s merits, the Virgin Mary and other saints and the dead in purgatory are never forgotten."

I might argue some of those points. Primarily, to be Catholic is to be baptized (including, possibly, a baptism of faith) and to participate in the sacraments. I'd accept creedal statements along the lines of the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed as possible requirements of faith. Belief in the existence of God, sure. In Jesus, in his death and resurrection, sure. In the resurrection of the body, in the communion of saints in life everlasting, sure. But the historicity of the Gospels? The divine commission of the Church? Sure, these are things that are taught by the Church. But I don't know that they're necessary to being Catholic. (I'm not sure why one would be Catholic if one didn't believe the divine commission of the Church, but still...) And, more importantly, I'd say that to belong to the Catholic Church is to participate in the sacraments--to receive the Eucharist, to be baptized, to be reconciled to God, and so on. The church is at least as much a sacramental church as a creedal church (and, I'd argue, it's more a sacramental church than a creedal church). [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 23:34, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Catholics not as Christians? ==
Do we really need that part? It just doesn't really sound very encyclopedic. According to two websites Catholics aren't Christians, but according to some other websites out there aliens are secretly in control of the government. I feel I have to raise a question concerning that bit. Recomend it is deleted, or the contention be in some way justified.[[User:Jnl001|Jnl001]] 14:49, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

== Roman Catholicism ==

The Title of this Entry should actually be Latin Rite Catholicism. The Latin Rite ("Roman Catholic")Church does not actually identify itself as "Roman Catholic", it Calls itself the "Latin Rite" of the "Catholic Church"

This said their needs to be a separate entry for "Catholicism".

{{unsigned|Pyranima}}

== Are Roman Catholics Christians? ==

Now, I have been thinking about this for some time. As seen from many sources like Wikipedia, the Roman Catholics are indeed Christian. However, according to many Christian fundamentalist sources, the Roman Catholics are not Christian because they believe in many unbiblical things such as the infant baptism, sacraments, Mary worship, etc.

My question is, should the articles in Conservapedia concerning Christianity have the idea that Christianity is really a "biblical, based-on-the-Bible Christianity", not just a religion whose people are Christians just because they say "We are Christians"?

(To any born-again Christians, you may understand my question)

[[User:MaveYEL]]
: I understand the question. Whether or not someone is a Christian depends on their own relationship with God, not on what church they belong to. Also, probably no Christian has a perfect set of beliefs: probably every Christian believes ''something'' that is contrary to biblical teaching. So "believing many unbiblical things" does not, of itself, mean that someone is not a Christian.
: I would classify the Roman Catholic Church as "Christian", because it holds that Jesus is God, but I would also think that ''many'' people who are members of the church are not Christians, partly because many are members of the church out of tradition rather than conversion, and partly because there is insufficient emphasis on faith-based conversion. But that doesn't mean that there are not (many?) Christians in the Roman Catholic church.
: I feel that some "fundamentalist" Christians are too harsh on Catholics, although that is not to dismiss their valid objections to many Catholic teachings, such as the ones you mention. And I would ask, is the Catholic church any worse than many liberal churches that reject the historicity of the creation account, accept homosexuality, reject miracles, etc. etc.? I do feel that there is a fair bit of inconsistency there.
: Does Conservapedia handle this issue the best way it can? Probably not, but then Conservapedia's not perfect either!
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:22, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

(This is a discussion that may take a long time and much effort. I try not to talk too much on it, although I would like to clarify all doubts in this issue)

Hmm, here is my answer.

First: I do believe that some Catholics may be indeed Christians, that is receiving Jesus as their own personal Savior, as many Protestant fundamentalists say. However, if a Catholic is a Christian, his "Catholic" status is just a label. I see many people in Malaysia that are practically Christians, but have "Islam" status in their citizenship cards because of discrimination to the ex-Muslim converts in the country. The same thing may apply to some Catholics.

However, folks, this kind of case whereby a "Catholic" is a Christian is very unlikely to happen. A person, if saved and a Christian, knows the truth of salvation (except if he is an infant). For practising Catholics, do you really think they are Christians if everytime they think they are born again, it is because they are baptized (sprinkled)? Or, do you think they are Christians if everytime they think they received Jesus as Lord and Savior, it is because they eat the wafer god?

Second: I agree that the Catholics are no different with the liberal "Protestants". There is such a thing as true converts and false converts. (See Ray Comfort video for that one)

Third: If we have to classify Roman Catholicism as a Christian church, I think we have to define what Christianity means. My belief of Christianity is the biblical teaching of Jesus and the Bible. The "Christianity" mentioned everywhere else and the more common one is a collection of my biblical Christianity and the so-called pseudo-Christianity. Even if we have to choose the more common "Christianity" as the definition, I hope the term is defined first. Otherwise, some people including me will be upset with the statement like "Christianity comprises you-know-what".

[[User:MaveYEL]]

Talk:Roman Catholicism

2008-05-01T02:20:43Z

MaveYEL: /* Are Roman Catholics Christians? */

==This is a rough start and others will need to help==
I'm out of my depth here. I really wanted to write something that explains that "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" are not synonyms. I think what I've written is sorta-kinda-roughly correct, and I'm not knowingly trying to push any particular point of view. If I've inadvertently stepped on any Roman Catholic, Orthodox, or Anglican toes here, my apologies, and please fix whatever I've gotten wrong. (Try to keep it "as simple as possible, but no simpler.") [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:15, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Generally, catholic (lowercase) means "universal", whereas Catholic refers to the RCC, by default. If speaking of an Orthodox Catholic church usually it's denoted as to which branch is being discussed. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 13:39, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, "Catholic" doesn't refer to the Roman Catholic Church. The "Roman Catholic Church" refers to a specific Rite of the Catholic Church. It's the largest rite, by far, but is not the only rite in the Catholic Church. (These rites are also distinct from the Orthodox Churches. They have little to do with the Great Schism.) I'll try to see if I can clean this up a bit. As it now stands, it's more wrong than right. [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 22:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::In the last edit, we lost the information about non-Roman and non-Latin rites:
::''Catholics, on the other hand, believe that the Roman Catholic Church, as the single true church founded by Christ, is the universal Catholic Church. Some prefer not to refer to their own church as the "Roman" Catholic Church, on the grounds that such formulations implicitly deny this point of doctrine.''
::I'd argue that it's not the ''Roman'' Catholic Church that is the single true church, but, rather, the ''Catholic'' Church. I understand that in the US (and in the west, in general) the two terms seem interchangeable, but I'd rather not lose the distinction between Roman Catholic and Catholic.[[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 03:01, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Moved here, until sourced:
:Findings of an investigation determined that sexual abuse of children could probably be almost halved if women were allowed to be ordained in the church.
I've never seen any such study, and I'm not sure how it would even be determined. I also changed hebephilia to ephebophilia, which is more commonly used (both words mean an attraction towards adolescents). [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 22:06, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

==Lone sentence==

:Roman Catholics claim to be the apostolic successors of Saint Peter, who was given authority over his flock in the Bible.

Can this be merged? Was at [[Roman Catholics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:35, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:This should be attributed to the Pope, not specifically to Catholics themselves.[[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 10:14, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

<s>==Second Vatican Council==
This should be its own subsection as "The Church" prior and post to the Council were almost two different churches?[[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 10:15, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
</s>

Oops, wrote too soon, I didn't realize the "Roman Catholic Church" article already existed.[[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 10:16, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

==Controversy?==
I dont know if it is so smart to put that in yet. I mean like put some factual stuff then put in the controversy, because making an article negative is not very appeasing to a reader. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 08:41, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

What do you expect on this site? Conservapedia has a deeply unhealthy obsession with paedophiles and gay sex. Really makes me worried about a lot of the editors. --[[User:Bible Mike|Bible Mike]] 10:27, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

lol i do not have an obsession witht that. that is nasty. ew why would you ever say that? --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 10:29, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

This paragraph is just a bad copy of wikipedia and media, in their obvious attempt to discredit the Roman Catholic church and the worthy work in education of children. Child abuse is a mortally sin, no doubt and deserves severe prosecution, but where are the facts showing that child abuse happens more often by catholic clergymen than by other teachers or male relatives? --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 18:09, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

==Requirements==
Currently, the article states:
:To belong to the Catholic Church one must accept as factually true the gospel of our lord Jesus Christ. "The chief teachings of the Catholic church are: God’s objective existence; God’s interest in individual human beings, who can enter into relations with God (through prayer); the Trinity; the divinity of Jesus; the immortality of the soul of each human being, each one being accountable at death for his or her actions in life, with the award of heaven or hell; the resurrection of the dead; the historicity of the Gospels; and the divine commission of the church. In addition the Roman Catholic Church stresses that since the members, living and dead, share in each other’s merits, the Virgin Mary and other saints and the dead in purgatory are never forgotten."

I might argue some of those points. Primarily, to be Catholic is to be baptized (including, possibly, a baptism of faith) and to participate in the sacraments. I'd accept creedal statements along the lines of the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed as possible requirements of faith. Belief in the existence of God, sure. In Jesus, in his death and resurrection, sure. In the resurrection of the body, in the communion of saints in life everlasting, sure. But the historicity of the Gospels? The divine commission of the Church? Sure, these are things that are taught by the Church. But I don't know that they're necessary to being Catholic. (I'm not sure why one would be Catholic if one didn't believe the divine commission of the Church, but still...) And, more importantly, I'd say that to belong to the Catholic Church is to participate in the sacraments--to receive the Eucharist, to be baptized, to be reconciled to God, and so on. The church is at least as much a sacramental church as a creedal church (and, I'd argue, it's more a sacramental church than a creedal church). [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 23:34, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Catholics not as Christians? ==
Do we really need that part? It just doesn't really sound very encyclopedic. According to two websites Catholics aren't Christians, but according to some other websites out there aliens are secretly in control of the government. I feel I have to raise a question concerning that bit. Recomend it is deleted, or the contention be in some way justified.[[User:Jnl001|Jnl001]] 14:49, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

== Roman Catholicism ==

The Title of this Entry should actually be Latin Rite Catholicism. The Latin Rite ("Roman Catholic")Church does not actually identify itself as "Roman Catholic", it Calls itself the "Latin Rite" of the "Catholic Church"

This said their needs to be a separate entry for "Catholicism".

{{unsigned|Pyranima}}

== Are Roman Catholics Christians? ==

Now, I have been thinking about this for some time. As seen from many sources like Wikipedia, the Roman Catholics are indeed Christian. However, according to many Christian fundamentalist sources, the Roman Catholics are not Christian because they believe in many unbiblical things such as the infant baptism, sacraments, Mary worship, etc.

My question is, should the articles in Conservapedia concerning Christianity have the idea that Christianity is really a "biblical, based-on-the-Bible Christianity", not just a religion whose people are Christians just because they say "We are Christians"?

(To any born-again Christians, you may understand my question)

{{User:MaveYEL}}
: I understand the question. Whether or not someone is a Christian depends on their own relationship with God, not on what church they belong to. Also, probably no Christian has a perfect set of beliefs: probably every Christian believes ''something'' that is contrary to biblical teaching. So "believing many unbiblical things" does not, of itself, mean that someone is not a Christian.
: I would classify the Roman Catholic Church as "Christian", because it holds that Jesus is God, but I would also think that ''many'' people who are members of the church are not Christians, partly because many are members of the church out of tradition rather than conversion, and partly because there is insufficient emphasis on faith-based conversion. But that doesn't mean that there are not (many?) Christians in the Roman Catholic church.
: I feel that some "fundamentalist" Christians are too harsh on Catholics, although that is not to dismiss their valid objections to many Catholic teachings, such as the ones you mention. And I would ask, is the Catholic church any worse than many liberal churches that reject the historicity of the creation account, accept homosexuality, reject miracles, etc. etc.? I do feel that there is a fair bit of inconsistency there.
: Does Conservapedia handle this issue the best way it can? Probably not, but then Conservapedia's not perfect either!
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:22, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

(This is a discussion that may take a long time and much effort. I try not to talk too much on it, although I would like to clarify all doubts in this issue)

Hmm, here is my answer.

First: I do believe that some Catholics may be indeed Christians, that is receiving Jesus as their own personal Savior, as many Protestant fundamentalists say. However, if a Catholic is a Christian, his "Catholic" status is just a label. I see many people in Malaysia that are practically Christians, but have "Islam" status in their citizenship cards because of discrimination to the ex-Muslim converts in the country. The same thing may apply to some Catholics.

However, folks, this kind of case whereby a "Catholic" is a Christian is very unlikely to happen. A person, if saved and a Christian, knows the truth of salvation (except if he is an infant). For practising Catholics, do you really think they are Christians if everytime they think they are born again, it is because they are baptized (sprinkled)? Or, do you think they are Christians if everytime they think they received Jesus as Lord and Savior, it is because they eat the wafer god?

Second: I agree that the Catholics are no different with the liberal "Protestants". There is such a thing as true converts and false converts. (See Ray Comfort video for that one)

Third: If we have to classify Roman Catholicism as a Christian church, I think we have to define what Christianity means. My belief of Christianity is the biblical teaching of Jesus and the Bible. The "Christianity" mentioned everywhere else and the more common one is a collection of my biblical Christianity and the so-called pseudo-Christianity. Even if we have to choose the more common "Christianity" as the definition, I hope the term is defined first. Otherwise, some people including me will be upset with the statement like "Christianity comprises you-know-what".

{{User:MaveYEL}}

Talk:Roman Catholicism

2008-04-30T13:35:25Z

MaveYEL: /* Are Roman Catholics Christians? */

==This is a rough start and others will need to help==
I'm out of my depth here. I really wanted to write something that explains that "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" are not synonyms. I think what I've written is sorta-kinda-roughly correct, and I'm not knowingly trying to push any particular point of view. If I've inadvertently stepped on any Roman Catholic, Orthodox, or Anglican toes here, my apologies, and please fix whatever I've gotten wrong. (Try to keep it "as simple as possible, but no simpler.") [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:15, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Generally, catholic (lowercase) means "universal", whereas Catholic refers to the RCC, by default. If speaking of an Orthodox Catholic church usually it's denoted as to which branch is being discussed. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 13:39, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, "Catholic" doesn't refer to the Roman Catholic Church. The "Roman Catholic Church" refers to a specific Rite of the Catholic Church. It's the largest rite, by far, but is not the only rite in the Catholic Church. (These rites are also distinct from the Orthodox Churches. They have little to do with the Great Schism.) I'll try to see if I can clean this up a bit. As it now stands, it's more wrong than right. [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 22:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::In the last edit, we lost the information about non-Roman and non-Latin rites:
::''Catholics, on the other hand, believe that the Roman Catholic Church, as the single true church founded by Christ, is the universal Catholic Church. Some prefer not to refer to their own church as the "Roman" Catholic Church, on the grounds that such formulations implicitly deny this point of doctrine.''
::I'd argue that it's not the ''Roman'' Catholic Church that is the single true church, but, rather, the ''Catholic'' Church. I understand that in the US (and in the west, in general) the two terms seem interchangeable, but I'd rather not lose the distinction between Roman Catholic and Catholic.[[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 03:01, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Moved here, until sourced:
:Findings of an investigation determined that sexual abuse of children could probably be almost halved if women were allowed to be ordained in the church.
I've never seen any such study, and I'm not sure how it would even be determined. I also changed hebephilia to ephebophilia, which is more commonly used (both words mean an attraction towards adolescents). [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 22:06, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

==Lone sentence==

:Roman Catholics claim to be the apostolic successors of Saint Peter, who was given authority over his flock in the Bible.

Can this be merged? Was at [[Roman Catholics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:35, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:This should be attributed to the Pope, not specifically to Catholics themselves.[[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 10:14, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

<s>==Second Vatican Council==
This should be its own subsection as "The Church" prior and post to the Council were almost two different churches?[[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 10:15, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
</s>

Oops, wrote too soon, I didn't realize the "Roman Catholic Church" article already existed.[[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 10:16, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

==Controversy?==
I dont know if it is so smart to put that in yet. I mean like put some factual stuff then put in the controversy, because making an article negative is not very appeasing to a reader. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 08:41, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

What do you expect on this site? Conservapedia has a deeply unhealthy obsession with paedophiles and gay sex. Really makes me worried about a lot of the editors. --[[User:Bible Mike|Bible Mike]] 10:27, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

lol i do not have an obsession witht that. that is nasty. ew why would you ever say that? --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 10:29, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

This paragraph is just a bad copy of wikipedia and media, in their obvious attempt to discredit the Roman Catholic church and the worthy work in education of children. Child abuse is a mortally sin, no doubt and deserves severe prosecution, but where are the facts showing that child abuse happens more often by catholic clergymen than by other teachers or male relatives? --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 18:09, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

==Requirements==
Currently, the article states:
:To belong to the Catholic Church one must accept as factually true the gospel of our lord Jesus Christ. "The chief teachings of the Catholic church are: God’s objective existence; God’s interest in individual human beings, who can enter into relations with God (through prayer); the Trinity; the divinity of Jesus; the immortality of the soul of each human being, each one being accountable at death for his or her actions in life, with the award of heaven or hell; the resurrection of the dead; the historicity of the Gospels; and the divine commission of the church. In addition the Roman Catholic Church stresses that since the members, living and dead, share in each other’s merits, the Virgin Mary and other saints and the dead in purgatory are never forgotten."

I might argue some of those points. Primarily, to be Catholic is to be baptized (including, possibly, a baptism of faith) and to participate in the sacraments. I'd accept creedal statements along the lines of the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed as possible requirements of faith. Belief in the existence of God, sure. In Jesus, in his death and resurrection, sure. In the resurrection of the body, in the communion of saints in life everlasting, sure. But the historicity of the Gospels? The divine commission of the Church? Sure, these are things that are taught by the Church. But I don't know that they're necessary to being Catholic. (I'm not sure why one would be Catholic if one didn't believe the divine commission of the Church, but still...) And, more importantly, I'd say that to belong to the Catholic Church is to participate in the sacraments--to receive the Eucharist, to be baptized, to be reconciled to God, and so on. The church is at least as much a sacramental church as a creedal church (and, I'd argue, it's more a sacramental church than a creedal church). [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 23:34, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Catholics not as Christians? ==
Do we really need that part? It just doesn't really sound very encyclopedic. According to two websites Catholics aren't Christians, but according to some other websites out there aliens are secretly in control of the government. I feel I have to raise a question concerning that bit. Recomend it is deleted, or the contention be in some way justified.[[User:Jnl001|Jnl001]] 14:49, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

== Roman Catholicism ==

The Title of this Entry should actually be Latin Rite Catholicism. The Latin Rite ("Roman Catholic")Church does not actually identify itself as "Roman Catholic", it Calls itself the "Latin Rite" of the "Catholic Church"

This said their needs to be a separate entry for "Catholicism".

{{unsigned|Pyranima}}

== Are Roman Catholics Christians? ==

Now, I have been thinking about this for some time. As seen from many sources like Wikipedia, the Roman Catholics are indeed Christian. However, according to many Christian fundamentalist sources, the Roman Catholics are not Christian because they believe in many unbiblical things such as the infant baptism, sacraments, Mary worship, etc.

My question is, should the articles in Conservapedia concerning Christianity have the idea that Christianity is really a "biblical, based-on-the-Bible Christianity", not just a religion whose people are Christians just because they say "We are Christians"?

(To any born-again Christians, you may understand my question)

{{User:MaveYEL|MaveYEL}}
: I understand the question. Whether or not someone is a Christian depends on their own relationship with God, not on what church they belong to. Also, probably no Christian has a perfect set of beliefs: probably every Christian believes ''something'' that is contrary to biblical teaching. So "believing many unbiblical things" does not, of itself, mean that someone is not a Christian.
: I would classify the Roman Catholic Church as "Christian", because it holds that Jesus is God, but I would also think that ''many'' people who are members of the church are not Christians, partly because many are members of the church out of tradition rather than conversion, and partly because there is insufficient emphasis on faith-based conversion. But that doesn't mean that there are not (many?) Christians in the Roman Catholic church.
: I feel that some "fundamentalist" Christians are too harsh on Catholics, although that is not to dismiss their valid objections to many Catholic teachings, such as the ones you mention. And I would ask, is the Catholic church any worse than many liberal churches that reject the historicity of the creation account, accept homosexuality, reject miracles, etc. etc.? I do feel that there is a fair bit of inconsistency there.
: Does Conservapedia handle this issue the best way it can? Probably not, but then Conservapedia's not perfect either!
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:22, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

(This is a discussion that may take a long time and much effort. I try not to talk too much on it, although I would like to clarify all doubts in this issue)

Hmm, here is my answer.

First: I do believe that some Catholics may be indeed Christians, that is receiving Jesus as their own personal Savior, as many Protestant fundamentalists say. However, if a Catholic is a Christian, his "Catholic" status is just a label. I see many people in Malaysia that are practically Christians, but have "Islam" status in their citizenship cards because of discrimination to the ex-Muslim converts in the country. The same thing may apply to some Catholics.

However, folks, this kind of case whereby a "Catholic" is a Christian is very unlikely to happen. A person, if saved and a Christian, knows the truth of salvation (except if he is an infant). For practising Catholics, do you really think they are Christians if everytime they think they are born again, it is because they are baptized (sprinkled)? Or, do you think they are Christians if everytime they think they received Jesus as Lord and Savior, it is because they eat the wafer god?

Second: I agree that the Catholics are no different with the liberal "Protestants". There is such a thing as true converts and false converts. (See Ray Comfort video for that one)

Third: If we have to classify Roman Catholicism as a Christian church, I think we have to define what Christianity means. My belief of Christianity is the biblical teaching of Jesus and the Bible. The "Christianity" mentioned everywhere else and the more common one is a collection of my biblical Christianity and the so-called pseudo-Christianity. Even if we have to choose the more common "Christianity" as the definition, I hope the term is defined first. Otherwise, some people including me will be upset with the statement like "Christianity comprises you-know-what".

{{User:MaveYEL|MaveYEL}}

Talk:Roman Catholicism

2008-04-30T13:34:52Z

MaveYEL: /* Are Roman Catholics Christians? */

==This is a rough start and others will need to help==
I'm out of my depth here. I really wanted to write something that explains that "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" are not synonyms. I think what I've written is sorta-kinda-roughly correct, and I'm not knowingly trying to push any particular point of view. If I've inadvertently stepped on any Roman Catholic, Orthodox, or Anglican toes here, my apologies, and please fix whatever I've gotten wrong. (Try to keep it "as simple as possible, but no simpler.") [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:15, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Generally, catholic (lowercase) means "universal", whereas Catholic refers to the RCC, by default. If speaking of an Orthodox Catholic church usually it's denoted as to which branch is being discussed. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 13:39, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, "Catholic" doesn't refer to the Roman Catholic Church. The "Roman Catholic Church" refers to a specific Rite of the Catholic Church. It's the largest rite, by far, but is not the only rite in the Catholic Church. (These rites are also distinct from the Orthodox Churches. They have little to do with the Great Schism.) I'll try to see if I can clean this up a bit. As it now stands, it's more wrong than right. [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 22:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::In the last edit, we lost the information about non-Roman and non-Latin rites:
::''Catholics, on the other hand, believe that the Roman Catholic Church, as the single true church founded by Christ, is the universal Catholic Church. Some prefer not to refer to their own church as the "Roman" Catholic Church, on the grounds that such formulations implicitly deny this point of doctrine.''
::I'd argue that it's not the ''Roman'' Catholic Church that is the single true church, but, rather, the ''Catholic'' Church. I understand that in the US (and in the west, in general) the two terms seem interchangeable, but I'd rather not lose the distinction between Roman Catholic and Catholic.[[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 03:01, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Moved here, until sourced:
:Findings of an investigation determined that sexual abuse of children could probably be almost halved if women were allowed to be ordained in the church.
I've never seen any such study, and I'm not sure how it would even be determined. I also changed hebephilia to ephebophilia, which is more commonly used (both words mean an attraction towards adolescents). [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 22:06, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

==Lone sentence==

:Roman Catholics claim to be the apostolic successors of Saint Peter, who was given authority over his flock in the Bible.

Can this be merged? Was at [[Roman Catholics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:35, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:This should be attributed to the Pope, not specifically to Catholics themselves.[[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 10:14, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

<s>==Second Vatican Council==
This should be its own subsection as "The Church" prior and post to the Council were almost two different churches?[[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 10:15, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
</s>

Oops, wrote too soon, I didn't realize the "Roman Catholic Church" article already existed.[[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 10:16, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

==Controversy?==
I dont know if it is so smart to put that in yet. I mean like put some factual stuff then put in the controversy, because making an article negative is not very appeasing to a reader. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 08:41, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

What do you expect on this site? Conservapedia has a deeply unhealthy obsession with paedophiles and gay sex. Really makes me worried about a lot of the editors. --[[User:Bible Mike|Bible Mike]] 10:27, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

lol i do not have an obsession witht that. that is nasty. ew why would you ever say that? --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 10:29, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

This paragraph is just a bad copy of wikipedia and media, in their obvious attempt to discredit the Roman Catholic church and the worthy work in education of children. Child abuse is a mortally sin, no doubt and deserves severe prosecution, but where are the facts showing that child abuse happens more often by catholic clergymen than by other teachers or male relatives? --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 18:09, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

==Requirements==
Currently, the article states:
:To belong to the Catholic Church one must accept as factually true the gospel of our lord Jesus Christ. "The chief teachings of the Catholic church are: God’s objective existence; God’s interest in individual human beings, who can enter into relations with God (through prayer); the Trinity; the divinity of Jesus; the immortality of the soul of each human being, each one being accountable at death for his or her actions in life, with the award of heaven or hell; the resurrection of the dead; the historicity of the Gospels; and the divine commission of the church. In addition the Roman Catholic Church stresses that since the members, living and dead, share in each other’s merits, the Virgin Mary and other saints and the dead in purgatory are never forgotten."

I might argue some of those points. Primarily, to be Catholic is to be baptized (including, possibly, a baptism of faith) and to participate in the sacraments. I'd accept creedal statements along the lines of the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed as possible requirements of faith. Belief in the existence of God, sure. In Jesus, in his death and resurrection, sure. In the resurrection of the body, in the communion of saints in life everlasting, sure. But the historicity of the Gospels? The divine commission of the Church? Sure, these are things that are taught by the Church. But I don't know that they're necessary to being Catholic. (I'm not sure why one would be Catholic if one didn't believe the divine commission of the Church, but still...) And, more importantly, I'd say that to belong to the Catholic Church is to participate in the sacraments--to receive the Eucharist, to be baptized, to be reconciled to God, and so on. The church is at least as much a sacramental church as a creedal church (and, I'd argue, it's more a sacramental church than a creedal church). [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 23:34, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Catholics not as Christians? ==
Do we really need that part? It just doesn't really sound very encyclopedic. According to two websites Catholics aren't Christians, but according to some other websites out there aliens are secretly in control of the government. I feel I have to raise a question concerning that bit. Recomend it is deleted, or the contention be in some way justified.[[User:Jnl001|Jnl001]] 14:49, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

== Roman Catholicism ==

The Title of this Entry should actually be Latin Rite Catholicism. The Latin Rite ("Roman Catholic")Church does not actually identify itself as "Roman Catholic", it Calls itself the "Latin Rite" of the "Catholic Church"

This said their needs to be a separate entry for "Catholicism".

{{unsigned|Pyranima}}

== Are Roman Catholics Christians? ==

Now, I have been thinking about this for some time. As seen from many sources like Wikipedia, the Roman Catholics are indeed Christian. However, according to many Christian fundamentalist sources, the Roman Catholics are not Christian because they believe in many unbiblical things such as the infant baptism, sacraments, Mary worship, etc.

My question is, should the articles in Conservapedia concerning Christianity have the idea that Christianity is really a "biblical, based-on-the-Bible Christianity", not just a religion whose people are Christians just because they say "We are Christians"?

(To any born-again Christians, you may understand my question)

{{User:MaveYEL|MaveYEL}}
: I understand the question. Whether or not someone is a Christian depends on their own relationship with God, not on what church they belong to. Also, probably no Christian has a perfect set of beliefs: probably every Christian believes ''something'' that is contrary to biblical teaching. So "believing many unbiblical things" does not, of itself, mean that someone is not a Christian.
: I would classify the Roman Catholic Church as "Christian", because it holds that Jesus is God, but I would also think that ''many'' people who are members of the church are not Christians, partly because many are members of the church out of tradition rather than conversion, and partly because there is insufficient emphasis on faith-based conversion. But that doesn't mean that there are not (many?) Christians in the Roman Catholic church.
: I feel that some "fundamentalist" Christians are too harsh on Catholics, although that is not to dismiss their valid objections to many Catholic teachings, such as the ones you mention. And I would ask, is the Catholic church any worse than many liberal churches that reject the historicity of the creation account, accept homosexuality, reject miracles, etc. etc.? I do feel that there is a fair bit of inconsistency there.
: Does Conservapedia handle this issue the best way it can? Probably not, but then Conservapedia's not perfect either!
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:22, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

(This is a discussion that may take a long time and much effort. I try not to talk too much on it, although I would like to clarify all doubts in this issue)

Hmm, here is my answer.

First: I do believe that some Catholics may be indeed Christians, that is receiving Jesus as their own personal Savior, as many Protestant fundamentalists say. However, if a Catholic is a Christian, his "Catholic" status is just a label. I see many people in Malaysia that are practically Christians, but have "Islam" status in their citizenship cards because of discrimination to the ex-Muslim converts in the country. The same thing may apply to some Catholics.

However, folks, this kind of case whereby a "Catholic" is a Christian is very unlikely to happen. A person, if saved and a Christian, knows the truth of salvation (except if he is an infant). For practising Catholics, do you really think they are Christians if everytime they think they are born again, it is because they are baptized (sprinkled)? Or, do you think they are Christians if everytime they think they received Jesus as Lord and Savior, it is because they eat the wafer god?

Second: I agree that the Catholics are no different with the liberal "Protestants". There is such a thing as true converts and false converts. (See Ray Comfort video for that one)

Third: If we have to classify Roman Catholicism as a Christian church, I think we have to define what Christianity means. My belief of Christianity is the biblical teaching of Jesus and the Bible. The "Christianity" mentioned everywhere else and the more common one is a collection of my biblical Christianity and the so-called pseudo-Christianity. Even if we have to choose the more common "Christianity" as the definition, I hope the term is defined first. Otherwise, some people including me will be upset with the statement like "Christianity comprises you-know-what".

User:MaveYEL

2008-04-30T13:12:40Z

MaveYEL: New page: Hello! I am "MaveYEL". I joined Conservapedia to contribute in spreading conservative messages and articles through the internet. The thing that inspired me in making a free online encycl...

Hello! I am "MaveYEL". I joined Conservapedia to contribute in spreading conservative messages and articles through the internet.

The thing that inspired me in making a free online encyclopedia or at least contributing something in a free encyclopedia-styled source of information was Wikipedia. Although Wikipedia is much better than any other internet encyclopedias in many cases, Wikipedia tends to be biased on majority opinions, such as liberalism and evolution (pseudo)science. Although I do contribute to Wikipedia a little bit, mainly because it is to pay back for what I have learned from its articles, I do not think Wikipedia can really be fixed into a neutral encyclopedia with its evolution lies removed.

Conservapedia, as the slogan implies, may really be "the trustworthy encyclopedia". However, it still has a long way to go to become a very reliable source of information because I have seen some articles with blatant lies. Even so, if it is still possible, I will do my best in providing Conservapedia with good knowledge so that it can teach the world with truth that will set the people free from bondage of not knowing the facts of life.

May God bless you and the LORD Jesus leads you to His way to life.

MaveYEL

Kent Hovind

2008-04-27T05:17:39Z

MaveYEL: /* Controversy */

'''Dr. Kent Hovind''' (born 1953), called "Dr. Dino" because his expertise is in dinosaurs, is a prominent and controversial [[Young Earth Creationism|young Earth creationist]].
He founded [[Creation Science Evangelism Ministry]] in 1989<ref>http://www.drdino.com/</ref> and has a doctoral degree in Christian education from [[Patriot University]].

In 2001, Hovind opened a theme park in Pensacola, Florida called [[Dinosaur Adventure Land]], filled with exhibits putting forth a case for Young Earth Creationism.

== Controversy ==

Critics of Hovind question the quality of his doctoral thesis and the academic standards of the university from which he received it, believing both to be subpar for institutions of higher learning.<ref>[http://chem.tufts.edu/science/Stear-NoAiG/no-AiG/bartelt_dissertation_on_hovind_thesis.htm Karen Bartelt, Ph.D. "The Dissertation Kent Hovind Doesn't Want You To Read."]</ref>

Hovind has been criticized by fellow Young Earth Creationists for repeatedly using arguments that are unsound both Biblically and scientifically.<ref>Wieland, Carl, Ham, Ken, and Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2571/ Maintaining Creationist Integrity] October 2002</ref>

He is currently serving a ten-year term in U.S. federal prison for 58 tax offenses, obstructing federal agents and related charges.<ref>''"10 years for 'Dr. Dino'"'', Michael Stewart. Pensacola News Journal, 19 January 19, 2007</ref>
Hovind has maintained that there should have been no taxes because he runs a religious organization.

Dr. Hovind and his son, Eric Hovind, had released a set of videos titled "Answering the Critics" whereby he and his son answered some commonly found criticism of himself, usually from the internet. Dr. Hovind claimed he did not want to answer all the critics because he believed many critics criticise him without wanting to get any answers from him, so it is best to ignore them and continue preaching to those who really want to listen.

== $250,000 Offer ==

Hovind is well known for his standing US$250,000 offer to anyone who can "prove evolution".<ref>http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=67</ref>
The offer has gone unclaimed.
Contributors at [[Talk.origins|TalkOrigins]], a pro-evolution web-site, have pointed out that Hovind's challenge includes not just biological evolution but also [[abiogenesis]], [[cosmology]] and other things, and have claimed that the challenge is worded in a way that makes it impossible to fulfill since it requires proving the negative statement that "evolution" is the only possible explanation for the existence of life.<ref>Isaak, Mark, (Ed.) [http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA341.html Claim CA341], 2006</ref>
==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Hovind, Kent}}

[[Category:Young Earth Creationists]]

Talk:Roman Catholicism

2008-04-27T05:12:14Z

MaveYEL:

Talk:Roman Catholicism

2008-04-27T05:11:26Z

MaveYEL: Are Roman Catholics Christian?

Singapore

2008-04-27T04:54:41Z

MaveYEL: /* History */

[[Image:Singaporeflag.gif|thumb|100px|Singapore flag]]'''Singapore''' (Malay: ''Singa'' (lion) + ''pura'' (city)) is a small island state situated at the southern tip of the Malay peninsula. Its population of about 4 million people is 76% ethnic Chinese, 14% Malay, 7% Indian and 3% others.

==History==
Singapore was an ignored, swampy island with only a few fishing villages until 1819 when Sir Stamford Raffles of the British [[East India Company]] was given permision to establish a trading station by the Sultan of Johor. Raffles had spotted its strategic location as a crossroads on the shipping routes to the East and set about turning the island into a free trading station.<ref>[http://www.visitsingapore.com/publish/stbportal/en/home/about_singapore/brief_history.html] Uniquely Singapore - Brief History</ref> Alongside the British colonial presence it attracted many entrepeneurs from China, India and the Middle East and within 5 years the population rose from 150 to 10,000. In 1824 the British bought the island outright from the Sultan. Following the Anglo-Dutch treaty of 1824, the [[Dutch]], who had largely been the dominant colonial power in south-east Asia, withdrew any objections to the British occupation.

The British tended to congregate round the river waterfront and many grand buildings in the Palladian style were built largely with the help of Irish architect George Coleman.<ref>Visitors' Guide to Singapore, 13th Edition, 2006/7, pp.20-21</ref> With the opening of the [[Suez Canal]] in 1869, the invention of steamships and the laying of long-distance telegraph cables Singapore became increasingly important as a port and trading centre.

At the outbreak of [[World War II]], Singapore was regarded as a well-defended base for the Allies in the Far-East. However, on February 15, 1942 Singapore fell to the [[Japanese]] after six-days of fighting. The occupation of the next three and a half years was brutal with many atrocities and war-crimes being committed. The island was renamed Syonan (Light of the South) until the defeat of Japan. The occupying forces formally surrendered to the British at the Changi prison-camp in September 1945.

In 1946, Singapore became a British Crown Colony. However, the communist insurgency in Malaya of 1948 put Singapore in a state of emergency for 12 years. There was a rise of nationalism during the 1950s as the merchant classes wanted to have a say in government and in 1959 Singapore was granted self-government under the leadership of Lee Kuan Yew. In 1963 Singapore merged with Federated Malaya and the Borneo states of Sarawak and North Borneo (Sabah) to create Malaysia. The third Borneo state of Brunei opted for independence. This merger was actively opposed by the neigbouring states of Indonesia and the Philippines. The union did not last long, owing to ideological differences between Lee Kuan Yee's PAP (People's Action Party) and the federal government in Kuala Lumpur. Singapore was obliged to withdraw and became a sovereign, independent nation on August 9, 1965.

With only a small land mass and limited natural resources Singapore was forced to industrialize and develop its technical prowess alongside its trading role. Government policies emphasized the role of education, especially in computer science.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Asian Countries]]

Gun control

2008-04-27T04:52:16Z

MaveYEL: /* Gun control outside the USA */

'''Gun control''' laws restrict the purchase or ownership of guns, a weapon acquired mostly for defensive or sporting purposes. Gun control is unique among social programs in increasing the emotional and physical dependency of ''all'' voters on government. It is often promoted by [[liberal]]s.

Gun control is a denial by [[government]]s of the right to armed [[self-defense]].<ref name="Washington University Law Quarterly"> "In contrast to most other weaponry, firearms are preeminently defensive in effect." [http://ls.wustl.edu/WULQ/75-3/753-4.html Washington University Law Quarterly]</ref>

Proponents use the discredited - but superficially appealing - claim that fewer lawfully-owned guns leads to less crime.<ref>Gun control primarily restricts the lawful acquisition and use of guns. Over 99% of the guns restricted by most gun control regulation are used in a lawful manner.</ref> Because gun control increases the dependence of voters on government, its political effect is to shift the electorate leftward and its primary supporters are leftists.<ref>[http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes/repeal.html Quotes of Leftists Demanding Gun Control]</ref> In [[England]], which already has the strictest gun control in Europe, [[leftists]] demand control over 120,000 ''deactivated'' guns, even though their activation and use constitute only 0.04% of all gun offenses there. <ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3168607.ece]</ref>

== The Fallacy and Motivation for Gun Control ==
Gun control potentially causes an increase in crime by restricting its main deterrent: [[self-defense]]. In the United States, law-abiding uses of guns outnumber criminal uses by at least a factor of 100 to 1, and the removal of guns from everyone eliminates the lawful use of self-defense and its deterrent effect. "[[Americans]] use firearms to defend themselves from criminals at least 764,000 times a year."<ref name="Gallup_LAT">"This figure is the lowest among a group of 9 nationwide surveys done by organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times." (Just Facts - [http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp Gun Control])</ref> Specific examples of guns being used successfully in [[self-defense]] are easy to find.<ref>Two 70-ish store owners stopped armed robberies of their stores by shooting at the bandits. "The person came in and pointed the gun at him and my father shot him. I'm proud of him." [http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/buffaloerie/story/253849.html Buffalo News]</ref> "In 1982, a survey of imprisoned criminals found that 34% of them had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim."<ref name="Gallup_LAT"/> When [[Florida]] began allowing its citizens to carry a concealed weapon, [[Florida]]'s firearm homicide rate fell by 37% while the national average ''increased'' by 15%.<ref name="Gallup_LAT"/> As explained below, the political effect of gun control is to cause voters to become more dependent emotionally on government and more supportive of bigger government.

Studies by [[John Lott]] and others indicate that gun control causes higher crime rates.<ref>[http://www.johnrlott.com/ John Lott's Website]</ref> [[Washington, D.C.]] has one of the highest crime rates in [[America]] even though it completely bans private handguns.<ref>[http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm District of Columbia Crime Rates 1960 - 2006]</ref> "Switzerland, Israel, Denmark and Finland, all of whom have a higher gun ownership rate than America, all have lower crime rates than America, in fact, their crime rates are among the lowest in the Western World."<ref>Slashdoc - [http://www.slashdoc.com/documents/71244 gun control]</ref> Lott demonstrates that in [[Britain]], [[Australia]] and [[Canada]], increased gun control in the late 1990s led to increased crime, the exact opposite of what the proponents of the gun control promised.<ref>John R. Lott Jr. and Eli Lehrer - [http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/IBDGunConFailure.html Add Gun Control To Litany Of Misbegotten Gov't Plans]</ref> States in the [[U.S.]] that have enacted concealed-carry laws enjoy lower crime rates.<ref>[http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4706 Cato report]</ref>

[[image:Robbery victims per 100K.png|300px|thumb|Source data: Australian Bureau of Statistics]]
In [[Australia]], where gun ownership was less widespread and the gun control measures were less strict, there was an immediate increase in robbery and armed robbery after the gun control went into effect in 1996 (see chart at right).<ref>Gun control passed in Australia because "public was immediately whipped into a gun control frenzy by the press" after the "Port Arthur massacre" in Tasmania on April 28, 1996, in which 32 were shot dead and 19 injured. "Although polls done prior to the massacre indicated that the public was satisfied with the amount of 'gun control' they already had, a major newspaper did a poll just a few days after the massacre (while all minds were "clear") and, not surprisingly, found high levels of support for extreme gun control measures. This poll would be used forever by the commonwealth government and other gun controllers to claim that Australians supported the new gun laws to come." - [http://www.gunsandcrime.org/aussiegc.html Gun Control in Australia] (by gunsandcrime.org)</ref>
There is no clear evidence supporting a decrease in crime from gun control.<ref name="Results">[http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html Results of the Australian Gun "Buyback" & New Gun Laws], October 2001</ref><ref>[http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/azl084v1 Study showing lack of promised benefits from gun control]</ref>

Subsequent to gun control in England:<ref>http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html</ref>

:"from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now [as of 2002] six times greater than in New York. England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America's, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world's crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people."<ref>However this increase in recorded violent crime between 1997 and 2001 is explained by the Home Office as a result of changes in the definition of violent crime and new counting rules introduced in 1998. [http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/rdsolr1804.pdf Violent Crime in England and Wales] According to the British Crime Survey, which is considered a more reliable guide to trends in crime[http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/crime-statistics-independent-review-06.pdf], violent crime fell 24% between 1997 and 2001/02, and burglary fell 40% over the same period.[http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hosb1105tab201.xls Trends in BCS incidents of crime]</ref>

Gun control in [[Britain]] and [[Australia]] has been followed by a predictable shift to the left politically by voters as they lost their instrument of self-defense and became more emotionally dependent on government. In [[Britain]], for example, the enactment of a ban on most handguns in February 1997<ref>As in Australia, gun control passed in [[Britain]] based on a highly publicized but isolated and statistically insignificant act of violence.</ref> directly resulted in the [[Labour Party]] winning a landslide 179 seat majority in the general election later that year, the first time it exceeded 40% of the popular vote in over 25 years. The new government soon extended the ban to cover nearly all handguns, and the [[Labour Party]] has remained in power in [[Britain]] for over a decade. In [[Australia]],the passage of gun control in 1996 and its expansion in 2002 has led to a complete takeover of all nine federal, state and territory legislatures by the Labor Party, the first time a single party has ever achieved this in Australian history.<ref>The Sydney Morning Herald - [http://www.smh.com.au/news/federal-election-2007-news/either-way-its-history-in-the-making/2007/11/23/1195753310949.html Either way, it's history in the making]</ref><ref>ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) - [http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2007/ 2007 Federal Election]</ref> Contrast that with the [[United States]], where an effort to push gun control after the [[Columbine massacre]] failed in 2000 and the government has remained as [[conservative]] -- if not more so -- ever since.

The emasculation of the citizenry by gun control also arguably reduces the resistance of a society to intimidation, and exacerbates fear of consequences from causing offense. Subsequent to the passage of strict gun control in [[England]] some teachers have avoided teaching controversial subjects such as the [[Holocaust]], the Arab-Israeli conflict and the [[Crusades]] during history classes.<ref>[http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RW100.pdf</ref>
Teaching Emotive and Controversial History 3-19] (p.15) The anti-self-defense attitude of British authorities has also turned criminals into "victims" and victims who fight back into "criminals." One particularly egregious case involved a farmer being sentenced to life imprisonment for defending himself in his home after the home was repeatedly burglarized <ref>http://www.theinternetparty.org/commentary/c_s.php?td=200107200000&section_type=com</ref>

== Trends ==

After decades of increasing gun control laws, the current trend in the [[United States]] is in the direction of more gun rights. The 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill included a ban on certain new rifles labeled assault rifles solely because of features of their appearance, and on new high-capacity magazines. This law recently expired and was not renewed by [[Congress]]. Also, Washington D.C.'s gun ban was struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Court of Appeals on March 9, 2007.<ref>The New York Times - [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/washington/09cnd-gun.html?hp Appeals Court Says Gun Ban Violates 2nd Amendment]</ref><ref>The Washington Post - [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/09/AR2007030902416.html D.C.'s Ban On Handguns In Homes Is Thrown Out]</ref>

By removing the deterrent effect of guns, gun control causes dramatic increases in crimes committed with other weapons:<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2656875.stm</ref>

:You are now six times more likely to be mugged in [[London]] than [[New York]]. Why? Because as common law appreciated, not only does an armed individual have the ability to protect himself or herself but criminals are less likely to attack them. They help keep the peace. A study found American burglars fear armed home-owners more than the police. As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England.

Supporters of gun control argue that homicide with guns is much less in [[England]] than in the [[United States]],<ref>In 2005/06, the total number of victims of homicide by shooting (including crossbows) in England and Wales was 50 and there were 212 victims of homicide by sharp instruments. [Home Office Statistical Bulletin - [http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf Homicides, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence 2005/2006][http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb0104.pdf] The data for gun deaths in the United States include guns used in self-defense, as in fending off an assault, robbery or rape, and there were a total of 11,350 gun deaths (including deaths of criminals) in 2005.[US Department of Justice, FBI - [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html Crime in the United States by Volume and Rate per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1986 - 2005]</ref> but that was true even before gun control and is likely due to cultural reasons. "A study comparing New York and London over 200 years found the New York homicide rate consistently five times the London rate, although for most of that period residents of both cities had unrestricted access to firearms. When guns were available in England they were seldom used in crime. A government study for 1890-1892 found an average of one handgun homicide a year in a population of 30 million."<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2656875.stm</ref>

Gun control laws are often seen to conflict with the [[Second Amendment]] to the [[United States Constitution]], which recognizes the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The "right to keep and bear arms" is a right guaranteed to the American citizen by the Bill of Rights through the virtue of a selective reading of said Bill. The phrase "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" precedes the statement, and most federal Courts of Appeals have held that this phrase requires that the "right to bear arms" relates to the collective rights of state militias, as opposed to the individual's rights to have any weapon desired. Just recently, the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit went against nine other circuits in holding that the Second Amendment constitutes an individual right.<ref>The New York Times - [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/10/washington/10gun.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Court Rejects Strict Gun Law as Unconstitutional]</ref><ref>FOX News - [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258067,00.html Appeals Court Strikes Down Washington, D.C. Handgun Ban]</ref>

Only six cities in the [[United States]] ban handguns: [[Washington, D.C.]], [[Chicago]], and four of its suburbs.<ref>David Kopel, "The Democrats and Gun Control," Wall St.J., Page A19, April 17, 2008 [http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB120839466717921537-lMyQjAxMDI4MDE4NzMxOTc0Wj.html]</ref>

==Overview==
"Gun control" can include:

* Restricting which persons can own firearms.
* Restrictions on the number of firearms a person may own, or purchase during a given time period
* Requirements that privately owned firearms be registered with the government.
* Bans on certain types of firearms; for example, "handguns" or assault rifles
* Restrictions on where firearms may be carried, for example into restaurants or post offices
* Requiring a "background check" and/or a "waiting period" to purchase a firearm
* Restricting when and where firearms may be bought and sold, for example banning their sale through the mail
* Requiring licenses or some other form of permission from the government to buy and/or sell a firearm
* Requiring some form of permission from the government to carry a firearm in public, either concealed or openly
* Laws granting special gun rights for some people, for example retired law enforcement officers, which are denied the rest of the public, which was used in several southern states.
* Outright bans on carrying firearms in public
* Outright bans on private possession of firearms, though this has never occurred in the United States

In the United States the three primary federal gun control laws are:
* National Firearms Act (1934)
* Gun Control Act (1968)
* Brady Bill (1993)

These laws have further been amended by other laws such as the Firearms Owners Protection Act (1986) and the Omnibus Crime Bill (1994).

==Constitutional Debate==
The [[Second Amendment]] reads:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Most constitutional scholars agree that since the amendment refers to "the right of the People" instead of the right of the militia, it protects an individual right to own guns. The extent of that right has been debated.

==Racism of gun control==
In the [[United States of America]], gun control has a strong racist origin and reasoning. Before the Civil War ended, State "Slave Codes" prohibited slaves from owning guns. After President [[Abraham Lincoln]] issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, and after the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution abolishing slavery was adopted and the Civil War ended in 1865, States persisted in prohibiting blacks, now freemen, from owning guns under laws renamed "Black Codes." They did so on the basis that blacks were not citizens, and thus did not have the same rights, including the right to keep and bear arms protected in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as whites. This view was specifically articulated by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in its infamous 1857 decision in ''[[Dred Scott v. Sandford]]'' to uphold slavery.

The United States Congress overrode most portions of the Black Codes by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The legislative histories of both the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as The Special Report of the Anti-Slavery Conference of 1867, are replete with denunciations of those particular statutes that denied blacks equal access to firearms. [Kates, "Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment," 82 Mich. L. Rev. 204, 256 (1983)] However, facially neutral disarming through economic means laws remain in effect.

After the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1878, most States turned to "facially neutral" business or transaction taxes on handgun purchases. However, the intention of these laws was not neutral. An article in Virginia's official university law review called for a "prohibitive tax...on the privilege" of selling handguns as a way of disarming "the son of Ham," whose "cowardly practice of 'toting' guns has been one of the most fruitful sources of crime.... Let a negro board a railroad train with a quart of mean whiskey and a pistol in his grip and the chances are that there will be a murder, or at least a row, before he alights."<ref>Comment, Carrying Concealed Weapons, 15 Va L. Reg. 391, 391-92 (1909); George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal (GMU CR LJ), Vol. 2, No. 1, "Gun Control and Racism," Stefan Tahmassebi, 1991, p. 75.</ref> Thus, many Southern States imposed high taxes or banned inexpensive guns so as to price blacks and poor whites out of the gun market.

Today, "gun control" laws continue to be enacted so as to have a racist effect if not intent:

* Police-issued license and permit laws, unless drafted to require issuance to those not prohibited by law from owning guns, are routinely used to prevent lawful gun ownership among "unpopular" populations.
* Public housing residents, approximately 3 million Americans, are singled out for gun bans.
* "Gun sweeps" by police in "high crime neighborhoods" whereby vehicles and "pedestrians who meet a specific profile that might indicate they are carrying a weapon" are searched are becoming popular, and are being studied by the [[U.S. Department of Justice]] as "Operation Ceasefire."
* Some U.S. cities with high minority populations, such as Washington, D.C., are singled out for gun bans.
* "Project Exile" began in the U.S. city of Richmond, Virginia and mandated that people arrested for technical firearms violations (note: not for violent crimes committed with a firearm, but for technical violations of the law) be tried in federal court where they would be subject to lengthy mandatory minimum sentences rather than in state court under the more lenient Virginia laws. As with many other restrictions this was aimed primarily at the city's Black residents. It has since been copied in many other cities.

== Sexism of gun control ==

Firearms, especially lower recoiling ones such as handguns, allow any person to wield enough power to stop another person from attacking them.<ref name="genderDiscrimination1">http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/03/19/firearms-rights-are-a-gender-equality-issue-too/ </ref> Many women (quite reasonably) fear the threat of attack by a physically stronger man, and a firearm could prevent many of these attacks, but gun bans leave these women vulnerable. Take the case of the “North Side Rapist” in Chicago, a city where hand guns are banned, as an example: The rapist broke in to the womens homes, and at least one of the women heard him break in and then climb the stairs. Had this woman had a handgun, she almost certainly could have stopped the rapist before it was too late. This would have prevented her from enduring such a horrific crime, as well as preventing the rapist’s future victims from experiencing the same thing. Instead, Chicago law prevented her from being able to defend herself, and gave the advantage to the rapist/home-invader. This is not an isolated incident, and similar events happen every day across the county.

== Elitism of gun control ==

Many of the most ardent American anti-gun politicians, such as Chicago’s Mayor Daley, are protected by taxpayer-sponsored armed body guards, but deny law abiding citizens the right to defend themselves with a gun. <ref name="classDiscrimination1">http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/04/16/a-double-standard-anti-gun-politicians-and-their-gun-toting-bodyguards/ </ref> These politicians seemingly believe themselves to be part of an elite group who deserve to be protected against violent criminals, while ordinary law-abiding citizens are left with less-effective means to defend themselves, and must instead rely on the police arriving in time.

== Gun control outside the USA ==

Gun control advocates cite foreign countries to argue that gun control can reduce crime, but such comparison can be difficult due to the presence of other factors. For example, they cite [[Singapore]] as having gun control and a lower crime rate than the [[United States]], but Singapore has less than 5 million persons and one of the highest literacy and average wealth in the world. It lacks many of the freedoms found in the [[United States]] and strictly imposes harsh physical punishment, such as caning and the [[death penalty]], for crimes that are not punished so harshly in the [[United States]]. The real issue of the security in Singapore is its tight criminal control, not the gun control itself.

Gun control supporters also cite [[Japan]], where firearms are illegal and crime rates are relatively low. But [[Japan]] also lacks many freedoms and diversity which exist in the [[United States]], and [[Japan]] has strong cultural deterrents to crime. Ironically, [[Japan]] is home to [[Tokyo Marui]], the world's largest [[airsoft]] gun manufacturer, which designs airsoft guns that are made to the same scale and with the same materials as the real counterpart and which have been mistaken by police for real guns.

In the [[European Union]], gun control is more strict than in the United States, but gun ownership differs widely between member states, from 36 per 100 people in [[Cyprus]] to one per 100 in [[Poland]].<ref name="EU">http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/29/europe/union.php EU legislators push tougher gun controls</ref> In November 2007, the [[European Parliament]] passed legislation to tighten and harmonize gun control across the EU, and oblige each member state to set up a computerized database of firearms, as it "hoped to prevent Europe from becoming a gun-friendly culture like the United States".<ref name="EU" /> Parliament wanted to limit cross-border trade from states with less control to those with tougher laws, such as from [[Lithuania]], where replica guns can cost as little as [[Euro|€]]100 (US$150), to the [[United Kingdom]], where all replicas are outlawed.<ref name="EU" />

== Gun Control and Genocide ==

Gun control "contributes to the probability of its government engaging" in [[genocide]], including the three worst instances in the 20th century:<ref>"[A] society's weapons policy might be one of the institutional arrangements that contributes to the probability of its government engaging in some of the more extreme varieties of outrage. ... [I]t is [] an arresting reality that not one of the principal genocides of the twentieth century, and there have been dozens, has been inflicted on a population that was armed." [http://ls.wustl.edu/WULQ/75-3/753-4.html Washington University Law Quarterly]</ref>

*In 1911, [[Turkey]] imposed gun control and then, from 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million defenseless Armenians were killed.

*In 1929, the [[Soviet Union]] imposed gun control and over the next 24 years about 20 million defenseless dissidents were killed.

*In 1938, [[Germany]] imposed gun control and then over the next seven years 13 million defenseless Jews and other victims were exterminated. <ref>[http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/rkba-12.html The True Face of Gun Control], Dean Speir, The Gun Zone RKBA, Accessed December 26, 2007</ref>

"The Nazis made only two important changes to the Weapons Law that was in place when they came to power. First, they forbade Jews from owning guns or any other weapon. Second, they exempted members of the Sturmabteilung (SA) and many Nazi party officials from the law's strictures."<ref name="Washington University Law Quarterly"/> The German Firearms Act of 1937 stated "No civilian is to have a firearm without a permit and permits shall not be issued to persons suspected of acting against the state. ''For Jews, this permission will not be granted.'' Those people who do not require permission to carry weapons include the whole of the SS, and the SA - including the Deaths Head group, and the officers of the Hitler youth." <ref name="Volokh">[http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38d04d5c7c40.htm The Journalist's Guide to Gun Policy Scholars and Second Amendment Scholars], Professor Eugene Volokh, FreeRepublic.com, March 15, 2000</ref>

Adolph Hitler said, "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." <ref name="Volokh" />

== Gun Control and young mass murderers ==

''Main article: [[Young mass murderers]]''

Strict gun control failed and still fails to prevent mass murderers from starting killing sprees while the victims are unable to defend themselves.

Compare the cases of Pekka-Eric Auvinen ([[Finland]]) and Robert Steinhäuser ([[Germany]]) with the case of Matthew Murray. The latter was stopped by an armed citizen before he could harm more victims; Auvinen killed 8 people and Steinhäuser killed 16. Both Finland and Germany have gun control laws.

==Other terms==
Other terms sometimes used by those who are opposed to gun control include:
* Rights restriction
* Victim disarmament

==See Also==
*[[Essay:US Armed Citizens and Crime Control]]
*[[John Lott]]

==External Links==

*[http://www.nra.org/ The National Rifle Association]
*[http://www.nrapublications.org/armed%20citizen/Index.asp Armed citizens defending themselves.]
*[http://www.a-human-right.com/ A Human Right] Discussion of the human right to self defense with a firearm.
*[http://www.learnaboutguns.com/ Learn About Guns] Firearm information and politics from a pro-firearms perspective.
*[http://www.gunowners.org/ Gun Owners of America] A no-compromise pro-gun lobby in Washington, D.C.

==References==

<references/>
[[category:Second Amendment]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]
{{liberalism}}