Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Professor values

2008-04-04T22:14:38Z

McIntyre: It may be a good idea to watch the video before you delete it. Is is possible that you may learn something

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

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

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

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

==Courage and love of life==

Randy Pausch, a professor at Carnegie-Mellon University, gave an extraordinary "last lecture" about living, and achieving one's dreams [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji5_MqicxSo]--[[User:McIntyre|McIntyre]--[[User:McIntyre|McIntyre]] 18:14, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

== Crimes by Professors ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Immoral, Unethical or Bizarre Behavior ==

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

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

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

== References ==

<references/>

== Sources ==

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

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

Professor values

2008-04-04T19:41:01Z

McIntyre: Reposted; it seems some people do not understand what values are

'''Professor values''' refer to the common value system embraced by a large percentage of professors, just as [[Hollywood values]] refers to the common value system of many in Hollywood. For example, an extremely high percentage of professors disagree with [[conservative]] principles.<ref>"90 percent of United States professors called themselves liberal or moderate .[http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol3/iss1/art2/]</ref><ref> [http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=s1153nnhjkhr407r6ng6gjg8pvc8g2s8]</ref> According to some conservatives, professors' common value system typically includes [[atheism]],<ref>For example, the vast majority of philosophy professors are [[atheists]], even after an alleged uptick in [[faith]] [http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=s1153nnhjkhr407r6ng6gjg8pvc8g2s8]</ref> [[censorship]], [[socialism]], unjustified claims of expertise and knowledge (for example, the dogmatic promotion of the [[Theory of Evolution|theory of evolution]]), [[liberаl|liberal]] beliefs,<ref>"90 percent of professors called themselves liberal or moderate." [http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=s1153nnhjkhr407r6ng6gjg8pvc8g2s8]</ref> [[liberal grading]], [[liberal bias]],<ref>http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2005/08/26/johnson</ref> anti-patriotism, lack of productivity, [[bullying]] or discouraging [[conservative]] students (for example, homeschoolers),<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/21/AR2008032101451.html</ref><ref>http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/news/488/NCliberalbiasagnstcons060104.htm</ref> and promotion of sexual immorality.<ref>http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2001/oct_2001_4.html</ref><ref>http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/1998/october_1998_1.html</ref> However, because the professoriate is so large and varied (more than 1,200,000 in the United States alone, in public and private institutions, it would not be valid to conclude that this group of professionals is disproportionately more likely than others groups or the general public to commit crimes or other misdeeds.<ref>National Center for Educational Statistics, "Table 178, Historical Summary of faculty, students, degrees, and finances in degree-granting institutions: Selected years, 1869-70 through 2005-06" [http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/tables/dt07_178.asp?referrer=list]</ref>

In a Zogby poll, 58% of [[Americans]] said that the bias of professors is a serious problem, while 39% said it is a "very serious" problem.<ref name="zogby">http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1334</ref> The survey demonstrated further that "an overwhelming majority also believe that job security for college professors leaves them less motivated to do a good job than those professors who do not enjoy a tenured status - 65% said they believe non-tenured professors are more motivated to do a good job in the classroom."<ref name="zogby" />

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

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

==Courage and love of life==

Randy Pausch, a professor at Carnegie-Mellon University, gave an extraordinary "last lecture" about living, and achieving one's dreams [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji5_MqicxSo]--[[User:McIntyre|McIntyre]] 15:41, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

== Crimes by Professors ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Immoral Behavior ==

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

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

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

== References ==

<references/>

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

Professor values

2008-04-04T11:54:05Z

McIntyre:

'''Professor values''' refer to the common value system embraced by a large percentage of professors, just as [[Hollywood values]] refers to the common value system of many in Hollywood. For example, an extremely high percentage of professors disagree with [[conservative]] principles.<ref>"90 percent of United States professors called themselves liberal or moderate .[http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol3/iss1/art2/]</ref><ref> [http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=s1153nnhjkhr407r6ng6gjg8pvc8g2s8]</ref> According to some conservatives, professors' common value system typically includes [[atheism]],<ref>For example, the vast majority of philosophy professors are [[atheists]], even after an alleged uptick in [[faith]] [http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=s1153nnhjkhr407r6ng6gjg8pvc8g2s8]</ref> [[censorship]], [[socialism]], unjustified claims of expertise and knowledge (for example, the dogmatic promotion of the [[Theory of Evolution|theory of evolution]]), [[liberаl|liberal]] beliefs,<ref>"90 percent of professors called themselves liberal or moderate." [http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=s1153nnhjkhr407r6ng6gjg8pvc8g2s8]</ref> [[liberal grading]], [[liberal bias]],<ref>http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2005/08/26/johnson</ref> anti-patriotism, lack of productivity, [[bullying]] or discouraging [[conservative]] students (for example, homeschoolers),<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/21/AR2008032101451.html</ref><ref>http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/news/488/NCliberalbiasagnstcons060104.htm</ref> and promotion of sexual immorality.<ref>http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2001/oct_2001_4.html</ref><ref>http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/1998/october_1998_1.html</ref> However, because the professoriate is so large and varied (more than 1,200,000 in the United States alone, in public and private institutions, it would not be valid to conclude that this group of professionals is disproportionately more likely than others groups or the general public to commit crimes or other misdeeds.<ref>National Center for Educational Statistics, "Table 178, Historical Summary of faculty, students, degrees, and finances in degree-granting institutions: Selected years, 1869-70 through 2005-06" [http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/tables/dt07_178.asp?referrer=list]</ref>

In a Zogby poll, 58% of [[Americans]] said that the bias of professors is a serious problem, while 39% said it is a "very serious" problem.<ref name="zogby">http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1334</ref> The survey demonstrated further that "an overwhelming majority also believe that job security for college professors leaves them less motivated to do a good job than those professors who do not enjoy a tenured status - 65% said they believe non-tenured professors are more motivated to do a good job in the classroom."<ref name="zogby" />

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

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

==Courage and love of life==
Randy Pausch, a professor at Carnegie-Mellon University, gave an extraordinary "last lecture" about living, and achieving one's dreams [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji5_MqicxSo]--[[User:McIntyre|McIntyre]] 07:54, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

== Crimes by Professors ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Immoral Behavior ==

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

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

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

== References ==

<references/>

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

Talk:Essay:Conservapedia

2007-11-22T19:43:11Z

McIntyre:

I'm confused - where's the evidence of a rampant wave of homosexual-centric deceit? --[[User:Favre4Pope|Favre4Pope]] 17:56, 21 November 2007 (EST)

This article states that we've listed the 25 worst Supreme Court decisions, and the role deceit played in them. I just checked out that article, and I'm not really sure the role of deceit was mentioned in them. --[[User:Favre4Pope|Favre4Pope]] 18:02, 21 November 2007 (EST)

: Read more carefully. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:33, 21 November 2007 (EST)

Does anyone know of any external links that have something nice to say about all our wonderful achievements over the last year? Are there any? I've googled and I've googled but all I can find is obnoxious liberal mockery. [[User:GeorgeShrub|GeorgeShrub]] 11:23, 22 November 2007 (EST)

: It's lonely at the top, George. Those who seek approval by [[liberals]] are better off getting jobs that dole out government benefits. Regardless, happy Thanksgiving.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:28, 22 November 2007 (EST)

::Exactly. I was hoping to find endorsements from fellow conservatives and their links recommending our educational, clean, and concise entries to their friends, families and acquaintances. It would give us a nice warm glow inside to see the conservative community supporting us. [[User:GeorgeShrub|GeorgeShrub]] 11:49, 22 November 2007 (EST)

::: There have been lots of favorable articles in the general press, and [[MSNBC]] featured us one day also. Other conservative groups have used our materials. It takes time to be fully accepted. Recall the saying about a prophet and his home town?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:56, 22 November 2007 (EST)

:::: Combating “internet crime.” Is this a reference to the FBI incident?--[[User:McIntyre|McIntyre]] 14:43, 22 November 2007 (EST)

Talk:World History Lecture Eight

2007-10-26T02:11:10Z

McIntyre: New page: Just thought I would point out that the slave trade is not considered part of the Columbian Exchange. The Columbian exchange, also known as the great biological exchange, dealt with plants...

Just thought I would point out that the slave trade is not considered part of the Columbian Exchange. The Columbian exchange, also known as the great biological exchange, dealt with plants, animals, and pathogens. See for example, Alfred Crosby, ''The Columbian Exchange'' (1972)

Alexander Hamilton

2007-10-13T03:13:39Z

McIntyre: /* Death */

[[image:alexhamilton.jpg|300px|thumb|Alexander Hamilton. By John Trumball 1792.]]
'''Alexander Hamilton''' (January 11, 1757 - July 12, 1804) was the first [[United States Secretary of the Treasury|Secretary of the Treasury]] on the [[United States]]. His far reaching vision put the United States on an economic platform that helped it to become the premiere economy in the world today.

==Life==
Hamilton was born out of wedlock in the [[British West Indies]]. Recognizing the young man's talents, patrons arranged for Hamilton to immigrate to [[New York City]], where he attended King's College (now Columbia University.). Some scholars have argued that Hamilton’s origins can be reflected in his later life, where, unlike much of the Revolutionary generation, his views were more nationalistic, rather than tied to the interests of a particular region or state. Hamilton entered the military as a Captain of Artillery in the Continental Army in 1776. Hamilton fought in the battles of Princeton and Germantown and came to the attention of General [[George Washington]]. Washington promoted Hamilton to rank of colonel and made him a member of his staff. Hamilton took part in the climatic battle of the war at Yorktown. Some scholars believe that Hamilton may have alerted General Washington to the existence of the Newburgh Conspiracy. Hamilton was also a member of the Continental Congress, [[New York]] State assembly, and a member of the [[Philadelphia]] Constitutional Convention.

Hamilton authored 51 of the 85 ''[[Federalist Papers]],'' while [[James Madison]] and [[John Jay]] composed the others. These editorials, published in newspapers throughout the United States, helped turn popular opinion in favor of ratifying the Constitution, particularly in the important states of [[New York]] and [[Virginia]].

Perhaps Hamilton's greatest contribution to the success of the United States occurred during his tenure as Washington’s Secretary of the Treasury from 1789 to 1795. Through a system of tariffs and excise taxes (some of which, as demonstrated by the [[Whiskey Rebellion]], caused a great deal of resentment), Hamilton placed the United States on sound financial footing. While Hamilton disliked taxes, he also realized that they were necessary. Hamilton not only favored close trade ties with [[Great Britain]], the world’s leading commercial power, but he believed that the United States should emulate their economic system. In his Report on Manufactures, Hamilton envisioned the United States as a nation that would rely on manufacturing and commerce in order to become a great power. This (among other things) put him at odds with [[Thomas Jefferson]], who envisioned the United States as an agrarian republic.

Hamilton, along with [[Benjamin Franklin]], is one of the very few non-presidents to be portrayed on American money. Hamilton's portrait is on the $10 bill, while Franklin is on the $100 bill.

==Death==
Hamilton's long standing rivalry with [[Aaron Burr]] eventually lead to Burr accusing Hamilton of slander. Hamilton replied that the anti Burr statements he had made were not slander but were instead the truth. The resulting argument brought a life time of feuding to a head in the form of a duel. The duel took place on the 11th of July 1804 at Weehawken, New Jersey. Hamilton was wounded in the duel, and died of a gunshot the next day. <ref>[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=H000101 Biography]</ref> Hamilton believed that a gentleman shoots over his target, and that honor is served.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/hamilton/filmmore/pt_2.html</ref> Burr had no such belief. Hamilton's son died in a duel the same way.

==References==
<references/>

Joseph Ellis, ''Founding Brothers'' (New York: Vintage, 2000).

John Ferling, ''A Leap in the Dark: The Struggle to Create the American Republic'' (Oxford University Press, 2003).

Ron Chernow, ''Alexander Hamilton'' (New York: Penquin, 2005).

{{DEFAULTSORT:Hamilton, Alexander}}
[[Category:Political people]]
[[Category:United States History]]
[[Category: Founding Fathers]]

John Adams

2007-10-13T02:47:43Z

McIntyre: /* Vice President and President */ I will add to this tomorrow evening

{{President
|image=John_adams.gif
|seq=2
|term_start=March 4, 1797
|term_end=March 4, 1801
|party=Federalist
|vp=Thomas Jefferson
|vp_dates=
|previous=George Washington
|next=Thomas Jefferson
|office2=vice
|seq2=1
|term_start2=April 21, 1789
|term_end2=March 4, 1797
|party2=Federalist
|pres2=George Washington
|next2=Thomas Jefferson
|birth_date=October 30, 1735
|birth_place=Quincy, Massachusetts
|death_date=July 4, 1826
|death_place=Quincy, Massachusetts
|spouse=Abigail Smith Adams
|spouse2=
|religion=[[Unitarian]]
}}

'''John Adams''' (October 30, 1735 - July 4, 1826) is one of America's [[Founding Fathers]], serving as [[George Washington]]'s [[Vice President]] from 1789 to 1797, and as the second President of the [[United States of America]], serving a single term from 1797 to 1801. In terms of party affilation, Adams was a [[Federalist]], and was the only Federalist to serve as [[President of the United States|President]]. Adams ran for re-election in the [[United States presidential election, 1800|Presidential election of 1800]] but was defeated by [[Thomas Jefferson]] in the latter's "[[Revolution of 1800]]."

==Early life and political career==

John Adams was born on October 30, 1735, in Braintree (now Quincy), [[Massachusetts]]. His father was also named John, his mother was Susanna Adams and his son was [[John Quincy Adams]], a later President in his own right.

Adams attended [[Harvard]] and, after a stint as a schoolmaster in Worchester, Massachusetts, took up the practice of law in [[Boston]]. In 1765, Adams wrote tracts such as the Braintree Instructions, which argued against the [[British Stamp Act]]. His cousin, [[Samuel Adams]], attracted far more notice during the Stamp Act crisis, leading demonstrations and using far more colorful language (there would later be some confusion regarding John and Samuel. When John was sent to [[France]] by the [[Continental Congress]] on a diplomatic mission, the French initally thought he was the "famous Adams," that is, Samuel Adams). In the wake of the [[Boston Massacre]] in 1770, Adams represented the British troops, arguing that all Englishmen (and many colonists still thought of themselves as Englishmen at this point) deserved a vigorous defense.

In 1774, after the crisis brought on by the [[Boston Tea Party]] and the resulting [[Coercive Acts]], Adams became an advocate for American independence. Adams was one of Massachusetts’s representatives to the Continental Congress. He attracted the notice of other delegates at the [[Second Continental Congress]] as one of the few to argue for independence at this early date.

==Declaring Independence==

In 1776 Adams was appointed, with Thomas Jefferson of Virginia, to draft a [[Declaration of Independence]]. Adams realized that Jefferson was much more gifted in terms of self-expression than he was, and the document was composed mostly by the Virginian. However, Adams did have a great deal of input, looking over drafts of the document. The Declaration that the two submitted falls into two parts. The first, which was heavily cribbed from English political philosopher [[John Locke]], was a statement of political principles and of the need for colonies to sever their ties with [[England]]. The second part is a list of complaints against the Crown, justifying the actions of the Continental Congress.

Adams served the Continental Congress as a diplomat, remaining abroad for a decade, from 1778 to 1788. He served in Paris with [[Benjamin Franklin]] (whom he did not get along with) and was later posted to the Netherlands, where he secured a large war loan to help the patriot cause. Adams chaired the American delegation that drew up the [[Treaty of Paris]] in 1783, which formally ended the [[American Revolution]]. However, other than the recognition of American Independence and the establishment of boundaries, most the treaty's provisions were not honored by either party.

== Vice President and President ==

Adams returned home after the adoption of [[the Constitution]]. He served as the first [[vice president]] in the U.S. history from 1789 to 1797. George Washington's decision to retire from public life set the stage for the first truly partisan presidential election. Alexander Hamilton was the true leader of the Federalists. However he made many political enemies during his tenure as Secretary of the Treasury. The Federalists decided to run Adams as their presidenal candidate and Thomas Pinckney for the office of vice-president. The Republicans selected their leader, Thomas Jefferson for president and Aaron Burr as vice-President. Adams won the bitterly contested[[United States presidential election, 1796|Presidential Election of 1796]], garnering 71 electoral votes to Jefferson's 68, and became president in his own right.
However, in 1796 electors did not indicate which office they were voting for. By coming in second to Adams, Jefferson became his vice-president. Before the 1804 election, the twelfth amendment would require electors to designate which office they were voting for.
Jefferson spent much of his time as vice-president attacking Adams, even going so far as to hire journalists to write scurrilous editorials about the President.
Adam’s unpopularity while in office contributed to his defeat to Jefferson in 1800.

== Death ==

He died July 4, 1826 at the age of 90 in Quincy, Massachusetts only a few hours after the death of Thomas Jefferson. Both men died on the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Only one signer of the Declaration ([[Charles Carroll]]) outlived him.<ref>http://www.adherents.com/people/pa/John_Adams.html</ref>. Adams was the first President of the United States to live in [[the White House]]. <ref> [[Encylopedia of Presidents, John Adams]] by Marlene Targ Brill, Children's Press </ref>

== Legacy ==

In a October 2000 survey of 132 prominent professors of history, law, and political science, President John Adams was grouped in the "Above Average" group, ranked 13th, with a mean score of 3.36 out of 5.00. <ref>Presidential Leadership: Rating the Best and the Worst in the White House (New York, Wall Street Journal Book, 2004)</ref>

It was John Adams whose quote has been inscribed upon the mantle in the white house dinning room:<blockquote>
'''"I Pray Heaven to Bestow the Best Blessings on this house and on all that shall hereafter inhabit it. Let none but honest and wise men ever rule under this roof."''' <ref>[[God and the Oval Office]], by John C. McCollister, W Publishing Group, 2005.</ref></blockquote>

==Christian Faith==

Similar to Washington, Adams believed in the friendship of government and religion:

'''*“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other. ”

*John Adams once wrote in a letter to Dr. [[Benjamin Rush]], "I have been a church-going animal for seventy-six years, and it has been alleged as proof of my hypocrisy." <ref> [[''God and the Oval Office'']] by John C. McCollister, W Publishing Group, 2005. </ref>

*John Adams also said another time "Ask me not whether I am Protestant, Calvinistic or Armenian, as far as they are christians, I wish to be a fellow disciple with them all." <ref> [[''God and the Oval Office'']] by John C. McCollister, W Publishing Group, 2005. </ref>

==Noteable Quotes==

*"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."<ref>John Adams, ''Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials,'' December 1770 [http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/3235.html The Quotations Page] </ref>

*"Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war." <ref> Quoted in ''Presidential Courage: Brave Leaders and How They Changed America, 1789-1989'' by Michael Beschloss </ref>'''

==References==
<references/>

{{USPresidents}}
{{USVicePresidents}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Adams, John}}
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]
[[Category:Vice Presidents of the United States]]
[[Category: Founding Fathers]]

Talk:Essay: New Ordeal

2007-10-13T02:32:08Z

McIntyre: /* Your Essay */

Who coined the term "New Ordeal?"--[[User:Franklin|Franklin]] 10:50, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:It's common knowledge. Who coined the term, "Contract ''on'' Amercia"? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:55, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

No, it is not common knowledge. As for the "Contract on America" that was a democratic spoof of the the Republican "Contract with America" during the 1994 midterm elections--[[User:Franklin|Franklin]] 11:02, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

: I agree, I've never heard of the New Ordeal, and I'm not getting any quick info on it from Google. I think Franklin's question is valid - is it coined by the author of the sourced book? --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 11:07, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

::Even the single reference for the page makes no mention of "New Ordeal", nor can I find any online reference to the term in this context. Is this a term that Rush has created or was it created by the author of this page? [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 11:09, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Rational_wiki has some discussion of this likewise. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:25, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I looked on rational_wiki. The term seems to be your creation, and the cited sources do not support your contention. The 1945 Time magazine article deals with the impending demobilization of U.S. troops at the close of World War Two, and the chart showing flucuations in the U.S. economy deals with the last few decades of the nineteenth century. If you are trying to construct some sort of argument about the New Deal (which did have its shortcomings) this is a very poor way to do it.--[[User:Franklin|Franklin]] 11:35, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:Contract ''on'' America was a spoof? Really? Seems common knowledge spoofed New Dealers for 70 years and they didn't even know it. Must be more evidence that they did not know everything afterall, huh? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:39, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Is it really too much to ask to drop the sarcasam and just state who coined the phrase? I'm not sure what rational_wiki has to do with this site, either. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 11:41, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:::It's been common knowledge for decades. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:42, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: The phrase may be common knowledge in certain circles, but I think it is not as widely spread as you believe it to be. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 12:00, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Hardly common knowledge. Where did the phrase come from? Can you cite that? Was it in Hayek's book that you cited (although I cannot imagine Hayek being so crass)?--[[User:Franklin|Franklin]] 11:46, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:Well of course, given censorship, oppression, and the [[Fairness Doctrine]] for 50 years. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:02, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, you are not being censored or oppressed. I have asked you to forthrightly provide your sources, and you have directed us to rational_wiki, where the cites did not support your contention. So, I ask again, what is your evidence for this term? Is it in Hayek or another source?--[[User:Franklin|Franklin]] 12:06, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:I beleive I've answered several times. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:27, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Actually, you have not. You have have been asked several times and you respond that the term is common knowledge. Show a little bit of intellectual honesty my friend.--[[User:Franklin|Franklin]] 12:33, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:It also survives in oral histories. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:34, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Wonderful! Many oral histories have been recorded and transcirbed in book or sometimes journal format. Can you cite some?--[[User:Franklin|Franklin]] 12:37, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:Well duh, what does oral mean? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:45, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
Why did you revert my edit and remove my comment? I repeat: many oral histories have transcribed into printed form/ Can you direct me to a few where I might see this term used?--[[User:Franklin|Franklin]] 12:42, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:I'm sorry, hit the wrong button (meant to hit mark as patrolled). [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:45, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

The only reference I can find is in the title of a 1948 book, reprinted in 1968. The book is referenced in Hayak's bibliography and a few other places, but I can find no usages of the term itself.previous unsigned comment added by [[User:Boomcoach]]

::'''Doh!''' Forgot the tildes. Sorry. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 11:05, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Where is this found? ==

I can't find any mention of this in the text at the bottom--it is totally unrelated. Can we take this out? Robs gave no answer above. [[User:FredK|FredK]] 15:30, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
:After looking around, I can find no source for this except conservapedia. Now that means either conservapedia is that good, or the whole thing is a <s>lie</s> a fiction. I think it is the latter. [[User:FredK|FredK]] 15:33, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
::Like all CP articles, it's a work in progress. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:25, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Yeah, the problem is, it is still not a real thing. [[User:FredK|FredK]] 16:27, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
::::If you could find even ONE source for this, aside from that book that doesn't mention it, we could work together. [[User:FredK|FredK]] 16:28, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

==Can't find it, either==
A Google Books search on [http://books.google.com/books?q=%22new+ordeal%22+roosevelt&btnG=Search+Books "New Ordeal" Roosevelt] turns up thirteen hits, none relevant.

The closest thing to a relevant hit is [http://books.google.com/books?id=DW4eAAAAMAAJ&q=%22new+ordeal%22&dq=%22new+ordeal%22&pgis=1 The New Ordeal by Planning: The Experience of the Forties and the Sixties], by John Jewkes, which is an update to his 1948 book "Ordeal by Planning." A search in this book for "Roosevelt" turns up no hits, nor does a search for "New Deal," meaning that whatever he means by this, it is not a satirical takeoff on "New Deal."

I believe this should be retitled as an essay and "signed" by RobS and co-contributors. It is '''not''' an exposition of a well-established conservative locution (like "Death tax"); I think it's a personal essay and that RobS hopes to ''promote'' the use of an original or at least poorly-known coinage.

If a home-schooled student were asked, as a fill-in-the-blanks exam question, "What name is used to refer to the period of economic decline between the crash of 1929 and the Second World War," do you think he or she would get credit for "New Ordeal?" [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:46, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

::I concur, thanks for your help and honesty. [[User:FredK|FredK]] 16:48, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

== Why this kind jokes are kept here?! ==

If this is some kind of encyclopedia, please, delete. Refering to nothing... --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 17:34, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

==WP:New Deal==
I think we're having an impact. Look what WP's been doing to its New Deal entry, they expanded the size of the chart. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Deal&diff=next&oldid=135791974] One of these days I may even investigate the basis of that chart. Oh, they also deleted "Commies in the New Deal". [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Deal&diff=134729442&oldid=134669058] I didn't write that particular subsection, but much of what it linked to I did. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:58, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

==New Cites==
The two new "citations" have no apparent link to the article, any more than the first one does. The Time magazine article is about US troops coming back from WWII, and the book is part of an autobiography of FRD, and a fairly early colume of it (2 of 4). RobS, it loks like you are just grabbing anything from the 40's or 50's that has the word "Ordeal" in it. You appear to have created an article out of whole cloth. I don't know if this is a term a favorite prof once used, but to pretend that it is of any common usage outside of yourself is comepletely unsubstantiated. It has no place in any sort of encylopedia, unless you can show some relavent citations, not simply things that have a common word. You might as well se a citation about "New York in the 50's" because it has the word "New" init! [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 17:22, 11 June 2007 (EDT)
:Please feel free to improve the article. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:23, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

::It is an article about something that has no apparent existence. There is no evidence that there is anything to write an article about. It is just a name that you appear to have conjured out of thin air. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 17:46, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Well we can do a redirect from [[Great Bear Market]] to here, but Great Bear Market only goes to 1942, it doesn't include the [[Malthusian catastrophe]] that followed, and the Recovery period. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:52, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

::This is the only incidence of this term, used in this context, I can find anywhere. Unless there's evidence otherwise, it can only be considered a personal essay. Which is fine, but it can't be allowed in an encyclopedia, surely? [[User:DoggedPersistence|DoggedPersistence]] 18:17, 11 June 2007 (EDT)
:::What? this article or trolls trashing it? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:18, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

Neither. You've concocted a clever phrase (do you work as a copywriter?! :-) ), more power to you, but it's just that - you wrote it, and there's no evidence whatsoever anyone other than you uses it. Therefore it can't really be allowed in an Encyclopedia. If there is evidence of its use that we're missing, just go ahead and provide it, and no-one will have the slightest problem with the article. [[User:DoggedPersistence|DoggedPersistence]] 18:25, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

:Rob, I took your advice above and improved on the article. Thanks for the advice.[[User:Associate|Associate]] 19:53, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

== Proposal ==

Since no one other than the author seems to be familiar with the term "New Ordeal", I propose an opening paragraph explaining the coinage of the term, for clarity's sake. Reasonable? Unreasonable?[[User:PaulP|PaulP]] 23:53, 11 June 2007 (EDT)
:I'd like some guidance on an opening paragraph to explain the origin of New Ordeal. Could you provide an example maybe?[[User:PaulP|PaulP]] 00:13, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
::I thought it was quite obvious and to the point. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:33, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

This article's discussion page is locked. It is a somewhat bizarre article. I would humbly ask that if it is stay as a mainspace (non-essay) article, the primary author should, in one or two short sentences, explain the thesis of his piece. As it is, I have no idea what it is about. I certainly don't like the implication that right-wing extremist groups are Christian, but I'm sure I must be misreading that. Thanks.[[User:PaulP|PaulP]] 23:07, 11 June 2007 (EDT)
:See the souricing on it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:03, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you for responding. I did look at the article, the discussion, and the sources, but nothing pointed to a known usage of "New Ordeal". This make me think perhaps it was a creative, clever coinage of yours or of someone you know. It did go thru the citations in great detail. Perhaps this could be explained? [[User:PaulP|PaulP]] 00:07, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
::Frankly you have me confused; are you sure you have the right discussion page? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:54, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

:::How about changing this from a mainspace page to something like Essay: The New Ordeal, because it appears to be just that. It is an essay by RobS about a period to which he has given a cutesy name, either of his own creation, or an obscure reference earlier in life. It reminds me of going to college and using words that had become common in our home, but were euphamisms created by my mother or father. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 07:37, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

This should be an essay and not an article. If you look at the discussion above that RobS had with Franklin, there is no source for the article. It is not of encyclopedic quality and should be removed.--[[User:Oldring|Oldring]] 08:19, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
:Well you need to show some edit history to show you have an interest in this subject or qualified to criticize other than just responding to troll bait right now. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:16, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

=="Malthusian catastrophe that was World War II"==

One other note: RobS mentions a "Malthusian catastrophe." Could someone explain this?--[[User:Oldring|Oldring]] 08:22, 12 June 2007(EDT)

:I was wondering about that myself. It seems to be a suggestion that World War II was caused by world population outstripping resources, and brought back into balance by the war... but a graph of [http://edweb.sdsu.edu/wip/examples/gas2/idnex.htm U. S. population] looks pretty smooth, as does [http://www.nss.org/settlement/nasa/Contest/Results/2005/TEMIS/Population%20Design_files/image069.jpg world population]. There's a bit of a downward kink in U. S. population around World War II, but it isn't preceded by any obvious upward kink. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:53, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
::Since the graphs' axes aren't labeled anyway, I think we can go ahead and read into them whatever we wish. [[User:Frederick|Frederick]] 10:49, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
:Thank you, Rob, for adding more citations. I'll spend some time looking at them to see if they support your assertion. Just remember that just because a document contains the words "new" and "ordeal" does not mean they were used to refer to "The New Deal". Also, if a ref is this obscure that we still haven't settled it over several days, perhaps you should just take full credit where it is due (as you have clearly worked hard on this) and call it an original work.[[User:Frederick|Frederick]] 11:13, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

::We can probably use this to discuss the Malthusian consequences of economic planning, as well as economic planning being applied to the Malthusian catastrophe,
::*''The Ordeal of Total War, 1939-1945'', Gordon Wright, New York, Evanston, and London, Harper & Row, 1968. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:45, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

==Jewkes Book(s)==
The three books you list are the only actual usage of the term "New Ordeal" that I have found. The three books you list are also only one book. It was published in 1948 and reissued in 1968. It is also the book cited in the first citation you give, so you now have 4 cites all referring to a single 1948 book. You are trying hard to show that "New Ordeal" is a term in common parlance, at some point in time, but you are just chasing your tail. A term used in the title of a single book, and never referenced again by that term, hardly constitutes a term worthy of an encyclopedia entry. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 11:15, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, I'm not familiar with this book, but as nearly as I can tell by references to it, it's about ''post''-World-War-II planning in ''England.'' And as Boomcoach notes, "new" refers to a new ''edition'' of an earlier book. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:21, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

*''The New Ordeal by Planning'', John Jewkes, Macmillan and Co., Ltd., 1968. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:07, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
::Which I'm not familiar with, but, as nearly as I can tell, is about ''post'' World War II planning in ''England?'' Or have I got that wrong? Continue at [[Talk:New Ordeal]]... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:13, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
:Also known as "Ordeal by Planning",this essay was about econ planning in the '''UK''', not the U.S., and while, given his arguments, he prob would not have supported the New Deal, he didn't call it the New Ordeal.
::''John Jewkes (1902 - 1988) is best known for his book Ordeal by Planning which he wrote in 1946 in an attempt to show that the wartime planning system, which many people wished to maintain and develop in the post-war world, would condemn the United Kingdom to poverty and failure. If Friedrich von Hayek in The Road to Serfdom provided a more celebrated philosophical treatise, it was Jewkes who produced a more down to earth and practically convincing case against central planning.'' http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_Jewkes. [[User:Frederick|Frederick]] 11:24, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

:I agree with your comment on Andy's page, Rob, that Jewkes seems to critique Keynesian economics. That has NOTHING TO DO WITH the question at hand, namely '''where did the phrase "New Ordeal" come from?'''[[User:Frederick|Frederick]] 11:24, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

I found a New York Times ad for the 1948 book, January 23, 1949. pg. BR19. (Check your local library, they may also have online access to the ProQuest Historical New York Times for cardholders). The ad says that the book is about lessons learned "after living for two years under the planned economy of the British Socialists." I.e. one could write an article entitled [[Ordeal by Planning]] and open it by saying
:''Ordeal by Planning'' is a phrase coined by John Jewkes and the title of a book, referring to the period of socialistic economy in England from about 1946 to 1948.
But that's quite different from saying "The ''New Ordeal'' describes the period of time between 1929 and 1949, when the American economy finally recovered from the Crash of '29." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:32, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

:Also: This Google Books page from [http://books.google.com/books?id=PKq5AJJFl0EC&pg=PA65&ots=bVypQU-ixw&dq=jewkes+%22ordeal+by+planning%22&as_brr=3&sig=nogBZ-2uyFXLeS2yM95cen6MKNA Warfare State: Britian 1920-1970] says "John Jewkes, ''Ordeal by Planning'' (London: Macmillan, 1948) is about postwar planning by the Labour government." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:15, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

Couple points here: The Jewkes' book (either edition; the second edition differs in that it has 35 or 40 additonal pages that deal with the English economy up to about 1960) does not support RobS conculsions. RobS origninal article is about the U. S. economy. Please explain how that supports your argument?--[[User:Irat|Irat]] 12:04, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

==Material moved from Aschlafly's Talk page==
I started the following discussion on Aschafly's Talk page. I didn't mean for it to get so long. I'm moving the discussion here; the portion above the horizontal rule is still on [[User_Talk:Aschlafly]]. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:41, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

===Do conservatives commonly call FDR's administration the "New Ordeal?"===
Are you familiar with this? Among conservatives, is it a commonly-used satirical name for the New Deal? Much discussion about this is in progress... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:41, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
:As the article states, it is not direct criticism of the New Deal, it refers to the period 1929 to 1949, when the US economy finally recovered from the Crash of '29. The term has long been common among investors refering to both the Great Depression and World War II. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:05, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

::I've moved the rest of this discussion to [[Talk:Essay:New_Ordeal]]. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:41, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

----

Any proof of that, RobS? You have been asked to support your claim several times.--[[User:Oldring|Oldring]] 10:09, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

:Ok, Wikipedia uses a redirect for "Contract on America" to "Contract with America"; do we wish to use a Wikipedia model or precedent here? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Contract_on_America&redirect=no [[User:RobS|RobS]]
::Rob, why not just admit to effective use of rhetoric? It is a pretty clever phrase, just unique. Actually, why dont you copy and paste the actual quote here that uses New Ordeal?[[User:Frederick|Frederick]] 10:47, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

*''The New Ordeal by Planning'', John Jewkes, Macmillan and Co., Ltd., 1968. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:07, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
::Which I'm not familiar with, but, as nearly as I can tell, is about ''post'' World War II planning in ''England?'' Or have I got that wrong? Continue at [[Talk:New Ordeal]]... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:13, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
:Also known as "Ordeal by Planning",this essay was about econ planning in the '''UK''', not the U.S., and while, given his arguments, he prob would not have supported the New Deal, he didn't call it the New Ordeal.
::''John Jewkes (1902 - 1988) is best known for his book Ordeal by Planning which he wrote in 1946 in an attempt to show that the wartime planning system, which many people wished to maintain and develop in the post-war world, would condemn the United Kingdom to poverty and failure. If Friedrich von Hayek in The Road to Serfdom provided a more celebrated philosophical treatise, it was Jewkes who produced a more down to earth and practically convincing case against central planning.'' http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_Jewkes.

:::You have to see Jewkes earlier 1948 book, ''Ordeal by Planning'', and Hayek's 1945 work, ''Road to Serfdom''. It is essentially critique of [[Keynesian]] economic theory. Some of James Burnham's 1941 ''Managerial Revolution'' can also probably fit in here. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:22, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

::::Yes, but I think the question at hand isn't whether Jewkes or Hayek were opposed to Keynesian theory and President Roosevelt's New Deal program. Clearly they were. It's not even whether the New Deal was successful or not. Certainly good arguments can be made on both sides. It's simply whether the term "The New Ordeal" is an established satirical phrase used to refer to the time between 1929-1949 or any part of it, or if it's just a new term you've created.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 11:27, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
<--Believe it or not, there always were critics of [[Keynesianism]], New Deal, and economic planning, despite attempts to suppress publication of Hayak's ''Road to Serfdom''. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:05, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

Why are you citing these works? They have little to do with your original premise which dealt with the U.S. economy, and you STILL have not provided a response as where the phrase "New Ordeal" came from. Stop the distractions, the referring of readers to refrences that do not support your contentions, the dismissing those who challege you as "trolls." Show a little bit of intellectual Integrity. You are an conservapedia sysyop. Now act like one.--[[User:Irat|Irat]] 13:34, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

:[[Keynesianism]] has little or to do with the US economy in the 30s 7 40s? The sources say otherwise. And please desist from incivility and personal attacks. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:41, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

That is not the question Rob. And a question is not a personal attack. You created a piece called "New Ordeal." Where did the term come from? I simply ask that you no longer engage in distractions, and intellectually dishonest behavior that is unworthy of a Conservapedia sysop. Could you answer the question, please?--[[User:Irat|Irat]] 13:46, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

By the way, do you have any proof of attempts to supress publishing the ''Road to Serfdom?''--[[User:Irat|Irat]] 14:02, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

:{{Cquote|The book was actually turned down - on political grounds - by three American publishers, before the Chicago economist Aaron Director secured a contract with his University Press.}}

:*Richard Cockett, ''Thinking the Unthinkable: Think-Tanks and the Economic Counter-Revolution, 1931–1983, Harper Collins, London 1995, pg. 100.
:*See also, [http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/320553.html The Publication History of The Road to Serfdom], Excerpted from Bruce Caldwell’s introduction to The Road to Serfdom: Text and Documents—The Definitive Edition by F. A. Hayek. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:19, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

==Further reading==
Thank you for updating the further reading. But the term "New Ordeal" does not appear in any of these works. --[[User:Irat|Irat]] 13:49, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
:New Ordeal speaks of an era, and the events of that era. That era his known under several names, [[Depression era]], [[World War II]], [[Wiemar period]], inter-war era, post-war era, Early Cold War era, Stalinist era, etc. etc. etc. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:03, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

But you still have told us where the term "New Ordeal" comes from, have you? Please behave like a Conservapedia sysop. This is after all, "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia." Avoiding the question is unworthy of you. Is an answer forthcoming?--[[User:Irat|Irat]] 14:06, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

:[[Keynesianism]] has little or to do with the US economy in the 30s 7 40s? The sources say otherwise. And please desist from incivility and personal attacks. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:41, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

==I Quit==
RobS, obviously you have no idea where the term came from other than that you made it up. I gave you every chance to come clean. Instead, you tried to distract eveyone who asked a question by citing books and articles that did not support your thesis. When that did not work, you called those who challenged you "trolls" and then (as in the case of Oldring this morning) you had another Sysop ban them (makes it hard for them to respond, eh?). So, I am going to leave you alone, but it should now be apparent to everyone that you lack the willingness to back your thesis. If that is uncivil, so be it. If you wish to ban me, fine. I am through with Conservapedia. --[[User:Irat|Irat]] 14:27, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

*[http://gigablast.com/get?d=78268369924 ''Other People's Money''], John T. Flynn, The New Republic, February 20, 1935., excerpted,
{{Cquote|....information on several economic developments in the U.S.... View that '''the New Deal is threatening to become the New ordeal'''...}} [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:46, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

*For the record
*''The New Ordeal by Planning'', John Jewkes, Macmillan and Co., Ltd., 1968. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:35, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

Have you read Jewkes' book? You do realize that it does not support your argument?--[[User:Jackbarry|Jackbarry]] 16:28, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

==Your Essay==
This is an essay now, so I think you are entitled to write whatever you want, even if it is "We are all children of Xenu, let me prove it to you".

Remember, though, that the folks above already showed you that your Jewkes book is not a relevant source. You are perseverating now. Please read the above before you cite him again. I really do want you to understand.[[User:Alessi|Alessi]] 14:47, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

Did you read Freeman Tilden's piece in the ''North American Review''? It has nothing to do with your essay. --[[User:Philaretes|Philaretes]] 15:11, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
:Really? I thought it did. Let's look at just this one excerpt for example:

::At least the half of all economic history is concerned with the tragi-comedy of governments getting into debt by extravagance and trying to get out by fraud. A good deal of the other half is concerned with individuals attempting to do the same thing. But governments have the advantage over individuals in this respect, since they are immune from the police power, because they control it. Indeed, it is axiomatic that if the commercial morality of the individual were as low as that of his government, no government could exist.

::What concerns us now, however, is not repudiation in specific instances, whether of government or the individual, but of the attitude toward repudiation, as expressed by those whose position, training and intelligence are of considerable moment. While there is yet no blunt statement from high sources that an obligor is to receive special favor if his net fortune prove, on examination, to be inferior to that of his creditor; yet we have clearly arrived at the stage when, regardless of the intent of the obligation, if the debtor suffers a loss, the creditor is to be considered a partner in the borrowers enterprise...

::Of course, the leading spirits in the assault upon the contract principle are governments. Whatever specious excuses are given by a government for the repudiation of its promises, either to its own subjects or to others, there is never more than one real reason: that it wants more money to spend as it prefers to spend it. As all governments are liberal promisors, their first thoughts, when more money is needed, and there is a fear of alienating support by taxation or direct expropriation, fly to the devising of some means of invalidating their obligations, and setting up a construction more to their liking. Fortunately for needy governments, a great part of their subjects are also in debt, and would also like to be relieved. Therefore what the government desires, and what would at the same time be popular, happily coincide, and the next thing is to declare that a crisis exits. This is taking high ground, precluding the charge that there is any immoral or illegal purpose of fleecing the creditor class....

::Having declared that a crisis exists, which is not hard to do, since governments are generally so clumsy and expensive that a crisis is always within call, all that remains is to alter the standard of value in some artificial manner; and there are a number of ways of doing so. This step, of course, brings all existing contracts that involve money payments into confusion. The unfortunate consequences in respect of these contracts could be avoided by enacting, along with the legislation altering the standard, that preceding obligations should be made good ... not according to the new value, but according to that which existed when the contract was made....

::But, even if there were no political reasons against this course, it would be unthinkable to a modern government, for the reason that it has its own obligations so clearly in mind. If its act were not to have the final result of assessing the difference to the creditor, the legislation might just as well not have been passed, and the crisis was cried up for nothing. Of course, the government is even now not in the happiest position, for its expenses increase in exactly the ratio of the degradation of the standard; but this can be met by a further degradation, and that by another...

::Meantime, the spirit of default naturally filters down through the body politic. And truly, it is hard for the humble individual to see why, if a government can elude its obligations, or set the stage for a general default based upon one particular kind of contract, it is not equally in order for him to repudiate his promise, however and wherever made. ... [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:01, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

Nice excerpt. How does it support your argument?--[[User:Philaretes|Philaretes]] 09:00, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

That is a very nice cut and paste job. But what does it have to do with the argument you are trying to make?--[[User:McIntyre|McIntyre]] 22:32, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

The South

2007-10-13T02:28:39Z

McIntyre: /* 1964 to 1992 */

'''The South''' is usually identified as the eleven states that made up the [[Confederate States of America]] which consisted of [[South Carolina]], [[Mississippi]], [[Florida]], [[Alabama]], [[Georgia]], [[Louisiana]], [[Texas]], [[Virginia]], [[Arkansas]], [[Tennessee]] and [[North Carolina]].{{fact}} The South is currently defined by the US Census as the above listed states, as well as [[Delaware]], [[Maryland]], [[West Virginia]], [[Kentucky]], and [[Oklahoma]]. <ref>http://www.census.gov/geo/www/us_regdiv.pdf</ref>

Although the south once fought to secede from the union during the [[Civil War]], today they are known as much as all the other states of the Union for their patriotism and commitment to morality in government.

==Presidential politics==

After the ratification of the [[United States Constitution|U. S. Constitution]], the two most important schools of interpretation of that Constitution came to be associated with [[Alexander Hamilton]], a Northerner, and [[Thomas Jefferson]], a Southerner. Each came to dominate the thinking of his respective region, if only following his death. The two men were also associated with competing sectors of the economy -- finance for Hamilton and agriculture for Jefferson -- and their supporters were therefore identified with Americans who had widely divergent outlooks on and goals in life. This was one major reason the South has always looked at politics differently than any other major region.

[[Andrew Jackson]] was the first national politician to attempt to fuze the two schools. His experiment, a party in which Northern laborers and Southern yeomen would have an equal stake, lasted throughout the [[Second Party System]], but was unable to hold out in 1860 against the challenge of the [[Republicans]] led by [[Abraham Lincoln]]. Later Democratic Presidents, taking their cue from Lincoln, were far more inspired by Hamilton, seeking almost without exception to expand the role of the [[Federal government]]; but the legacy of Jackson and the [[Civil War]] would keep the South on their side up until 1968.

From the end of the Civil War to the 1960 election, the "Solid South" as political pundits called it, nearly always supported Democratic candidates. Since 1964, the South has become increasingly important to Presidential victors.

===1964 to 1992===
The Solid South began to break down in the 1964 election, when five southern states voted for Republican [[Barry Goldwater]]. The largest and President Johnson's home state, Texas, remained Democratic. In 1968, [[Richard Nixon]] carried Florida, and the Carolinas, while Alabama Governor [[George Wallace]] running as an Independent, carried the rest, with the exception of Texas, which remained Democratic. Wallace thought it was possible for a candidate to win by using a base of electoral votes from a Solid South <ref>[http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/elections/maps/1968ec.gif 1968 Electoral Distribution]</ref> and adding a few Northern and Midwestern industrial belt states. Wallace did not win in 1968, but eight years later in the 1976 election, Democratic contender [[Jimmy Carter]].<ref>[http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/elections/maps/1976ec.gif 1976 Electoral Distribution]. </ref> successfully employed Wallace's Southern strategy, carrying every state of the former confederacy with the exception of Virginia. Beginning in 1972, candidates Richard Nixon (1972), Jimmy Carter (1976), [[Ronald Reagan]] (1984), [[George H.W. Bush]] (1988) carried every southern state. The exception to this was Reagan's election in 1980 when he carried every southern state save incumbent President Jimmy Carter's home state of Georgia.

===1992 to 2004===

In 1992 [[Democratic]] candidate [[Bill Clinton]] reassembled Carter's coalition and carried Arkansas, Tennessee, Florida, and Georgia in 1992, but lost Georgia in 1996.<ref>http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/elections/maps/></ref> [[George W. Bush]] (2000 and 2004) carried every Southern state including Democratic challenger and incumbent Vice President [[Al Gore]]'s home state of Tennessee.

Large numbers of Southerners have served in the U.S. military. During the Civil War southerners did not volunteer in large enough numbers to match the military needs of the south. Approximately twenty percent of all Confederate soldiers were therefore draftees (compared to eight percent in the Union armies), and they were subject to “compulsory reenlistment.”<ref>Tinadall & Shi, ''America: A Narrative History'', 7th ed.(New York Norton, 2007):616-618.</ref>

==Education==
Liberals have attacked the South and Southerners as being poorly educated and illiterate. While so-called "national average" academic test scores do show the region as a whole lagging "national averages", the results in all cases are within 1% of the "national average." It should also be noted, not all states participated in the survey, and there is large disagreement whether so-called "national averages" in academic test scores exist. Regional economic disparity, cultural factors, and other reasons impact on a state's level of spending on education. And studies have shown no correlation between the amount of money spent on education and academic achievement.

{| style="background:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|Average reading scale score sorted by all students (overall results), grade 8 public schools: By jurisdiction, 1998 and 2005.<ref>U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), >[http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/ 1998 and 2005 Reading Assessments].</ref>
|-
!
! Score
! Change
|-
| '''National Public'''
| '''260'''
| '''.02 '''
|-
| Alabama
| 252
| 1.4
|-
| Arkansas
| 258
| 1.1
|-
| Florida
| 256
| 1.2
|-
| Georgia
| 257
| 1.3
|-
| Kentucky
| 264
| 1.1
|-
| Louisiana
| 253
| 1.6
|-
| Maryland
| 261
| 1.2
|-

| Mississippi
| 251
| 1.3
|-
| North Carolina
| 258
| 0.9
|-
| South Carolina
| 257
| 1.1
|-

| Texas
| 258
| 0.6
|-
| Virginia
| 268
| 1.0
|-
|}

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Geography]]
[[Category:Politics]]

Talk:Narragansett Beer

2007-09-13T18:57:24Z

McIntyre: New page: Narragansett Beer. Good stuff.

Narragansett Beer. Good stuff.

Conservapedia talk:Supreme Court Project

2007-07-24T20:26:25Z

McIntyre: /* Oyez is liberal? */

==Oyez is liberal?==

Andy, I don't see how you reason that Oyez is liberal or biased in any way. It's one of the premiere SCOTUS resources on the net. As a matter of fact, I've never been in any government class (from AP Go/Po in high school to undergrad classes) that didn't recommend it as a study guide or reference source. Now, I can't speak for its blog since I've never read it, but the actual site is nothing more than a comprehensive resource on all cases that SCOTUS has heard, as well as short bios on all the Supreme Justices. You're the first person I've ever witnessed claim that it's biased. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 14:11, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
:Edit to add - The site is currently run by one of the law professors at Northwestern University and is even listed by SCOTUS itself as an unofficial source to obtain information on its cases along with FindLaw and LexisNexis. (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/obtainopinions.pdf) [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 14:15, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

: Read its biographies and analysis. Run by law professors? That only confirms the description of it as [[liberal]]. Nearly all law professors are liberal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:29, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
::Not all professors are liberals (definitely confirmed from personal experience). But, as I can see I'm not going to be able to persaude you of the value of the site, we'll just have to agree to disagree and I won't bring it up anymore. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 14:32, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

::: Stryker, probably 80% of professors voted for [[John Kerry]] in 2004, and perhaps 90% of law professors voted for him.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:40, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

::::Proving, once again, that we professors are a very intelligent bunch.--[[User:McIntyre|McIntyre]] 16:26, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

George Washington

2007-06-30T14:49:16Z

McIntyre: /* Quotes from George Washington */

{| class="infobox bordered" style="float: right; margin: 0 0 0.5em 0.5em; text-align: left; font-size: 85%; margin-left:5px" border=1 align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="250"
|-
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:George washington 3.jpg|180px]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; font-size: 120%; height: 30px; background: purple no-repeat scroll top left;"|George Washington 
1st President of the United States
|-
|'''Born'''
|February 22, 1732
|-
|'''Died'''
|December 14, 1799
|-
|'''Term'''
|1789-1797
|-
|'''Political party'''
|None
|-
|'''Vice President'''
|[[John Adams]]
|-
|'''Preceded by'''
|''None''
|-
|'''Succeeded by'''
|[[John Adams]]
|-
|}

'''George Washington''' '''(February 22, 1732 - December 14, 1799)''' was the unanimously elected 1st President of the [[United States of America]] and the Commander-in-Chief in the [[Revolutionary War]].<ref>http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/gw1.html</ref> He was also a devout [[Christian]], with his adopted daughter once stating that "if you question Washington's faith, you may as well question whether or not he was a patriot."<ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g011.html</ref>

Washington endeared himself to generations of Americans by first refusing to become a military dictator or king and then by voluntarily stepping aside as the leader of a prosperous nation. His precedent was voluntarily followed for 140 years. Towards that end, he sought to emulate the model of the citizen-soldier set by the Roman leader [[Cincinnatus]], a comparison that is truly testament to Washington's greatness, and one that drew worldwide attention and acclaim, even in England, the nation he defeated.<ref>For Lord Byron's poem on the subject, hailing Washington as "the first, the last, the best, the Cincinnatus of the West," see http://www.theotherpages.org/poems/2001/byron0101.html.</ref> The archetype of Washington as the citizen-soldier has become part of America's collective idealization of citizenship, and is immortalized in [[New York city| New York city's]] [[Washington Square Arch]], which depicts Washington the soldier on the left, and Washington the statesman on the right.<ref>For photographic images, see http://www.nyc-architecture.com/GV/GV046WashingtonSquareArch.htm</ref>

He was born on February 22, 1732 to Augustine and Mary Washington. <ref> [[Encyclopedia of Presidents, George Washington]], Zachary Kent, Children's Press, 1986. </ref>

[[Image:washington-deleware.jpg|300px|left|thumb|''Washington Crossing the Delaware'' 
painted by Emmanuel Leutze in 1850]]Washington bravely led the colonists in revolt against the unjust British government, and in its place established a new government. Fighting against the vastly more powerful British army, Washington lost nearly every battle in the American Revolution until winning at Trenton and Princeton, and then lost most battles afterwards until ultimately prevailing at Yorktown with the help of a new contingent of French troops.

Washington frequently invoked Christianity in his work. As General, he commanded that chaplains be included in every regiment: "The General hopes and trusts, that every officer and man, will endeavor so to live, and act, as becomes a Christian Soldier, defending the dearest Rights and Liberties of his country."<ref>http://www.amerisearch.net/index.php?date=2004-02-22&view=View</ref>

Washington declared in his Inaugural Address: "It would be peculiarly improper to omit, in this first official act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the Universe. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of Providential agency." Comments such as this one have led many modern scholars to conclude that Washington was in fact a deist rather than a Christian.<ref>''Id.''</ref>
Washington declared in his Farewell Address: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports." <ref>[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r106:4:./temp/~r1068i99iE:e2427: Reading of Washington's Farewell Address -- (Senate - February 22, 2000)]</ref>

On November 4, 1752, Washington was initiated into Freemasonry at Fredricksburg Lodge, Fredricksburg, Virginia. He was passed and raised at the same lodge, becoming a Master Mason on August 4, 1753. He later served as Worshipful Master of Alexandria Lodge No. 22 in Alexandria, Virginia. Upon his death in 1799, he was given a Masonic funeral at his wife's request.<ref>http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/washington_g/washington_g.html</ref>

==Parson Weems And The Cherry Tree Story==
In 1809, Mason Locke Weems (1756-1825), usually referred to as "Parson Weems," published a book entitled ''History of the Life and Death, Virtues and Exploits of General George Washington.'' This book contained many fanciful stories and half-truths, intended to present Washington as a larger-than-life figure. Perhaps the most famous passage in it is Weems' recounting of a story which he attributed to an unnamed "aged lady, who was a distant relative [of Washington], and, when a girl, spent much of her time in the [Washington] family:"

:"When George," said she, "was about six years old, he was made the wealthy master of a hatchet of which, like most little boys, he was immoderately fond, and was constantly going about chopping everything that came in his way. One day, in the garden, where he often amused himself hacking his mother's pea-sticks, he unluckily tried the edge of his hatchet on the body of a beautiful young English cherry-tree, which he barked so terribly, that I don't believe the tree ever got the better of it. The next morning the old gentleman, finding out what had befallen his tree, which, by the by, was a great favorite, came into the house; and with much warmth asked for the mischievous author, declaring at the same time, that he would not have taken five guineas for his tree. Nobody could tell him anything about it. Presently George and his hatchet made their appearance. "George," said his father," do you know who killed that beautiful little cherry tree yonder in the garden?" This was a tough question; and George staggered under it for a moment; but quickly recovered himself: and looking at his father, with the sweet face of youth brightened with the inexpressible charm of all-conquering truth, he bravely cried out, "I can't tell a lie, Pa; you know I can't tell a lie. I did cut it with my hatchet."—"Run to my arms, you dearest boy," cried his father in transports, "run to my arms; glad am I, George, that you killed my tree; for you have paid me for it a thousand fold. Such an act of heroism in my son is more worth than a thousand trees, though blossomed with silver, and their fruits of purest gold."<ref>British spellings are as they appear in the original text.</ref><ref>Weems, George Mason (1918), ''History of the Life and Death, Virtues and Exploits of General George Washington.'' [http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CAP/gw/chap2.html Chapter 2: Birth and Education], online at University of Virginia]</ref><ref>[http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC22316477&id=6tc56rgYE1YC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=mason+locke+weems&as_brr=1#PPP13,M1 The Life of George Washington] with Curious Anecdotes Equally Honorable to Himself, and Exemplary to his Young Countrymen. 1837, facsimile page images at Google Books</ref>

(Notice that Weems did not represent Washington as calling it "my ''little'' hatchet;" that appears to be a "familiar misquotation.")

In a October 2000 survey of 132 prominent professors of history, law, and political science, President Washington was grouped in the "Great" group, ranked 1st, with a mean score of 4.92 out of 5.00. <ref>Presidential Leadership: Rating the Best and the Worst in the White House (New York, Wall Street Journal Book, 2004)</ref>

==Quotes from George Washington==

*The freedom of Speech may be taken away, and, dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the Slaughter. (To THE OFFICERS OF THE ARMY, Head Quarters, Newburgh, March 15, 1783, from ''The writings of George Washington from the original manuscript sources, '' ed. John C. Fitzpatrick, (Washington: U.S. GPO, 1931-1944)26: 224

*Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. ("FAREWELL ADDRESS" in ''Writings,'' 35:229.)

*There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily. (To THE SECRETARY OF STATE in ''Writings,''34:266.)

----

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

{{DEFAULTSORT:Washington, George}}
[[Category:Military Commanders]]
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]

Talk:George Washington

2007-06-30T14:38:02Z

McIntyre: Cleaned up quotes

==Discussion on George Washington Article==

Just because something is silly, does not mean that it is not true. An encyclopedia is supposed to be about the truth and while sometimes the truth is very silly, it still is important. The canonization of George Washington, while silly, is an issue that is important to many Catholics. By deleting this section, you are not living up to your own standards (e.g. Biases of Wikipedia). You claim to be Pro-Christianity and Pro-America, yet you delete a section about one of our greatest leaders as a result of anti-Catholic bias. Shame on you, sir.

In the end, there was never a way that he ''could be'' canonized. It was proposed that he should be, but George Washington was not Catholic - as you stated in the article. If he were canonized, there would be grounds for keeping this section. Nothing came out of this topic. It ''was'' truly useless information. --[[User:David R|David R]] 23:39, 21 February 2007 (EST)

==George Washington's expenses==

What, no mention of his expensive expense account? Washington was magnanimous enough to lead the Revolutionary Forces against Great Britain for free, saying:

<blockquote>''Sir, I beg leave to assure the Congress that as no pecuniary consideration could have tempted me to have accepted this arduous employment, I do not wish to make any profit from it. I will keep an exact account of my expenses. Those I doubt not they will discharge, and that is all I desire.''</blockquote>

However over eight years his expenses came to nearly $500,000 – well over $4 million in today's money. He also gave loans to his friends that were never repaid, he bought limes by the crateload (400 at one point), and he treated himself to every "sundry" good available. From July 21-22 1775, he bought a pig, an unreadable number of ducks, "1 dozen pigeons, veal, 1 dozen squash, 2 dozen eggs, hurtleberries, biscuit and a cork cask."

From September 1775 to March 1776, Washington spent over six thousand dollars on booze.

Once President, Washington made the same offer to exchange a salary for an expense account. He was politely rebuffed and given a modest $25,000-a-year salary. [http://www.historyhouse.com/in_history/washington/] [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 16:01 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==Giving up power==

The British Empire in 1936, when Edward VIII voluntarily abdicated, giving up worldly power to marry the wife of his choice, included India, Canada, South Africa, Australia, and many other nations right around the globe - Edward was the Head of State of all of them. Washington's stepping aside after two terms as US president was trivial by comparison. --[[User:Burke|Burke]] 12:02, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:By 1936, the King was merely a figurehead. This was amply demonstrated by the events just prior to World War II. He had essential no power.

:Also, the abdication was to obtain something else that King Edward VIII wanted (marrying a woman). It was like resigning one position to accept another one. Had the British allowed him to marry the woman and remain King, he would have done so.

:Washington declined permanent rule over the United States despite being relative young and in good health. It was a pure declining of immense worldly power and the only similar example in world history was by Jesus.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:29, 4 March 2007 (EST)

::Jesus didn't decline worldly power; he declined sin in the Last Temptation. Also, you're patently wrong bout the "only similar example" being history. Let's start in Rome. Diocletian abdicated from his post as senior Augustus to allow his junior Caesar to take his place. He did this for no other reason than the good of Rome; to secure the balance in the tetrarchy. Also, famously, the Roman dictator Cincinattus served as unquestioned ruler for under a year before surrendering his position and returning to his farm, earning him a place in Roman legend. Washington actually followed Cincinattus' example, as all the founders sought to emulate the Roman Republic, and British poet Lord Byron caught on. In his poem, "Ode to Napoleon Bonaparte," the poet scourges Bonaparte before hailing Washington as "the first, the last, the best, the Cincinnatus of the West." http://www.theotherpages.org/poems/2001/byron0101.html.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 10:32, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::Another person who voluntarily relinquished power was the Italian patriot, Garibaldi, who used his army to unify the country, and then gave up the power he could have assumed. Also, George Washington should probably not be compared to Jesus if you don't want to isolate conservative thinkers outside of the United States.

==Confused==

Was he a freemason cause he had a free mason burial. Or was his wife a mason? --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 12:20, 4 March 2007 (EST)

: Washington was a Mason. There are paintings of him wearing some Mason regalia.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 10:47, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Yes, definitely a mason. Only a mason can receive a masonic burial. Woman cannot join freemasonry.
Also, there is much doubt as to Washington's faith, although it almost certainly had a theistic base. According to his pastor, Abercrombie, I believe his name was, he was a Unitarian. It appears that he doubted the doctrine of the trinity and Christ's divinity.
--[[User:Adon2|Adon2]] 01:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Slave Ownership ==

I find it amazing that someone so mean as to own slaves could ever be seen as a Christian. By the time of the American Revolutionary War (in itself a small side-line of a greater Franco-British War) the ownership of slaves was seen in most civilised countries as somewhere between illegal and unfashionable. Indeed, one of the points of contention between the American colonies and Britain was the ownership of slaves and their use producing goods sold at a cheaper price than goods made from non-slave labour.
Whilst it is true that Washington had his slaves released at his death, this is hardly gracious of him. To quote Voltaire "The man who leaves money to charity in his will is only giving away what no longer belongs to him"

Exuse me. Many Godly men had slaves. In fact God has several instructions about slaves in the first five books of the Bible. Slavery wasn't evil. It is mistreating those slaves that is evil. -[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 17:33, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

==Quotes==
I cleaned up some of the quotes and gave them the proper cites. Some of the quotes were false (the firearms quote for example). The quote about the U.S. government not being founded on the Christian religion does exist, but it has nothing to do with Washington. It was in the text of a treaty that the U.S. signed with the Barbary Pirates in the very early nineteenth century. --[[User:McIntyre|McIntyre]] 10:38, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

George Washington

2007-06-30T14:33:41Z

McIntyre: /* Quotes from George Washington */

{| class="infobox bordered" style="float: right; margin: 0 0 0.5em 0.5em; text-align: left; font-size: 85%; margin-left:5px" border=1 align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="250"
|-
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:George washington 3.jpg|180px]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; font-size: 120%; height: 30px; background: purple no-repeat scroll top left;"|George Washington 
1st President of the United States
|-
|'''Born'''
|February 22, 1732
|-
|'''Died'''
|December 14, 1799
|-
|'''Term'''
|1789-1797
|-
|'''Political party'''
|None
|-
|'''Vice President'''
|[[John Adams]]
|-
|'''Preceded by'''
|''None''
|-
|'''Succeeded by'''
|[[John Adams]]
|-
|}

'''George Washington''' '''(February 22, 1732 - December 14, 1799)''' was the unanimously elected 1st President of the [[United States of America]] and the Commander-in-Chief in the [[Revolutionary War]].<ref>http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/gw1.html</ref> He was also a devout [[Christian]], with his adopted daughter once stating that "if you question Washington's faith, you may as well question whether or not he was a patriot."<ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g011.html</ref>

Washington endeared himself to generations of Americans by first refusing to become a military dictator or king and then by voluntarily stepping aside as the leader of a prosperous nation. His precedent was voluntarily followed for 140 years. Towards that end, he sought to emulate the model of the citizen-soldier set by the Roman leader [[Cincinnatus]], a comparison that is truly testament to Washington's greatness, and one that drew worldwide attention and acclaim, even in England, the nation he defeated.<ref>For Lord Byron's poem on the subject, hailing Washington as "the first, the last, the best, the Cincinnatus of the West," see http://www.theotherpages.org/poems/2001/byron0101.html.</ref> The archetype of Washington as the citizen-soldier has become part of America's collective idealization of citizenship, and is immortalized in [[New York city| New York city's]] [[Washington Square Arch]], which depicts Washington the soldier on the left, and Washington the statesman on the right.<ref>For photographic images, see http://www.nyc-architecture.com/GV/GV046WashingtonSquareArch.htm</ref>

He was born on February 22, 1732 to Augustine and Mary Washington. <ref> [[Encyclopedia of Presidents, George Washington]], Zachary Kent, Children's Press, 1986. </ref>

[[Image:washington-deleware.jpg|300px|left|thumb|''Washington Crossing the Delaware'' 
painted by Emmanuel Leutze in 1850]]Washington bravely led the colonists in revolt against the unjust British government, and in its place established a new government. Fighting against the vastly more powerful British army, Washington lost nearly every battle in the American Revolution until winning at Trenton and Princeton, and then lost most battles afterwards until ultimately prevailing at Yorktown with the help of a new contingent of French troops.

Washington frequently invoked Christianity in his work. As General, he commanded that chaplains be included in every regiment: "The General hopes and trusts, that every officer and man, will endeavor so to live, and act, as becomes a Christian Soldier, defending the dearest Rights and Liberties of his country."<ref>http://www.amerisearch.net/index.php?date=2004-02-22&view=View</ref>

Washington declared in his Inaugural Address: "It would be peculiarly improper to omit, in this first official act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the Universe. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of Providential agency." Comments such as this one have led many modern scholars to conclude that Washington was in fact a deist rather than a Christian.<ref>''Id.''</ref>
Washington declared in his Farewell Address: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports." <ref>[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r106:4:./temp/~r1068i99iE:e2427: Reading of Washington's Farewell Address -- (Senate - February 22, 2000)]</ref>

On November 4, 1752, Washington was initiated into Freemasonry at Fredricksburg Lodge, Fredricksburg, Virginia. He was passed and raised at the same lodge, becoming a Master Mason on August 4, 1753. He later served as Worshipful Master of Alexandria Lodge No. 22 in Alexandria, Virginia. Upon his death in 1799, he was given a Masonic funeral at his wife's request.<ref>http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/washington_g/washington_g.html</ref>

==Parson Weems And The Cherry Tree Story==
In 1809, Mason Locke Weems (1756-1825), usually referred to as "Parson Weems," published a book entitled ''History of the Life and Death, Virtues and Exploits of General George Washington.'' This book contained many fanciful stories and half-truths, intended to present Washington as a larger-than-life figure. Perhaps the most famous passage in it is Weems' recounting of a story which he attributed to an unnamed "aged lady, who was a distant relative [of Washington], and, when a girl, spent much of her time in the [Washington] family:"

:"When George," said she, "was about six years old, he was made the wealthy master of a hatchet of which, like most little boys, he was immoderately fond, and was constantly going about chopping everything that came in his way. One day, in the garden, where he often amused himself hacking his mother's pea-sticks, he unluckily tried the edge of his hatchet on the body of a beautiful young English cherry-tree, which he barked so terribly, that I don't believe the tree ever got the better of it. The next morning the old gentleman, finding out what had befallen his tree, which, by the by, was a great favorite, came into the house; and with much warmth asked for the mischievous author, declaring at the same time, that he would not have taken five guineas for his tree. Nobody could tell him anything about it. Presently George and his hatchet made their appearance. "George," said his father," do you know who killed that beautiful little cherry tree yonder in the garden?" This was a tough question; and George staggered under it for a moment; but quickly recovered himself: and looking at his father, with the sweet face of youth brightened with the inexpressible charm of all-conquering truth, he bravely cried out, "I can't tell a lie, Pa; you know I can't tell a lie. I did cut it with my hatchet."—"Run to my arms, you dearest boy," cried his father in transports, "run to my arms; glad am I, George, that you killed my tree; for you have paid me for it a thousand fold. Such an act of heroism in my son is more worth than a thousand trees, though blossomed with silver, and their fruits of purest gold."<ref>British spellings are as they appear in the original text.</ref><ref>Weems, George Mason (1918), ''History of the Life and Death, Virtues and Exploits of General George Washington.'' [http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CAP/gw/chap2.html Chapter 2: Birth and Education], online at University of Virginia]</ref><ref>[http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC22316477&id=6tc56rgYE1YC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=mason+locke+weems&as_brr=1#PPP13,M1 The Life of George Washington] with Curious Anecdotes Equally Honorable to Himself, and Exemplary to his Young Countrymen. 1837, facsimile page images at Google Books</ref>

(Notice that Weems did not represent Washington as calling it "my ''little'' hatchet;" that appears to be a "familiar misquotation.")

In a October 2000 survey of 132 prominent professors of history, law, and political science, President Washington was grouped in the "Great" group, ranked 1st, with a mean score of 4.92 out of 5.00. <ref>Presidential Leadership: Rating the Best and the Worst in the White House (New York, Wall Street Journal Book, 2004)</ref>

==Quotes from George Washington==

*The freedom of Speech may be taken away, and, dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the Slaughter. (To THE OFFICERS OF THE ARMY, Head Quarters, Newburgh, March 15, 1783, from ''The writings of George Washington from the original manuscript sources, '' ed. John C. Fitzpatrick, (Washington: U.S. GPO, 1931-1944)26: 224

*Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. ("FAREWELL ADDRESS" in ''Writings,'' 35:229.

*There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily. (To THE SECRETARY OF STATE in ''Writings,''34:266.

----

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

{{DEFAULTSORT:Washington, George}}
[[Category:Military Commanders]]
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]

Jonathan Edwards

2007-06-29T13:44:53Z

McIntyre:

''For the former Senator from North Carolina, see [[John Edwards]]''

'''Jonathan Edwards''' (1703 – 1758 AD) was a [[Minister]] of a [[Congregationalist]] church in [[Northampton]], [[Massachusetts]] during the [[Great Awakening]]. He is best known as the author of the classic "fire and brimstone" sermon ''Sinners in the hands of an angry God''. However, his most important contribution to the awakening was his book, ''A Faithful Narrative of the Surprising work of [[God]]'' ([[London]], 1737), which provided guidance to other [[clergy]] as to how to conduct a [[revival]]. He graduated first in his class from [[Yale]] University, and was serving as the president of [[Princeton]] University when he received the [[smallpox]] [[innoculation]], having been assured it would be safe. However, it was very dangerous and killed him.

His inspiring preaching helped start the Great Awakening, which became a huge religious revival that helped unite the [[colony|colonies]] prior to the [[American Revolution]]. Like most eighteenth century Congreationalist (who were derived from the the seventeenth century "Puritan" church) Edwards was a Calvinist; however, traditional Calvinist maintain that only the elect, who had been chosen before the creation of the world, could achieve salvation. <ref>http://www.wfu.edu/~matthetl/perspectives/four.html</ref> By the time of the Great Awakening, most Calvinist clergy had altered their views that one could alter their eternal fate (which was the point of most of Edward's sermons.)

[[Aaron Burr]] was a grandson of Jonathan Edwards.

[[Category:Religious people|Edwards, Jonathan]]
[[Category:Church History]]

==References==
<references/>

Frank Lambert, ''Inventing the “Great Awakening”'' (Princeton University Press, 1999)

Talk:Thirteen Colonies

2007-06-06T20:16:31Z

McIntyre: New page: This needs some work. Plymouth Bay Colony was founded in 1620 by Separatists (Or pilgrims as some older texts have it) who were led by William Bradford (after the death of their initial l...

This needs some work. Plymouth Bay Colony was founded in 1620 by Separatists (Or pilgrims as some older texts have it) who were led by William Bradford (after the death of their initial leader).

Massachusetts Bay Colony on the other hand, was not established until 1630, and they were led by John Winthrop. Plymouth Bay Colony was absorbed by Massachusetts Bay in the 1690s.--[[User:McIntyre|McIntyre]] 16:16, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

The South

2007-06-06T20:07:19Z

McIntyre: /* 1964 to 1992 */

'''The South''' is usually identified as the eleven states that made up the [[Confederate States of America]] which consisted of [[South Carolina]], [[Mississippi]], [[Florida]], [[Alabama]], [[Georgia]], [[Louisiana]], [[Texas]], [[Virginia]], [[Arkansas]], [[Tennessee]] and [[North Carolina]].{{fact}} The South is currently defined by the US Census as the above listed states, as well as [[Delaware]], [[Maryland]], [[West Virginia]], [[Kentucky]], and [[Oklahoma]]. [http://www.census.gov/geo/www/us_regdiv.pdf]

Although the south once fought to secede from the union during the [[Civil War]], today they are known as much as all the other states of the Union for their patriotism and commitment to morality in government.

==Presidential politics==

After the ratification of the [[United States Constitution|U. S. Constitution]], the two most important schools of interpretation of that Constitution came to be associated with [[Alexander Hamilton]], a Northerner, and [[Thomas Jefferson]], a Southerner. Each came to dominate the thinking of his respective region, if only following his death. The two men were also associated with competing sectors of the economy -- finance for Hamilton and agriculture for Jefferson -- and their supporters were therefore identified with Americans who had widely divergent outlooks on and goals in life. This was one major reason the South has always looked at politics differently than any other major region.

[[Andrew Jackson]] was the first national politician to attempt to fuze the two schools. His experiment, a party in which Northern laborers and Southern yeomen would have an equal stake, lasted throughout the [[Second Party System]], but was unable to hold out in 1860 against the challenge of the [[Republicans]] led by [[Abraham Lincoln]]. Later Democratic Presidents, taking their cue from Lincoln, were far more inspired by Hamilton, seeking almost without exception to expand the role of the [[Federal government]]; but the legacy of Jackson and the [[Civil War]] would keep the South on their side up until 1968.

From the end of the Civil War to the 1960 election, the "Solid South" as political pundits called it, nearly always supported Democratic candidates. Since 1964, the South has become increasingly important to Presidential victors.

===1964 to 1992===
The Solid South began to break down in the 1964 election, when five southern states voted for Republican [[Barry Goldwater]]. The largest and President Johnson's homestate, Texas, remained Democratic. In 1968, [[Richard Nixon]] carried Florida, and the Carolinas, while an Independent [[George Wallace]] carried the rest, with the exception of Texas, which remained Democratic. Former Democratic Gov. George Wallace commenting on his 1968 Presidential bid declared, that by using a base of electoral votes in the Solid South <ref>[http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/elections/maps/1968ec.gif 1968 Electoral Distribution]</ref> and adding a few Northern and Midwestern industrial belt states, a candidate could accumulate enough electoral votes to win. Wallace did not win in 1968, But eight years later in the 1976 election, Democratic contender [[Jimmy Carter]].<ref>[http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/elections/maps/1976ec.gif 1976 Electoral Distribution].</ref> succesfully employed Wallace's Southern strategy. Beginning in 1972, candidates Richard Nixon (1972), Jimmy Carter (1976), [[Ronald Reagan]] (1984), [[George H.W. Bush]] (1988) carried every southern state.The exception to this was Reagan's election in 1980 when he carried every southern state save incumbent President Jimmy Carter's home state of Georgia.

===1992 to 2004===

In 1992 [[Democratic]] candidate [[Bill Clinton]] reassembled Carter's coalition and carried Arkansas, Tennessee, Florida, and Georgia in 1992, but lost Georgia in 1996.<ref>http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/elections/maps/></ref> [[George W. Bush]] (2000 and 2004) carried every Southern state including Democratic challenger and incumbant Vice President [[Al Gore]]'s home state of Tennesse.

Large numbers of Southerners have served in the U.S. military. During the Civil War southerners did not volunteer in large enough numbers to match the military needs of the south. Approximately twenty percent of all Confederate soldiers were therefore draftees (compared to eight percent in the Union armies), and they were subject to “compulsory reenlistment.”<ref>Tinadall & Shi, ''America: A Narrative History'', 7th ed.(New York Norton, 2007):616-618.</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Geography]]
[[Category:Politics]]

The South

2007-06-06T20:05:04Z

McIntyre: /* 1964 to 1992 */

'''The South''' is usually identified as the eleven states that made up the [[Confederate States of America]] which consisted of [[South Carolina]], [[Mississippi]], [[Florida]], [[Alabama]], [[Georgia]], [[Louisiana]], [[Texas]], [[Virginia]], [[Arkansas]], [[Tennessee]] and [[North Carolina]].{{fact}} The South is currently defined by the US Census as the above listed states, as well as [[Delaware]], [[Maryland]], [[West Virginia]], [[Kentucky]], and [[Oklahoma]]. [http://www.census.gov/geo/www/us_regdiv.pdf]

Although the south once fought to secede from the union during the [[Civil War]], today they are known as much as all the other states of the Union for their patriotism and commitment to morality in government.

==Presidential politics==

After the ratification of the [[United States Constitution|U. S. Constitution]], the two most important schools of interpretation of that Constitution came to be associated with [[Alexander Hamilton]], a Northerner, and [[Thomas Jefferson]], a Southerner. Each came to dominate the thinking of his respective region, if only following his death. The two men were also associated with competing sectors of the economy -- finance for Hamilton and agriculture for Jefferson -- and their supporters were therefore identified with Americans who had widely divergent outlooks on and goals in life. This was one major reason the South has always looked at politics differently than any other major region.

[[Andrew Jackson]] was the first national politician to attempt to fuze the two schools. His experiment, a party in which Northern laborers and Southern yeomen would have an equal stake, lasted throughout the [[Second Party System]], but was unable to hold out in 1860 against the challenge of the [[Republicans]] led by [[Abraham Lincoln]]. Later Democratic Presidents, taking their cue from Lincoln, were far more inspired by Hamilton, seeking almost without exception to expand the role of the [[Federal government]]; but the legacy of Jackson and the [[Civil War]] would keep the South on their side up until 1968.

From the end of the Civil War to the 1960 election, the "Solid South" as political pundits called it, nearly always supported Democratic candidates. Since 1964, the South has become increasingly important to Presidential victors.

===1964 to 1992===
The Solid South began to break down in the 1964 election, when five southern states voted for Republican [[Barry Goldwater]]. The largest and President Johnson's homestate, Texas, remained Democratic. In 1968, [[Richard Nixon]] carried Florida, and the Carolinas, while an Independent [[George Wallace]] carried the rest, with the exception of Texas, which remained Democratic. Former Democratic Gov. George Wallace commenting on his 1968 Presidential bid declared, that by using a base of electoral votes in the Solid South <ref>[http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/elections/maps/1968ec.gif 1968 Electoral Distribution]</ref> and adding a few Northern and Midwestern industrial belt states, a candidate could accumulate enough electoral votes to win. Wallace did not win in 1968, But eight years later in the 1976 election, Democratic contender [[Jimmy Carter]].<ref>[http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/elections/maps/1976ec.gif 1976 Electoral Distribution].</ref> succesfully employed Wallace's Southern strategy. Beginning in 1972, candidates Richard Nixon (1972), Jimmy Carter (1976), [[Ronald Reagan]] (1984), [[George H.W. Bush]] (1988) carried every southern state with the exception of Reagan in 1980 who did not carry incumbant President Jimmy Carter's home state of Georgia.

===1992 to 2004===

In 1992 [[Democratic]] candidate [[Bill Clinton]] reassembled Carter's coalition and carried Arkansas, Tennessee, Florida, and Georgia in 1992, but lost Georgia in 1996.<ref>http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/elections/maps/></ref> [[George W. Bush]] (2000 and 2004) carried every Southern state including Democratic challenger and incumbant Vice President [[Al Gore]]'s home state of Tennesse.

Large numbers of Southerners have served in the U.S. military. During the Civil War southerners did not volunteer in large enough numbers to match the military needs of the south. Approximately twenty percent of all Confederate soldiers were therefore draftees (compared to eight percent in the Union armies), and they were subject to “compulsory reenlistment.”<ref>Tinadall & Shi, ''America: A Narrative History'', 7th ed.(New York Norton, 2007):616-618.</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Geography]]
[[Category:Politics]]

Debate:Was Benjamin Franklin a deist?

2007-06-06T19:49:54Z

McIntyre: /* YES */

{{debate}}

==YES==

He states so in his autobiography, and again in a letter written to Ezra Stiles a month before his death. He did see Christianity as valuable, noting the positive effects of George Whitefield’s preaching to the colonists, and expressed his admiration of Christ’s moral teachings. --[[User:McIntyre|McIntyre]] 17:29, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

His autobiography was published in 1791. I added this to the article here. --Ed Poor 09:28, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

Was that a posthumous publication? Do we know when he actually wrote it?--Aschlafly 17:25, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

Franklin wrote it over a period of time, starting and stopping. He wrote the first few chapters in 1771, wrote more in 1784-5, and finished it in 1788. It was, like Ed Poor says, partly first published, posthumously, in French in 1791, and then translated into English in 1793.--Steve 19:53, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the enlightening information. Obviously any claim that Franklin said he was a deist should have a date next to it, as people's religious views change throughout their lives. Moreover, no one should claim that a work is an autobiography if it was published without his consent, as in posthumously. The best I can infer from this is that Franklin viewed himself as a deist in 1771, but by 1787 (Constitutional Convention) viewed the world differently, and by the time he died he viewed it still differently again. If our entry about Franklin does not yet reflect this, then I'll change it now. Thanks for your efforts. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 00:16, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

Further review reveals that Franklin did not even claim to be a deist in 1771, but merely said he was a deist in his youth! Really, the attempts by liberals to insist that Franklin was a deist towards the end of his life are astounding.--Aschlafly 00:50, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

Aschlafly, you are ignoring some ambiguity about the meaning of the word "deist." At the end of his life Franklin was not a deist, according to current dictionary definitions of the word, but his stated views in his "Creed" accord pretty well with the definition of deist according to Edward Herbert of Cherbury, who coined the word. And that may have been the definition that was current in his time.

Everyone in their life acquires what I'm going to call a stock of "fables," which are narratives that do have some connection with reality but have been grossly oversimplified and distorted. A good neutral example of one would be "Columbus thought the world was round when everyone else thought it was flat." The simple statement "The Founding Fathers were deists" is a good example of a liberal fable.
It's certainly fair to say Franklin advocated public prayer, and admired Christianity in some sense. But he wasn't a traditional Christian or close to one, either. Dpbsmith 09:13, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

It's common for liberals to deny that people find faith in life. Once an atheist or deist, always an atheist or deist, according to anti-Christians. Under this view, Abraham Lincoln was there an atheist (not true, he found faith as he grew older), and Benjamin Franklin was a deist (not true, he request divine intervention at the Constitutional Convention). Citing what Franklin wrote in 1771 about his youthful deism is obviously not proof that he was a deist at the Convention in 1787. Quite the contrary, as deists do not believe in divine intervention.--Aschlafly 15:03, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

Read Franklin's letters to Ezra Stiles, written one month before his death. The first paragraph shows his deist leanings, while the in the second one he acknowledges the value of Christianity, but doubts that Christ was the son of god. --McIntyre 17:23, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

I did read them here: Benjamin Franklin. Franklin does not describe himself as a deist. Enough said. About Jesus's divinity, Franklin says he has not studied it and is open to the possibility. A deist, by the way, requires a non-interventionist God. Franklin rejected that.--Aschlafly 22:57, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

I must note the irony here in connection with a prior discussion. Liberals insist on calling all supporters of abortion "pro-choice" rather than "pro-abortion" because that is the term they use for themselves. But then liberals insist on falling Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson "deists" when they did not use that term to describe their views as adults! Franklin believed in an interventionist God and Jefferson frequently attended a Christian church until he died.--Aschlafly 15:18, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

A more careful reading of the letter to Stiles, written a month before Franklin's death, reveals his diest leanings. Franklin states that he believes in one God and that our behavior in this life dictates how we be treated in the next. Notice he does not identify the God, or use the term Christian. Sounds very much like a diest. As for the second paragraph, doubting if Christ is divine does not seem very Christian. Please respond to the content of Franklin's letter, rather than attempting to divert the discussion with references to current terms used in highly charged debates today. --McIntyre 15:45, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

The most important aspect of that letter is that Franklin does not call himself a deist. He'd known the term all his life, and he clearly would have used it if applied to him. It did not. We should not call him by a religious name that he himself rejected. Surely you wouldn't claim that someone is a Catholic, for example, if the person himself rejects that label.
Where do you get that Franklin "does not identify the God"??? He says, "Here is my Creed: I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe."--Aschlafly 15:54, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Odd, McIntyre, but that was what I was about to post to you. You are the one adding modern interpretations and your own suppositions, to almost 300 year old letters. Revisionist thinking at its finest! I think the fact that Jefferson attended church services weekly speaks louder than all the modernist "conclusions". --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 15:59, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

He was also familiar with the term Christian, and he did not use it. Plus, he doubts the divinity of Christ. That does not sound like a firm statement of Christian faith, does it? Eighteenth century deists tended to subscribe to the notion of God, but declined to identify the deity in question. As TK's objection: Where did you get the idea that I am using modern ideas? I also do not recall discussing Jefferson--McIntyre 16:04, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

You didn't respond to our rebuttal of your claim that Franklin did not identify God. I assume you're conceding that Franklin expressly did identify God.
I would also like a concession that Franklin was not a deist towards the end of his life before moving on to the very different question of whether Franklin was a Christian. More generally, I don't want a perpetuation of the liberal view that people cannot grow into stronger faith. Many do.--Aschlafly 16:11, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Franklin does identify there is a god or deity of some sort. But he does not identify it as Christian. Why do you want a concession that Franklin was not a deist? It appears (based on his writings up to the end of his life) that he was.--McIntyre 16:25, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

McIntyre, unfortunately I can only conclude that you don't have an open mind about this. Perhaps you're repeating something you heard elsewhere and won't reconsider your views about it. Franklin strongly believed in an interventionist God and that disqualifies him from being a deist. Franklin did not call himself a deist. It's slanderous to insist that Franklin was a deist, and a sign that you're pushing an agenda based on bias. Enough. Please move on to another topic here with more of an open mind. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 17:06, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

This reminds me of a larger theme called "debunking the founding". The idea is that whatever flaws there may be in America's founding (and Founding Fathers) somehow invalidates America's special claim to being a Godly nation. Like, since we didn't immediately abolish slavery, we are worthless slime.
Don't forget the prayer embedding in our patriotic song: "God mend thine every flaw and crown thy good with brotherhood". America is great because it strives to be good. It is the cream of the crop and will continue to be as long as it so strives. --Ed Poor 17:57, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Aschlafly, I think your desire that McIntyre concede that Franklin was deist is unfortunate. He has cited primary sources--Franklin's own writings--rather than "something he heard.", He also correctly noted that Franklin did not identify the god in question--all hallmarks of eighteenth century deism. If someone does not have an "open mind" on the subject, as you put it, it is not McIntyre. I even think I know who McIntyre is, and when I see this person this weekend, I will ask him. He is really quite a scholar.--Jamest 12:12, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

The insistence on liberals describing Franklin as a deist continues to amaze me. I'll bet the correlation between those who insist Franklin was a deist and liberals is nearly 100%. It doesn't matter if the claim is made by a scholar or a student. Liberals want Franklin to have been a deist, even though Franklin himself implicitly rejected that label and prayed for divine intervention, something deists rejected.--Aschlafly 12:22, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

You should not be amazed. A reading of eighteenth century diest works reveals they have nothing against praying, and you have not addressed this point: Franklin never says he is a Christian, but he did say he was a deist. You say it "does not matter" who makes the claim, and that you willfully choose not to address the point that the writings McIntyre noted were Franklin's own. I think it is rather obvious who has the closed mind in this debate. --Jamest 12:42, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

By the way, the thought occurs to me: why do you reject what a Franklin scholar has to say? Surely a scholar has read more works by and about Franklin than you. Why do you reject their assertions out of hand or wish for them to concede something that they know--base on their research--is not true? Conservapedia wants to accurate and true, right? --Jamest 12:55, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

James, please disclose your political point-of-view along with that of the "scholar". Let me guess: do both of you oppose prayer in the classrooms of public schools? Enough said.--Aschlafly 13:11, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

We are discussing the past, not the political present. So, why bring up school prayer? What does that have to so with Franklin's deism?--Jamest 13:17, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

It explains your views. If you're opposed to prayer in the classroom, then there is over a 90% chance that (1) you'll insist that Franklin was a deist and (2) you believe in evolution. That extraordinary correlation suggests that the facts are irrelevant. If you're not open-minded about prayer in the classroom, then it's futile to expect you to be open-minded about these other issues.--Aschlafly 18:41, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly, I fail to see how my position on school prayer (which, by the way, you do not know) is germane to a conversation regarding Benjamin Franklin’s spiritual beliefs. You also do not know my position regarding evolution (I am also uncertain as to how that is relevant to this conversation). As for your other suppositions (the 90% figure), do you have evidence to support this? Now could you please show a little intellectual integrity, and address the substance of McIntyre’s arguments, rather than engaging in distractions? I do have an open mind about such matters sir, and I hope that you have the same. --Jamest 08:23, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

I do know, with 95% certainty, what your positions are on classroom prayer and evolution. The 95% confidence level is all that science requires. I know your positions with greater certainty than I know what the weather will be like tomorrow.
But why do you refuse to disclose your positions? Are you embarrassed about them? Do you feel they are indefensible? Conservatives don't hide their views; liberals do. Why?--Aschlafly 10:26, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly, my positions on school prayer and evolution would probably surprise you. I do not discuss them because they are not germane to the topic at hand, namely, Benjamin Franklin’s spiritual beliefs. Please show a little intellectual integrity, stick to the topic, and stop engaging in distractions. Could you please address McIntyre’s arguments?--Jamest 10:34, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

One more thing Mr. Schlafly. I do not know how you arrive at a figure of “95% certainty.” But I will share one observation with you. I have long noticed that a debater who employs distraction and non-sequiturs is in a desperate position. Will you respond to McIntyre’s argument? Or are you unable to do so?--Jamest 11:05, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

James, liberals crave attention and don't mind being deceitful. See Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia. Whether you are a liberal or not, I observe that you are not willing to be forthright about your views here, so my time is better spent discussing issues with others. Please leave my talk page, which is respected as one's castle here on Conservapedia. See Differences with Wikipedia. Thank you and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 11:25, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly, I am hardly a liberal. I will comply with your rules and stay off your talk page. However, if one does not have the intellectual fortitude to debate, one should not make unfounded assertions, such as “Franklin was not a deist” that are based on belief, rather than rigorous historical scholarship. Good day Sir.--Jamest 13:43, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't find you to be forthright in stating your views. You may say that you are "hardly a liberal," but I'm not fooled by that. I'm 95% confident that you oppose prayer in the classroom, and that you believe in evolution.
I know liberals insist on having the last word. But this is my talk page, and the last word will be mine. Don't post here again on this issue. Thank you and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 14:08, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

You still did not try to answer professor McIntyre. I thought this was about Franklin? Why are you talking about prayer and evolution? --Willed 22:38, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

Nice try, "Willed". You're a sock of Jamest, and both account IDs and IP address have just been blocked for this.--Aschlafly 22:44, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

Ok, then. I'm not a sock of Jamest or Willed, but I second the question. Why bring up questions about evolution and school prayer when they are irrelevant to the question of Franklin's faith and McIntyre's research? JohnSmith 15:26, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Someone who insists on censoring classroom prayer, even when everyone in the class wants to pray, is going to have a bias on issues related to religion. He should disclose his position so that others can evaluate his bias. So should you if you are going to insist that Franklin was a deist towards the end of his life.--Aschlafly 15:47, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

So if everybody in the class wanted to smoke Marijuana, would that be acceptable, via your ad populum argument? --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 17:25, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

There are laws against smoking marijuana to prevent the harm it causes. But there is no harm from praying in a classroom, while there is much good. Also, praying is a form of speech, unlike smoking marijuana. At bottom, liberals insist on censoring speech in the classroom. But notice how they won't admit it. Those who insist on censoring prayer in the classroom are unlikely to be objective in evaluating the faith of others, such as Benjamin Franklin. It's a bit like asking a Red Sox fan what he thinks of the Yankees this year; the answer is not likely to be objective. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 18:10, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Your response to the above posters does not make sense. They are trying to discuss Benjamin Franklin, and you try to make it about prayer. You also say you are 90% or 95% sure about their positions, but you provide no proof. It appears that you are really afraid of debating McIntyre on this point. He also seems to have proved his point, and you keep trying to distract people from the discussion. Why don't you simply discuss the Franklin/Deism question?--Franklin 18:54, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

I just read the conservapedia entry on Andrew Schlafly and I am very surprised. I am sure a graduate of Harvard law school knows that changing the subject is not a valid form of argumentation. If anything, it is the mark of an intellectual coward.--Franklin 19:20, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

We don't allow that kind of name-calling here. I've given you a very lenient block of only 2 hours. Next time it will be an infinite block if you engage in name-calling on someone's own talk page. See how Conservapedia differs from Wikipedia and have some respect for someone's talk page here. Thanks.--Aschlafly 19:31, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for being lenient in your block. But the question remains: Why does a man of your obvious education and intelligence not forthrightly respond to McIntyre? Surely you can articulate a good argument for your position rather than engaging in distractions.--Franklin 22:19, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Its nice the way that, failing to adequately change the subject when you are losing, you send Karajou to threaten the debaters on their talk pages. Classy, and, might i add, very Christian.GoddisapprovesofbulliesKarajou 23:07, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for your sarcasm, but no thank you for your name. You will be blocked, but allowed to re-register with a non-offensive name, unless you turn out to be a sock.--Aschlafly 23:15, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Sock of Sevenstring. See Karajou's and my own talk pages. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 23:26, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

I tend to agree with the above poster (but I agree his name was improper). Now, enough with the distractions. Please respond to McIntyre--Franklin 06:15, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Franklin, what am I missing here? Is this some debate forum? Is there some obligation that a user here incurs, in being forced to answer? I say this not to be argumentative, but some will take it so. I just have never figured out what about an online encyclopedia makes so many believe there is some burning need to debate every entry. I know people who are editors of traditional ones, and they assure me none of this constant arguing ever occurs? Is is because CP is branded and self-identified as a Conservative and Christian POV friendly? Is that all there is to this constant strife, that those who do not agree have set it as their "mission" to make the "nutty Christians" fall into line? You do know, right, that has been tried for thousands of years with any real success whatsoever? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 06:42, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

TK, I don't think you are missing anything. But surely you do not think that simple unsupported asserations trump scholarship do you? I don't think that anyone is trying to make "nutty Christians" as you put it, fall into line. But to avoid responding to dircet questions, and avoidance of the issue is unseemly. So I ask again. Please address the question, please address McIntyre, and quit trying to change the subject. --Franklin 08:23, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

What I believe is that any person whatsoever has the inviolable right to refuse to respond, without prejudice. Intellectual discourse must come without rancor or "demands", and be in a civil tone, for any advancement to occur. I suggest sending a personal email, or even perhaps waiting a day or so to cool this item down a bit. Now, I am bowing out here. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 09:01, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Intellectual discourse should be done without rancor and I think most of the people that have posted here have avoided that. However, trying to divert the issue by raising issues of prayer, evolution, etc., does not advance the discussion.--Franklin 09:07, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Wow. I have been away a while and I had no idea the discussion would expand like this! I notice one poster thinks he knows me (and I am pretty sure I know him). On to other matters. Do you concede that Franklin was a Deist? If you do not, please cogently articulate your reasons. Best, Mac.--McIntyre 10:55, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
[e

==NO==

Talk:Pocahontas

2007-06-06T19:46:42Z

McIntyre: New page: I just wanted to point out that the prior version of this referred to Pocahontas as a “princess.” Native people did not have such titles. --~~~~

I just wanted to point out that the prior version of this referred to Pocahontas as a “princess.” Native people did not have such titles. --[[User:McIntyre|McIntyre]] 15:46, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Pocahontas

2007-06-06T19:44:49Z

McIntyre:

'''Pocahontas''' (1595 - 1617 A.D.) (Whose name, roughly translated, means “little wanton” was the favorite daughter of Powhatan, who ruled the loose confederacy that bore his name. She is perhaps best known for her “rescue” of John Smith, an event that many scholars argue was misunderstood by Smith, or perhaps, never occurred. She was instrumental in providing food to the Jamestown colony in its earliest days. In a613, the English abducted Pocahontas and held her hostage aboard ship in an effort to insure her father’s good behavior toward the English. During her captivity, she “converted” (there is some dispute as the sincerity of her conversion) to Christianity and was rechristened Rebecca. She subsequently married [[John Rolfe]], a colonist who was instrumental in the economic salvation of [[Jamestown]] when he introduced a hardy, flavorful strain of tobacco.

Pocahontas bore a child by John Rolfe, one Thomas Rolfe. Pocahontas returned to England with Rolfe, where she was introduced to court. She took ill just as the Rolfes embarked to return to England. She died there, and is interred at Gravesend.

References:

Helen C. Rountree, ''Pocahontas, Powhatan, Opechancanough: Three Indian Lives Changed by Jamestown'' (University of Virginia Press, 2006).

Camilla Townsend, ''Pocahontas and the Powhatan Dilemma'' (Hill & Wang, 2004).

Alexander Hamilton

2007-06-05T16:06:09Z

McIntyre:

[[image:alexhamilton.jpg|300px|thumb|Alexander Hamilton. By John Trumball 1792.]]
'''Alexander Hamilton''' (January 11, 1757 - July 12, 1804) was born out of wedlock in the [[British West Indies]]. Recognizing the young man's talents, patrons arranged for Hamilton to immigrate to [[New York City]], where he attended King's College (now Columbia University.). Some scholars have argued that Hamilton’s origins can be reflected in his later life, where, unlike much of the Revolutionary generation, his views were more nationalistic, rather than tied to the interests of a particular region or state. Hamilton entered the military as a Captain of Artillery in the Continental Army in 1776. Hamilton fought in the battles of Princeton and Germantown and came to the attention of General [[George Washington]]. Washington promoted Hamilton to rank of colonel and made him a member of his staff. Hamilton took part in the climatic battle of the war at Yorktown. Some scholars believe that Hamilton may have alerted General Washington to the existence of the Newburgh Conspiracy. Hamilton was also a member of the Continental Congress, [[New York]] State assembly, and a member of the [[Philadelphia]] Constitutional Convention.

Hamilton authored 51 of the 85 ''[[Federalist Papers]],'' while [[James Madison]] and [[John Jay]] composed the others. These editorials, published in newspapers throughout the United States, helped turn popular opinion in favor of ratifying the Constitution, particularly in the important states of [[New York]] and [[Virginia]].

Perhaps Hamilton's greatest contribution to the success of the [[United States]] occurred during his tenure as Washington’s [[United States Secretary of the Treasury|Secretary of the Treasury]] from 1789 to 1795. Through a system of tariffs and excise taxes (some of which, as demonstrated by the [[Whiskey Rebellion]], caused a great deal of resentment), Hamilton placed the United States on sound financial footing. While Hamilton disliked taxes, he also realized that they were necessary. Hamilton not only favored close trade ties with [[Great Britain]], the world’s leading commercial power, but he believed that the United States should emulate their economic system. In his Report on Manufactures, Hamilton envisioned the United States as a nation that would reply on manufacturing and commerce in order to become a great power. This (among other things) put him at odds with [[Thomas Jefferson]], who envisioned the United States as an agrarian republic.

Hamilton, along with [[Benjamin Franklin]], is one of the very few non-presidents to be portrayed on American money. Hamilton's portrait is on the $10 bill, while Franklin is on the $100 bill.

==Death==
Hamilton was wounded in a duel with [[Aaron Burr]], dying of a gunshot wound the following day. <ref>[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=H000101 Biography]</ref> Hamilton believed that a [[Christian]] gentleman shoots over his target, and that honor is served. Burr had no such belief. Hamilton's son died in a duel the same way.

==References==
<references/>

Joseph Ellis, ''Founding Brothers'' (New York: Vintage, 2000).

John Ferling, ''A Leap in the Dark: The Struggle to Create the American Republic'' (Oxford University Press, 2003).

Ron Chernow, ''Alexander Hamilton'' (New York: Penquin, 2005).

{{DEFAULTSORT:Hamilton, Alexander}}
[[Category:Political people]]
[[Category:United States History]]

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

2007-06-05T12:20:03Z

McIntyre: /* NO */

{{debate}}

==YES==

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

The European colonists brought Christianity to the Americas and ended the Central American practice of [[human sacrifice]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 05:22, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
:I wonder how many people were killed to achieve this (latter) laudable aim? [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 05:32, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

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

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

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

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

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

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

==NO==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2007-06-03T15:10:52Z

McIntyre: /* NO */

{{debate}}

==YES==

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

The European colonists brought Christianity to the Americas and ended the Central American practice of [[human sacrifice]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 05:22, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
:I wonder how many people were killed to achieve this (latter) laudable aim? [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 05:32, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

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

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

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

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

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

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

==NO==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Debate:Was Benjamin Franklin a deist?

2007-05-31T23:35:11Z

McIntyre: Just a little cleanup. I hope it is more readable now.

{{debate}}

==YES==

He states so in his autobiography, and again in a letter written to Ezra Stiles a month before his death. He did see Christianity as valuable, noting the positive effects of George Whitefield’s preaching to the colonists, and expressed his admiration of Christ’s moral teachings. --[[User:McIntyre|McIntyre]] 17:29, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

His autobiography was published in 1791. I added this to the article here. --Ed Poor 09:28, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

Was that a posthumous publication? Do we know when he actually wrote it?--Aschlafly 17:25, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

Franklin wrote it over a period of time, starting and stopping. He wrote the first few chapters in 1771, wrote more in 1784-5, and finished it in 1788. It was, like Ed Poor says, partly first published, posthumously, in French in 1791, and then translated into English in 1793.--Steve 19:53, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the enlightening information. Obviously any claim that Franklin said he was a deist should have a date next to it, as people's religious views change throughout their lives. Moreover, no one should claim that a work is an autobiography if it was published without his consent, as in posthumously. The best I can infer from this is that Franklin viewed himself as a deist in 1771, but by 1787 (Constitutional Convention) viewed the world differently, and by the time he died he viewed it still differently again. If our entry about Franklin does not yet reflect this, then I'll change it now. Thanks for your efforts. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 00:16, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

Further review reveals that Franklin did not even claim to be a deist in 1771, but merely said he was a deist in his youth! Really, the attempts by liberals to insist that Franklin was a deist towards the end of his life are astounding.--Aschlafly 00:50, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

Aschlafly, you are ignoring some ambiguity about the meaning of the word "deist." At the end of his life Franklin was not a deist, according to current dictionary definitions of the word, but his stated views in his "Creed" accord pretty well with the definition of deist according to Edward Herbert of Cherbury, who coined the word. And that may have been the definition that was current in his time.

Everyone in their life acquires what I'm going to call a stock of "fables," which are narratives that do have some connection with reality but have been grossly oversimplified and distorted. A good neutral example of one would be "Columbus thought the world was round when everyone else thought it was flat." The simple statement "The Founding Fathers were deists" is a good example of a liberal fable.
It's certainly fair to say Franklin advocated public prayer, and admired Christianity in some sense. But he wasn't a traditional Christian or close to one, either. Dpbsmith 09:13, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

It's common for liberals to deny that people find faith in life. Once an atheist or deist, always an atheist or deist, according to anti-Christians. Under this view, Abraham Lincoln was there an atheist (not true, he found faith as he grew older), and Benjamin Franklin was a deist (not true, he request divine intervention at the Constitutional Convention). Citing what Franklin wrote in 1771 about his youthful deism is obviously not proof that he was a deist at the Convention in 1787. Quite the contrary, as deists do not believe in divine intervention.--Aschlafly 15:03, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

Read Franklin's letters to Ezra Stiles, written one month before his death. The first paragraph shows his deist leanings, while the in the second one he acknowledges the value of Christianity, but doubts that Christ was the son of god. --McIntyre 17:23, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

I did read them here: Benjamin Franklin. Franklin does not describe himself as a deist. Enough said. About Jesus's divinity, Franklin says he has not studied it and is open to the possibility. A deist, by the way, requires a non-interventionist God. Franklin rejected that.--Aschlafly 22:57, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

I must note the irony here in connection with a prior discussion. Liberals insist on calling all supporters of abortion "pro-choice" rather than "pro-abortion" because that is the term they use for themselves. But then liberals insist on falling Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson "deists" when they did not use that term to describe their views as adults! Franklin believed in an interventionist God and Jefferson frequently attended a Christian church until he died.--Aschlafly 15:18, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

A more careful reading of the letter to Stiles, written a month before Franklin's death, reveals his diest leanings. Franklin states that he believes in one God and that our behavior in this life dictates how we be treated in the next. Notice he does not identify the God, or use the term Christian. Sounds very much like a diest. As for the second paragraph, doubting if Christ is divine does not seem very Christian. Please respond to the content of Franklin's letter, rather than attempting to divert the discussion with references to current terms used in highly charged debates today. --McIntyre 15:45, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

The most important aspect of that letter is that Franklin does not call himself a deist. He'd known the term all his life, and he clearly would have used it if applied to him. It did not. We should not call him by a religious name that he himself rejected. Surely you wouldn't claim that someone is a Catholic, for example, if the person himself rejects that label.
Where do you get that Franklin "does not identify the God"??? He says, "Here is my Creed: I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe."--Aschlafly 15:54, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Odd, McIntyre, but that was what I was about to post to you. You are the one adding modern interpretations and your own suppositions, to almost 300 year old letters. Revisionist thinking at its finest! I think the fact that Jefferson attended church services weekly speaks louder than all the modernist "conclusions". --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 15:59, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

He was also familiar with the term Christian, and he did not use it. Plus, he doubts the divinity of Christ. That does not sound like a firm statement of Christian faith, does it? Eighteenth century deists tended to subscribe to the notion of God, but declined to identify the deity in question. As TK's objection: Where did you get the idea that I am using modern ideas? I also do not recall discussing Jefferson--McIntyre 16:04, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

You didn't respond to our rebuttal of your claim that Franklin did not identify God. I assume you're conceding that Franklin expressly did identify God.
I would also like a concession that Franklin was not a deist towards the end of his life before moving on to the very different question of whether Franklin was a Christian. More generally, I don't want a perpetuation of the liberal view that people cannot grow into stronger faith. Many do.--Aschlafly 16:11, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Franklin does identify there is a god or deity of some sort. But he does not identify it as Christian. Why do you want a concession that Franklin was not a deist? It appears (based on his writings up to the end of his life) that he was.--McIntyre 16:25, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

McIntyre, unfortunately I can only conclude that you don't have an open mind about this. Perhaps you're repeating something you heard elsewhere and won't reconsider your views about it. Franklin strongly believed in an interventionist God and that disqualifies him from being a deist. Franklin did not call himself a deist. It's slanderous to insist that Franklin was a deist, and a sign that you're pushing an agenda based on bias. Enough. Please move on to another topic here with more of an open mind. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 17:06, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

This reminds me of a larger theme called "debunking the founding". The idea is that whatever flaws there may be in America's founding (and Founding Fathers) somehow invalidates America's special claim to being a Godly nation. Like, since we didn't immediately abolish slavery, we are worthless slime.
Don't forget the prayer embedding in our patriotic song: "God mend thine every flaw and crown thy good with brotherhood". America is great because it strives to be good. It is the cream of the crop and will continue to be as long as it so strives. --Ed Poor 17:57, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Aschlafly, I think your desire that McIntyre concede that Franklin was deist is unfortunate. He has cited primary sources--Franklin's own writings--rather than "something he heard.", He also correctly noted that Franklin did not identify the god in question--all hallmarks of eighteenth century deism. If someone does not have an "open mind" on the subject, as you put it, it is not McIntyre. I even think I know who McIntyre is, and when I see this person this weekend, I will ask him. He is really quite a scholar.--Jamest 12:12, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

The insistence on liberals describing Franklin as a deist continues to amaze me. I'll bet the correlation between those who insist Franklin was a deist and liberals is nearly 100%. It doesn't matter if the claim is made by a scholar or a student. Liberals want Franklin to have been a deist, even though Franklin himself implicitly rejected that label and prayed for divine intervention, something deists rejected.--Aschlafly 12:22, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

You should not be amazed. A reading of eighteenth century diest works reveals they have nothing against praying, and you have not addressed this point: Franklin never says he is a Christian, but he did say he was a deist. You say it "does not matter" who makes the claim, and that you willfully choose not to address the point that the writings McIntyre noted were Franklin's own. I think it is rather obvious who has the closed mind in this debate. --Jamest 12:42, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

By the way, the thought occurs to me: why do you reject what a Franklin scholar has to say? Surely a scholar has read more works by and about Franklin than you. Why do you reject their assertions out of hand or wish for them to concede something that they know--base on their research--is not true? Conservapedia wants to accurate and true, right? --Jamest 12:55, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

James, please disclose your political point-of-view along with that of the "scholar". Let me guess: do both of you oppose prayer in the classrooms of public schools? Enough said.--Aschlafly 13:11, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

We are discussing the past, not the political present. So, why bring up school prayer? What does that have to so with Franklin's deism?--Jamest 13:17, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

It explains your views. If you're opposed to prayer in the classroom, then there is over a 90% chance that (1) you'll insist that Franklin was a deist and (2) you believe in evolution. That extraordinary correlation suggests that the facts are irrelevant. If you're not open-minded about prayer in the classroom, then it's futile to expect you to be open-minded about these other issues.--Aschlafly 18:41, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly, I fail to see how my position on school prayer (which, by the way, you do not know) is germane to a conversation regarding Benjamin Franklin’s spiritual beliefs. You also do not know my position regarding evolution (I am also uncertain as to how that is relevant to this conversation). As for your other suppositions (the 90% figure), do you have evidence to support this? Now could you please show a little intellectual integrity, and address the substance of McIntyre’s arguments, rather than engaging in distractions? I do have an open mind about such matters sir, and I hope that you have the same. --Jamest 08:23, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

I do know, with 95% certainty, what your positions are on classroom prayer and evolution. The 95% confidence level is all that science requires. I know your positions with greater certainty than I know what the weather will be like tomorrow.
But why do you refuse to disclose your positions? Are you embarrassed about them? Do you feel they are indefensible? Conservatives don't hide their views; liberals do. Why?--Aschlafly 10:26, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly, my positions on school prayer and evolution would probably surprise you. I do not discuss them because they are not germane to the topic at hand, namely, Benjamin Franklin’s spiritual beliefs. Please show a little intellectual integrity, stick to the topic, and stop engaging in distractions. Could you please address McIntyre’s arguments?--Jamest 10:34, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

One more thing Mr. Schlafly. I do not know how you arrive at a figure of “95% certainty.” But I will share one observation with you. I have long noticed that a debater who employs distraction and non-sequiturs is in a desperate position. Will you respond to McIntyre’s argument? Or are you unable to do so?--Jamest 11:05, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

James, liberals crave attention and don't mind being deceitful. See Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia. Whether you are a liberal or not, I observe that you are not willing to be forthright about your views here, so my time is better spent discussing issues with others. Please leave my talk page, which is respected as one's castle here on Conservapedia. See Differences with Wikipedia. Thank you and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 11:25, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly, I am hardly a liberal. I will comply with your rules and stay off your talk page. However, if one does not have the intellectual fortitude to debate, one should not make unfounded assertions, such as “Franklin was not a deist” that are based on belief, rather than rigorous historical scholarship. Good day Sir.--Jamest 13:43, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't find you to be forthright in stating your views. You may say that you are "hardly a liberal," but I'm not fooled by that. I'm 95% confident that you oppose prayer in the classroom, and that you believe in evolution.
I know liberals insist on having the last word. But this is my talk page, and the last word will be mine. Don't post here again on this issue. Thank you and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 14:08, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

You still did not try to answer professor McIntyre. I thought this was about Franklin? Why are you talking about prayer and evolution? --Willed 22:38, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

Nice try, "Willed". You're a sock of Jamest, and both account IDs and IP address have just been blocked for this.--Aschlafly 22:44, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

Ok, then. I'm not a sock of Jamest or Willed, but I second the question. Why bring up questions about evolution and school prayer when they are irrelevant to the question of Franklin's faith and McIntyre's research? JohnSmith 15:26, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Someone who insists on censoring classroom prayer, even when everyone in the class wants to pray, is going to have a bias on issues related to religion. He should disclose his position so that others can evaluate his bias. So should you if you are going to insist that Franklin was a deist towards the end of his life.--Aschlafly 15:47, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

So if everybody in the class wanted to smoke Marijuana, would that be acceptable, via your ad populum argument? --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 17:25, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

There are laws against smoking marijuana to prevent the harm it causes. But there is no harm from praying in a classroom, while there is much good. Also, praying is a form of speech, unlike smoking marijuana. At bottom, liberals insist on censoring speech in the classroom. But notice how they won't admit it. Those who insist on censoring prayer in the classroom are unlikely to be objective in evaluating the faith of others, such as Benjamin Franklin. It's a bit like asking a Red Sox fan what he thinks of the Yankees this year; the answer is not likely to be objective. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 18:10, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Your response to the above posters does not make sense. They are trying to discuss Benjamin Franklin, and you try to make it about prayer. You also say you are 90% or 95% sure about their positions, but you provide no proof. It appears that you are really afraid of debating McIntyre on this point. He also seems to have proved his point, and you keep trying to distract people from the discussion. Why don't you simply discuss the Franklin/Deism question?--Franklin 18:54, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

I just read the conservapedia entry on Andrew Schlafly and I am very surprised. I am sure a graduate of Harvard law school knows that changing the subject is not a valid form of argumentation. If anything, it is the mark of an intellectual coward.--Franklin 19:20, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

We don't allow that kind of name-calling here. I've given you a very lenient block of only 2 hours. Next time it will be an infinite block if you engage in name-calling on someone's own talk page. See how Conservapedia differs from Wikipedia and have some respect for someone's talk page here. Thanks.--Aschlafly 19:31, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for being lenient in your block. But the question remains: Why does a man of your obvious education and intelligence not forthrightly respond to McIntyre? Surely you can articulate a good argument for your position rather than engaging in distractions.--Franklin 22:19, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Its nice the way that, failing to adequately change the subject when you are losing, you send Karajou to threaten the debaters on their talk pages. Classy, and, might i add, very Christian.GoddisapprovesofbulliesKarajou 23:07, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for your sarcasm, but no thank you for your name. You will be blocked, but allowed to re-register with a non-offensive name, unless you turn out to be a sock.--Aschlafly 23:15, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Sock of Sevenstring. See Karajou's and my own talk pages. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 23:26, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

I tend to agree with the above poster (but I agree his name was improper). Now, enough with the distractions. Please respond to McIntyre--Franklin 06:15, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Franklin, what am I missing here? Is this some debate forum? Is there some obligation that a user here incurs, in being forced to answer? I say this not to be argumentative, but some will take it so. I just have never figured out what about an online encyclopedia makes so many believe there is some burning need to debate every entry. I know people who are editors of traditional ones, and they assure me none of this constant arguing ever occurs? Is is because CP is branded and self-identified as a Conservative and Christian POV friendly? Is that all there is to this constant strife, that those who do not agree have set it as their "mission" to make the "nutty Christians" fall into line? You do know, right, that has been tried for thousands of years with any real success whatsoever? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 06:42, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

TK, I don't think you are missing anything. But surely you do not think that simple unsupported asserations trump scholarship do you? I don't think that anyone is trying to make "nutty Christians" as you put it, fall into line. But to avoid responding to dircet questions, and avoidance of the issue is unseemly. So I ask again. Please address the question, please address McIntyre, and quit trying to change the subject. --Franklin 08:23, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

What I believe is that any person whatsoever has the inviolable right to refuse to respond, without prejudice. Intellectual discourse must come without rancor or "demands", and be in a civil tone, for any advancement to occur. I suggest sending a personal email, or even perhaps waiting a day or so to cool this item down a bit. Now, I am bowing out here. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 09:01, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Intellectual discourse should be done without rancor and I think most of the people that have posted here have avoided that. However, trying to divert the issue by raising issues of prayer, evolution, etc., does not advance the discussion.--Franklin 09:07, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Wow. I have been away a while and I had no idea the discussion would expand like this! I notice one poster thinks he knows me (and I am pretty sure I know him). On to other matters. Do you concede that Franklin was a Deist, and if you do not, please articulate your reasons. Best, Mac.--McIntyre 10:55, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
[e
==NO==

Benjamin Franklin

2007-05-31T16:09:38Z

McIntyre:

[[Image:Benjamin.jpg|thumb|right]]
'''Benjamin Franklin''' (January 17, 1706 – April 17, 1790), printer, scientist, inventor, philosopher, and diplomat, was born in [[Boston]], [[Massachusetts]], to a tallow-maker.

Early in life, Franklin developed a love of reading. As he recalled in his autobiography, ''"From a child I was fond of reading, and all the little money that came into my hands was ever laid out in books. Pleased with the Pilgrim's Progress, my first collection was of John Bunyan's works in separate little volumes. My old favorite author, Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress ... has been translated into most of the languages of Europe, and suppose it has been more generally read than any other book, except perhaps the Bible."''

As a youth, Franklin was apprenticed to his older brother James, as a printer. Using several different pen names, Benjamin contributed many articles to Jame's newspaper. However, Benjamin felt his brother mistreated him and in 1723, he ran away to Philadelphia, then the largest city in British North America.

In Philadelphia, Franklin began publishing the ''Pennsylvania Gazette'', which was the longest lived and most successful of colonial newspapers. He published his ''Poor Richard's Almanack'' for twenty-five years; it was filled with witty sayings penned by Franklin and others. Franklin often borrowed material and rewrote it as he saw fit.

Franklin became one of Philadelphia's leading citizens, founding a sanitation department, a fire brigade, the American Philosophical Society, and the first circulating library in British North America.

In a draft autobiography written mostly in 1771, nearly 20 years prior to his death, Franklin described how he came to deism in his youth.<ref>A year after Benjamin Franklin's death, his unfinished draft autobiography, entitled "Memoires De La Vie Privee," was published in Paris in March of 1791. [http://www.earlyamerica.com/lives/franklin/] </ref> He recalled that his ''"parents had early given me religious impressions, and brought me through my childhood piously in the Dissenting way. But I was scarce fifteen, when, after doubting by turns of several points, as I found them disputed in the different books I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself. Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's Lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist."'' <ref>http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=Fra2Aut.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=all The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, p.57</ref>

Franklin remained a deist until the end of his life. In a letter dated March 9, 1790, a little more than a month before his death, Franklin outlined his beliefs to Ezra Stiles, president of Yale:

:''"Here is my Creed: I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That he governs it by Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we render to him is doing good to his other Children. That the soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its conduct in in this. These I take to be the fundamental Principles of all sound Religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.

:''"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of Morals and His Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some doubt as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I need not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble. I see no harm in its being believed, if that belief has the good Consequence, as probably it has, of making his Doctrines more respected and better observed; especially as I do not perceive, that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the Unbelievers in his Government of the world with any peculiar Marks of his Displeasure."'' <ref>http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/franklin-stiles.html</ref>

This quote reflects Franklin’s leanings toward deism. In the first paragraph, Franklin professes a belief in a god, but does not name that deity. In the second paragraph, Franklin acknowledges that Jesus Christ existed, but he doubts he is the son of God. While he recognizes the value of Christ’s moral teachings, he thinks they may have been corrupted over time.

As Franklin grew older, he recognized that Christianity had positive effects on colonial society, yet he never became a Christian himself. Franklin befriended George Whitefield, the best known of the Great Awakening evangelicals. The two also had a business relationship, with Franklin printing nearly all of Whitefield’s North American sermons. After one of Whitefield's sermons, Franklin noted the ''"wonderful...change soon made in the manners of our inhabitants. From being thoughtless or indifferent about religion, it seem'd as if all the world were growing religious, so that one could not walk thro' the town in an evening without hearing psalms sung in different families of every street."''<ref>The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, p.104-108</ref><ref>At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Franklin proposed a prayer for divine intervention to aid the troubled proceedings.</ref>

By age 42, Franklin was wealthy enough to retire from news papering, and devoted most of his time to his scientific pursuits. Franklin invented bi-focal lenses, a heat efficient stove, and the swivel chair. His famous experiment with a kite won him membership in the prestigious Royal Society, but it also had a practical effect. It also led to Franklin’s invention of the lighting rod, and increased his fortune when he was contracted to outfit all the ships in the Royal Navy with lighting rods. By 1750, Franklin was easily the most famous of the King’s North American subjects.

While Franklin thought of himself as a loyal subject, he did question some of the Crown’s actions. In 1754, he proposed the Albany Plan of Union, which would have united the colonies (and the Iroquois League as well) under a Royal governor, and given the colonies the power to tax themselves. Many of the colonies did not send representatives to Albany, and nothing came of the plan.

Franklin put his prestige on the line to assist the expedition of British general Edward Braddock to capture Fort Duquesne (present day Pittsburgh) from the French. Pennsylvania’s Quaker dominated legislature refused to help provide supplies for the expedition, so Franklin made an appeal for colonists to provide provisions, horses, and wagons for Braddock’s army. In his autobiography, Franklin recalled questioning Braddock about the expedition’s chances of success. Braddock assured him he would easily capture the fort. After the disaster that Braddock met on the Monongahela, Franklin was less sanguine about accepting professional military opinion.

In 1757, Franklin went to London to represent Pennsylvania in its quarrel with William Penn’s heirs (Pennsylvania was the last of the propriety colonies). He remained abroad for eighteen years, not returning to American until 1775.

During Franklin’s tenure in England, he also represented several other colonies and became a regular observer, and unofficial representative of the colonies. In 1765, he assured British politicians that Americans would accept the Stamp Act, but news of colonial protest caused him to back away from that position. Afterwards, Franklin regularly opposed English attempts to tax the colonies.

Returning from England in 1775, Franklin surprised some by coming out in favor of independence. For Franklin, this stance carried a personal price. His son William, the Royal Governor of New Jersey, remained loyal to the Crown, and father and son never reconciled.

Until the end of the American Revolution, he was easily the most famous American in the world. He was one of the most prominent of the [[Founding Fathers]], early political figures and statesmen of the [[United States]].

He served as the Continental Congress [[ambassador]] to [[France]], where where he was instrumental in obtaining military and economic support for the struggle against England. In Paris, Franklin attracted attention by attending many of the salons and downplayed his status as Dr. Franklin. Instead, he sometimes cultivated the image of a rustic American, sometimes wearing a coonskin cap. Franklin's popularity helped in securing monetary and later military support from the Frence.

Franklin is one of the few non-presidents whose likeness appears on U.S. currency. Franklin graces the $100 bill while Alexander Hamilton appears on the $10 bill.

Franklin is responsible for the nomenclature of "positive" and "negative" charge. He believed he could tell the direction in which electricity traveled by observing sparks. Unfortunately he was wrong; the electrons, which are the particles carrying ordinary electricity, move in the opposite of the direction he thought they did. As a result, when electrons were discovered, according to Franklin's designation they had to be considered as having a negative charge — creating a minor headache for scientists and engineers.

However, Franklin realized the value of Christianity in public life, making the following motion for prayers to be said at the [[Constitutional Convention]]:<ref>http://www.homeofheroes.com/hallofheroes/3rd_floor/god/2_convention.html</ref>

:''"Mr. President ([George Washington]) ... I have lived, sir, a long time, and, the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth--that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings, that 'Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.

:''"I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed, in this political building, no better than the builders of Babel. We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded; and we ourselves shall become a reproach and by-word down to future ages. And, what is worse, mankind may hereafter, from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom, and leave it to chance, war, and conquest.

:''"I therefore beg leave to move that, henceforth, prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service."''

Benjamin Franklin guided the establishment of the University of Pennsylvania, which was chartered as nonsectarian. According to the University, it was "a new type of learning institution, that unlike other American Colonial colleges, would not focus on education for the clergy, but would instead prepare students for lives of business and public service. The proposed program of study would become the nation's first modern liberal arts curriculum."[http://www.upenn.edu/about/heritage.php] In ''Proposals Relating to the Education of Youth in Pensilvania [sic]'', (1749) he outlines an essentially secular curriculum. Religion is to be taught under the rubric of History; Franklin, however, makes a point of saying that
:"History ''will also afford frequent Opportunities of showing the Necessity of a ''Publick Religion,'' from its Usefulness to the Publick; the advantage of a Religious Character among private Persons; the Mischiefs of Superstition, &c. and the Excellency of the CHRISTIAN RELIGION above all others, antient and modern."''

Before the American Revolution, Benjamin Franklin was a frequent visitor to [[England]]. He was a member of the [[Lunar Society]] based in [[Birmingham]], creators of the Industrial Revolution, and also the [[Hellfire Club]] of Sir Francis Dashwood.

Franklin believed strongly in the importance of political freedom to the American experiment. As such, he remarked, ''"those who would give up a little liberty, to gain a little security, deserve neither, and will lose both,"'' a stern warning applicable especially in today's world.

==In fiction and popular culture==
===''Ben and Me''===
Robert Lawson's 1939 book, ''Ben and Me: An Astonishing Life of Benjamin Franklin by His Good Mouse Amos,'' is a children's classic continuously in print since publication. It is written at level suitable for ages 10 and up, but is also enjoyed by adults. As the title indicates, the narrator is a mouse. Amos is not very respectful toward Franklin. He see Franklin as absent-minded, lacking in common sense, and barely able to take care of himself. According to Amos, it is Amos himself who inspired, and should be credited with most of Franklin's great inventions. Amos has nothing but scorn for Franklin's "Poor Richard" maxims:
:"'Early to bed, early to rise, makes a healthy, wealthy and wise!' ''Bah!'' When have you been ever been to bed early, or risen early, except when you've had insomnia? Yet you're healthy and wealthy."
:"Perhaps if I lived by the maxim I should also be—wise," he suggested, meekly.
:"That I doubt," I said. "it would require more than a maxim. A miracle, like."

In 1953, Walt Disney made a 20-minute animated short film from the book with Sterling Holloway as Amos, but it failed to capture the spirit of the story and did not even attempt to be faithful to the style of Lawson's illustrations.

In 2006, ''Ben and Me'' was selected for the annual "One Book, One Philadelphia" project, in honor of Franklin's 300th birthday.

== Occult Activities ==

Benjamin Franklin was a [[Freemason]], and a member of the [[Hellfire Club]], a secret society that conducted black masses and orgies.<ref>[http://www.infowars.com/articles/occult/hellfire.htm Benjamin Franklin, the Occult and The Elite]</ref>
In 1998, workmen restoring Franklin's London home dug up the remains of six children and four adults hidden below the home.<ref>[http://benfranklin.tribe.net/thread/510cda6f-3ee8-4ef1-86b4-9525f4ed28c4]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==Benjamin Franklin's Writings Online==
*[http://franklinpapers.org/franklin/ Yale edition of complete works of Benjamin Franklin]
*[http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/fellows/bob_morse_04/ The Electrical Writings of Benjamin Franklin] Collected by Robert A. Morse, 2004.
*[http://sln.fi.edu/franklin/family/lastwill.html Franklin's Last Will & Testament] Transcription.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Franklin, Benjamin}}
[[category:political people]]

Debate:Was Benjamin Franklin a deist?

2007-05-31T15:54:31Z

McIntyre:

{{debate}}

==YES==

He states so in his autobiography, and again in a letter written to Ezra Stiles a month before his death. He did see Christianity as valuable, noting the positive effects of George Whitefield’s preaching to the colonists, and expressed his admiration of Christ’s moral teachings. --[[User:McIntyre|McIntyre]] 17:29, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

His autobiography was published in 1791. I added this to the article here. --Ed Poor 09:28, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
Was that a posthumous publication? Do we know when he actually wrote it?--Aschlafly 17:25, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
Franklin wrote it over a period of time, starting and stopping. He wrote the first few chapters in 1771, wrote more in 1784-5, and finished it in 1788. It was, like Ed Poor says, partly first published, posthumously, in French in 1791, and then translated into English in 1793.--Steve 19:53, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for the enlightening information. Obviously any claim that Franklin said he was a deist should have a date next to it, as people's religious views change throughout their lives. Moreover, no one should claim that a work is an autobiography if it was published without his consent, as in posthumously. The best I can infer from this is that Franklin viewed himself as a deist in 1771, but by 1787 (Constitutional Convention) viewed the world differently, and by the time he died he viewed it still differently again. If our entry about Franklin does not yet reflect this, then I'll change it now. Thanks for your efforts. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 00:16, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
Further review reveals that Franklin did not even claim to be a deist in 1771, but merely said he was a deist in his youth! Really, the attempts by liberals to insist that Franklin was a deist towards the end of his life are astounding.--Aschlafly 00:50, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
Aschlafly, you are ignoring some ambiguity about the meaning of the word "deist." At the end of his life Franklin was not a deist, according to current dictionary definitions of the word, but his stated views in his "Creed" accord pretty well with the definition of deist according to Edward Herbert of Cherbury, who coined the word. And that may have been the definition that was current in his time.
Everyone in their life acquires what I'm going to call a stock of "fables," which are narratives that do have some connection with reality but have been grossly oversimplified and distorted. A good neutral example of one would be "Columbus thought the world was round when everyone else thought it was flat." The simple statement "The Founding Fathers were deists" is a good example of a liberal fable.
It's certainly fair to say Franklin advocated public prayer, and admired Christianity in some sense. But he wasn't a traditional Christian or close to one, either. Dpbsmith 09:13, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
It's common for liberals to deny that people find faith in life. Once an atheist or deist, always an atheist or deist, according to anti-Christians. Under this view, Abraham Lincoln was there an atheist (not true, he found faith as he grew older), and Benjamin Franklin was a deist (not true, he request divine intervention at the Constitutional Convention). Citing what Franklin wrote in 1771 about his youthful deism is obviously not proof that he was a deist at the Convention in 1787. Quite the contrary, as deists do not believe in divine intervention.--Aschlafly 15:03, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

Read Franklin's letters to Ezra Stiles, written one month before his death. The first paragraph shows his deist leanings, while the in the second one he acknowledges the value of Christianity, but doubts that Christ was the son of god. --McIntyre 17:23, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
I did read them here: Benjamin Franklin. Franklin does not describe himself as a deist. Enough said. About Jesus's divinity, Franklin says he has not studied it and is open to the possibility. A deist, by the way, requires a non-interventionist God. Franklin rejected that.--Aschlafly 22:57, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

I must note the irony here in connection with a prior discussion. Liberals insist on calling all supporters of abortion "pro-choice" rather than "pro-abortion" because that is the term they use for themselves. But then liberals insist on falling Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson "deists" when they did not use that term to describe their views as adults! Franklin believed in an interventionist God and Jefferson frequently attended a Christian church until he died.--Aschlafly 15:18, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

A more careful reading of the letter to Stiles, written a month before Franklin's death, reveals his diest leanings. Franklin states that he believes in one God and that our behavior in this life dictates how we be treated in the next. Notice he does not identify the God, or use the term Christian. Sounds very much like a diest. As for the second paragraph, doubting if Christ is divine does not seem very Christian. Please respond to the content of Franklin's letter, rather than attempting to divert the discussion with references to current terms used in highly charged debates today. --McIntyre 15:45, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
The most important aspect of that letter is that Franklin does not call himself a deist. He'd known the term all his life, and he clearly would have used it if applied to him. It did not. We should not call him by a religious name that he himself rejected. Surely you wouldn't claim that someone is a Catholic, for example, if the person himself rejects that label.
Where do you get that Franklin "does not identify the God"??? He says, "Here is my Creed: I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe."--Aschlafly 15:54, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
Odd, McIntyre, but that was what I was about to post to you. You are the one adding modern interpretations and your own suppositions, to almost 300 year old letters. Revisionist thinking at its finest! I think the fact that Jefferson attended church services weekly speaks louder than all the modernist "conclusions". --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 15:59, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

He was also familiar with the term Christian, and he did not use it. Plus, he doubts the divinity of Christ. That does not sound like a firm statement of Christian faith, does it? Eighteenth century deists tended to subscribe to the notion of God, but declined to identify the deity in question. As TK's objection: Where did you get the idea that I am using modern ideas? I also do not recall discussing Jefferson--McIntyre 16:04, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
You didn't respond to our rebuttal of your claim that Franklin did not identify God. I assume you're conceding that Franklin expressly did identify God.
I would also like a concession that Franklin was not a deist towards the end of his life before moving on to the very different question of whether Franklin was a Christian. More generally, I don't want a perpetuation of the liberal view that people cannot grow into stronger faith. Many do.--Aschlafly 16:11, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Franklin does identify there is a god or deity of some sort. But he does not identify it as Christian. Why do you want a concession that Franklin was not a deist? It appears (based on his writings up to the end of his life) that he was.--McIntyre 16:25, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
McIntyre, unfortunately I can only conclude that you don't have an open mind about this. Perhaps you're repeating something you heard elsewhere and won't reconsider your views about it. Franklin strongly believed in an interventionist God and that disqualifies him from being a deist. Franklin did not call himself a deist. It's slanderous to insist that Franklin was a deist, and a sign that you're pushing an agenda based on bias. Enough. Please move on to another topic here with more of an open mind. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 17:06, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
This reminds me of a larger theme called "debunking the founding". The idea is that whatever flaws there may be in America's founding (and Founding Fathers) somehow invalidates America's special claim to being a Godly nation. Like, since we didn't immediately abolish slavery, we are worthless slime.
Don't forget the prayer embedding in our patriotic song: "God mend thine every flaw and crown thy good with brotherhood". America is great because it strives to be good. It is the cream of the crop and will continue to be as long as it so strives. --Ed Poor 17:57, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Aschlafly, I think your desire that McIntyre concede that Franklin was deist is unfortunate. He has cited primary sources--Franklin's own writings--rather than "something he heard.", He also correctly noted that Franklin did not identify the god in question--all hallmarks of eighteenth century deism. If someone does not have an "open mind" on the subject, as you put it, it is not McIntyre. I even think I know who McIntyre is, and when I see this person this weekend, I will ask him. He is really quite a scholar.--Jamest 12:12, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
The insistence on liberals describing Franklin as a deist continues to amaze me. I'll bet the correlation between those who insist Franklin was a deist and liberals is nearly 100%. It doesn't matter if the claim is made by a scholar or a student. Liberals want Franklin to have been a deist, even though Franklin himself implicitly rejected that label and prayed for divine intervention, something deists rejected.--Aschlafly 12:22, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

You should not be amazed. A reading of eighteenth century diest works reveals they have nothing against praying, and you have not addressed this point: Franklin never says he is a Christian, but he did say he was a deist. You say it "does not matter" who makes the claim, and that you willfully choose not to address the point that the writings McIntyre noted were Franklin's own. I think it is rather obvious who has the closed mind in this debate. --Jamest 12:42, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

By the way, the thought occurs to me: why do you reject what a Franklin scholar has to say? Surely a scholar has read more works by and about Franklin than you. Why do you reject their assertions out of hand or wish for them to concede something that they know--base on their research--is not true? Conservapedia wants to accurate and true, right? --Jamest 12:55, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
James, please disclose your political point-of-view along with that of the "scholar". Let me guess: do both of you oppose prayer in the classrooms of public schools? Enough said.--Aschlafly 13:11, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

We are discussing the past, not the political present. So, why bring up school prayer? What does that have to so with Franklin's deism?--Jamest 13:17, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
It explains your views. If you're opposed to prayer in the classroom, then there is over a 90% chance that (1) you'll insist that Franklin was a deist and (2) you believe in evolution. That extraordinary correlation suggests that the facts are irrelevant. If you're not open-minded about prayer in the classroom, then it's futile to expect you to be open-minded about these other issues.--Aschlafly 18:41, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly, I fail to see how my position on school prayer (which, by the way, you do not know) is germane to a conversation regarding Benjamin Franklin’s spiritual beliefs. You also do not know my position regarding evolution (I am also uncertain as to how that is relevant to this conversation). As for your other suppositions (the 90% figure), do you have evidence to support this? Now could you please show a little intellectual integrity, and address the substance of McIntyre’s arguments, rather than engaging in distractions? I do have an open mind about such matters sir, and I hope that you have the same. --Jamest 08:23, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
I do know, with 95% certainty, what your positions are on classroom prayer and evolution. The 95% confidence level is all that science requires. I know your positions with greater certainty than I know what the weather will be like tomorrow.
But why do you refuse to disclose your positions? Are you embarrassed about them? Do you feel they are indefensible? Conservatives don't hide their views; liberals do. Why?--Aschlafly 10:26, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly, my positions on school prayer and evolution would probably surprise you. I do not discuss them because they are not germane to the topic at hand, namely, Benjamin Franklin’s spiritual beliefs. Please show a little intellectual integrity, stick to the topic, and stop engaging in distractions. Could you please address McIntyre’s arguments?--Jamest 10:34, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

One more thing Mr. Schlafly. I do not know how you arrive at a figure of “95% certainty.” But I will share one observation with you. I have long noticed that a debater who employs distraction and non-sequiturs is in a desperate position. Will you respond to McIntyre’s argument? Or are you unable to do so?--Jamest 11:05, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
James, liberals crave attention and don't mind being deceitful. See Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia. Whether you are a liberal or not, I observe that you are not willing to be forthright about your views here, so my time is better spent discussing issues with others. Please leave my talk page, which is respected as one's castle here on Conservapedia. See Differences with Wikipedia. Thank you and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 11:25, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly, I am hardly a liberal. I will comply with your rules and stay off your talk page. However, if one does not have the intellectual fortitude to debate, one should not make unfounded assertions, such as “Franklin was not a deist” that are based on belief, rather than rigorous historical scholarship. Good day Sir.--Jamest 13:43, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
I don't find you to be forthright in stating your views. You may say that you are "hardly a liberal," but I'm not fooled by that. I'm 95% confident that you oppose prayer in the classroom, and that you believe in evolution.
I know liberals insist on having the last word. But this is my talk page, and the last word will be mine. Don't post here again on this issue. Thank you and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 14:08, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

You still did not try to answer professor McIntyre. I thought this was about Franklin? Why are you talking about prayer and evolution? --Willed 22:38, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
Nice try, "Willed". You're a sock of Jamest, and both account IDs and IP address have just been blocked for this.--Aschlafly 22:44, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
Ok, then. I'm not a sock of Jamest or Willed, but I second the question. Why bring up questions about evolution and school prayer when they are irrelevant to the question of Franklin's faith and McIntyre's research? JohnSmith 15:26, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
Someone who insists on censoring classroom prayer, even when everyone in the class wants to pray, is going to have a bias on issues related to religion. He should disclose his position so that others can evaluate his bias. So should you if you are going to insist that Franklin was a deist towards the end of his life.--Aschlafly 15:47, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
So if everybody in the class wanted to smoke Marijuana, would that be acceptable, via your ad populum argument? --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 17:25, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
There are laws against smoking marijuana to prevent the harm it causes. But there is no harm from praying in a classroom, while there is much good. Also, praying is a form of speech, unlike smoking marijuana. At bottom, liberals insist on censoring speech in the classroom. But notice how they won't admit it. Those who insist on censoring prayer in the classroom are unlikely to be objective in evaluating the faith of others, such as Benjamin Franklin. It's a bit like asking a Red Sox fan what he thinks of the Yankees this year; the answer is not likely to be objective. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 18:10, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Your response to the above posters does not make sense. They are trying to discuss Benjamin Franklin, and you try to make it about prayer. You also say you are 90% or 95% sure about their positions, but you provide no proof. It appears that you are really afraid of debating McIntyre on this point. He also seems to have proved his point, and you keep trying to distract people from the discussion. Why don't you simply discuss the Franklin/Deism question?--Franklin 18:54, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

I just read the conservapedia entry on Andrew Schlafly and I am very surprised. I am sure a graduate of Harvard law school knows that changing the subject is not a valid form of argumentation. If anything, it is the mark of an intellectual coward.--Franklin 19:20, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
We don't allow that kind of name-calling here. I've given you a very lenient block of only 2 hours. Next time it will be an infinite block if you engage in name-calling on someone's own talk page. See how Conservapedia differs from Wikipedia and have some respect for someone's talk page here. Thanks.--Aschlafly 19:31, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for being lenient in your block. But the question remains: Why does a man of your obvious education and intelligence not forthrightly respond to McIntyre? Surely you can articulate a good argument for your position rather than engaging in distractions.--Franklin 22:19, 28 May 2007 (EDT) Its nice the way that, failing to adequately change the subject when you are losing, you send Karajou to threaten the debaters on their talk pages. Classy, and, might i add, very Christian.GoddisapprovesofbulliesKarajou 23:07, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
Thank you for your sarcasm, but no thank you for your name. You will be blocked, but allowed to re-register with a non-offensive name, unless you turn out to be a sock.--Aschlafly 23:15, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Sock of Sevenstring. See Karajou's and my own talk pages. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 23:26, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

I tend to agree with the above poster (but I agree his name was improper). Now, enough with the distractions. Please respond to McIntyre--Franklin 06:15, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
Franklin, what am I missing here? Is this some debate forum? Is there some obligation that a user here incurs, in being forced to answer? I say this not to be argumentative, but some will take it so. I just have never figured out what about an online encyclopedia makes so many believe there is some burning need to debate every entry. I know people who are editors of traditional ones, and they assure me none of this constant arguing ever occurs? Is is because CP is branded and self-identified as a Conservative and Christian POV friendly? Is that all there is to this constant strife, that those who do not agree have set it as their "mission" to make the "nutty Christians" fall into line? You do know, right, that has been tried for thousands of years with any real success whatsoever? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 06:42, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

TK, I don't think you are missing anything. But surely you do not think that simple unsupported asserations trump scholarship do you? I don't think that anyone is trying to make "nutty Christians" as you put it, fall into line. But to avoid responding to dircet questions, and avoidance of the issue is unseemly. So I ask again. Please address the question, please address McIntyre, and quit trying to change the subject. --Franklin 08:23, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
What I believe is that any person whatsoever has the inviolable right to refuse to respond, without prejudice. Intellectual discourse must come without rancor or "demands", and be in a civil tone, for any advancement to occur. I suggest sending a personal email, or even perhaps waiting a day or so to cool this item down a bit. Now, I am bowing out here. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 09:01, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Intellectual discourse should be done without rancor and I think most of the people that have posted here have avoided that. However, trying to divert the issue by raising issues of prayer, evolution, etc., does not advance the discussion.--Franklin 09:07, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Wow. I have been away a while and I had no idea the discussion would expand like this! I notice one poster thinks he knows me (and I am pretty sure I know him). On to other matters. Do you concede that Franklin was a Deist, and if you do not, please articulate your reasons. Best, Mac.--McIntyre 10:55, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
[e
==NO==

Debate:Was Benjamin Franklin a deist?

2007-05-31T15:48:54Z

McIntyre:

{{debate}}

==YES==

He states so in his autobiography, and again in a letter written to Ezra Stiles a month before his death. He did see Christianity as valuable, noting the positive effects of George Whitefield’s preaching to the colonists, and expressed his admiration of Christ’s moral teachings. --[[User:McIntyre|McIntyre]] 17:29, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

His autobiography was published in 1791. I added this to the article here. --Ed Poor 09:28, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
Was that a posthumous publication? Do we know when he actually wrote it?--Aschlafly 17:25, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
Franklin wrote it over a period of time, starting and stopping. He wrote the first few chapters in 1771, wrote more in 1784-5, and finished it in 1788. It was, like Ed Poor says, partly first published, posthumously, in French in 1791, and then translated into English in 1793.--Steve 19:53, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for the enlightening information. Obviously any claim that Franklin said he was a deist should have a date next to it, as people's religious views change throughout their lives. Moreover, no one should claim that a work is an autobiography if it was published without his consent, as in posthumously. The best I can infer from this is that Franklin viewed himself as a deist in 1771, but by 1787 (Constitutional Convention) viewed the world differently, and by the time he died he viewed it still differently again. If our entry about Franklin does not yet reflect this, then I'll change it now. Thanks for your efforts. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 00:16, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
Further review reveals that Franklin did not even claim to be a deist in 1771, but merely said he was a deist in his youth! Really, the attempts by liberals to insist that Franklin was a deist towards the end of his life are astounding.--Aschlafly 00:50, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
Aschlafly, you are ignoring some ambiguity about the meaning of the word "deist." At the end of his life Franklin was not a deist, according to current dictionary definitions of the word, but his stated views in his "Creed" accord pretty well with the definition of deist according to Edward Herbert of Cherbury, who coined the word. And that may have been the definition that was current in his time.
Everyone in their life acquires what I'm going to call a stock of "fables," which are narratives that do have some connection with reality but have been grossly oversimplified and distorted. A good neutral example of one would be "Columbus thought the world was round when everyone else thought it was flat." The simple statement "The Founding Fathers were deists" is a good example of a liberal fable.
It's certainly fair to say Franklin advocated public prayer, and admired Christianity in some sense. But he wasn't a traditional Christian or close to one, either. Dpbsmith 09:13, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
It's common for liberals to deny that people find faith in life. Once an atheist or deist, always an atheist or deist, according to anti-Christians. Under this view, Abraham Lincoln was there an atheist (not true, he found faith as he grew older), and Benjamin Franklin was a deist (not true, he request divine intervention at the Constitutional Convention). Citing what Franklin wrote in 1771 about his youthful deism is obviously not proof that he was a deist at the Convention in 1787. Quite the contrary, as deists do not believe in divine intervention.--Aschlafly 15:03, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

Read Franklin's letters to Ezra Stiles, written one month before his death. The first paragraph shows his deist leanings, while the in the second one he acknowledges the value of Christianity, but doubts that Christ was the son of god. --McIntyre 17:23, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
I did read them here: Benjamin Franklin. Franklin does not describe himself as a deist. Enough said. About Jesus's divinity, Franklin says he has not studied it and is open to the possibility. A deist, by the way, requires a non-interventionist God. Franklin rejected that.--Aschlafly 22:57, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

I must note the irony here in connection with a prior discussion. Liberals insist on calling all supporters of abortion "pro-choice" rather than "pro-abortion" because that is the term they use for themselves. But then liberals insist on falling Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson "deists" when they did not use that term to describe their views as adults! Franklin believed in an interventionist God and Jefferson frequently attended a Christian church until he died.--Aschlafly 15:18, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

A more careful reading of the letter to Stiles, written a month before Franklin's death, reveals his diest leanings. Franklin states that he believes in one God and that our behavior in this life dictates how we be treated in the next. Notice he does not identify the God, or use the term Christian. Sounds very much like a diest. As for the second paragraph, doubting if Christ is divine does not seem very Christian. Please respond to the content of Franklin's letter, rather than attempting to divert the discussion with references to current terms used in highly charged debates today. --McIntyre 15:45, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
The most important aspect of that letter is that Franklin does not call himself a deist. He'd known the term all his life, and he clearly would have used it if applied to him. It did not. We should not call him by a religious name that he himself rejected. Surely you wouldn't claim that someone is a Catholic, for example, if the person himself rejects that label.
Where do you get that Franklin "does not identify the God"??? He says, "Here is my Creed: I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe."--Aschlafly 15:54, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
Odd, McIntyre, but that was what I was about to post to you. You are the one adding modern interpretations and your own suppositions, to almost 300 year old letters. Revisionist thinking at its finest! I think the fact that Jefferson attended church services weekly speaks louder than all the modernist "conclusions". --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 15:59, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

He was also familiar with the term Christian, and he did not use it. Plus, he doubts the divinity of Christ. That does not sound like a firm statement of Christian faith, does it? Eighteenth century deists tended to subscribe to the notion of God, but declined to identify the deity in question. As TK's objection: Where did you get the idea that I am using modern ideas? I also do not recall discussing Jefferson--McIntyre 16:04, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
You didn't respond to our rebuttal of your claim that Franklin did not identify God. I assume you're conceding that Franklin expressly did identify God.
I would also like a concession that Franklin was not a deist towards the end of his life before moving on to the very different question of whether Franklin was a Christian. More generally, I don't want a perpetuation of the liberal view that people cannot grow into stronger faith. Many do.--Aschlafly 16:11, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Franklin does identify there is a god or deity of some sort. But he does not identify it as Christian. Why do you want a concession that Franklin was not a deist? It appears (based on his writings up to the end of his life) that he was.--McIntyre 16:25, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
McIntyre, unfortunately I can only conclude that you don't have an open mind about this. Perhaps you're repeating something you heard elsewhere and won't reconsider your views about it. Franklin strongly believed in an interventionist God and that disqualifies him from being a deist. Franklin did not call himself a deist. It's slanderous to insist that Franklin was a deist, and a sign that you're pushing an agenda based on bias. Enough. Please move on to another topic here with more of an open mind. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 17:06, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
This reminds me of a larger theme called "debunking the founding". The idea is that whatever flaws there may be in America's founding (and Founding Fathers) somehow invalidates America's special claim to being a Godly nation. Like, since we didn't immediately abolish slavery, we are worthless slime.
Don't forget the prayer embedding in our patriotic song: "God mend thine every flaw and crown thy good with brotherhood". America is great because it strives to be good. It is the cream of the crop and will continue to be as long as it so strives. --Ed Poor 17:57, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Aschlafly, I think your desire that McIntyre concede that Franklin was deist is unfortunate. He has cited primary sources--Franklin's own writings--rather than "something he heard.", He also correctly noted that Franklin did not identify the god in question--all hallmarks of eighteenth century deism. If someone does not have an "open mind" on the subject, as you put it, it is not McIntyre. I even think I know who McIntyre is, and when I see this person this weekend, I will ask him. He is really quite a scholar.--Jamest 12:12, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
The insistence on liberals describing Franklin as a deist continues to amaze me. I'll bet the correlation between those who insist Franklin was a deist and liberals is nearly 100%. It doesn't matter if the claim is made by a scholar or a student. Liberals want Franklin to have been a deist, even though Franklin himself implicitly rejected that label and prayed for divine intervention, something deists rejected.--Aschlafly 12:22, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

You should not be amazed. A reading of eighteenth century diest works reveals they have nothing against praying, and you have not addressed this point: Franklin never says he is a Christian, but he did say he was a deist. You say it "does not matter" who makes the claim, and that you willfully choose not to address the point that the writings McIntyre noted were Franklin's own. I think it is rather obvious who has the closed mind in this debate. --Jamest 12:42, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

By the way, the thought occurs to me: why do you reject what a Franklin scholar has to say? Surely a scholar has read more works by and about Franklin than you. Why do you reject their assertions out of hand or wish for them to concede something that they know--base on their research--is not true? Conservapedia wants to accurate and true, right? --Jamest 12:55, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
James, please disclose your political point-of-view along with that of the "scholar". Let me guess: do both of you oppose prayer in the classrooms of public schools? Enough said.--Aschlafly 13:11, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

We are discussing the past, not the political present. So, why bring up school prayer? What does that have to so with Franklin's deism?--Jamest 13:17, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
It explains your views. If you're opposed to prayer in the classroom, then there is over a 90% chance that (1) you'll insist that Franklin was a deist and (2) you believe in evolution. That extraordinary correlation suggests that the facts are irrelevant. If you're not open-minded about prayer in the classroom, then it's futile to expect you to be open-minded about these other issues.--Aschlafly 18:41, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly, I fail to see how my position on school prayer (which, by the way, you do not know) is germane to a conversation regarding Benjamin Franklin’s spiritual beliefs. You also do not know my position regarding evolution (I am also uncertain as to how that is relevant to this conversation). As for your other suppositions (the 90% figure), do you have evidence to support this? Now could you please show a little intellectual integrity, and address the substance of McIntyre’s arguments, rather than engaging in distractions? I do have an open mind about such matters sir, and I hope that you have the same. --Jamest 08:23, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
I do know, with 95% certainty, what your positions are on classroom prayer and evolution. The 95% confidence level is all that science requires. I know your positions with greater certainty than I know what the weather will be like tomorrow.
But why do you refuse to disclose your positions? Are you embarrassed about them? Do you feel they are indefensible? Conservatives don't hide their views; liberals do. Why?--Aschlafly 10:26, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly, my positions on school prayer and evolution would probably surprise you. I do not discuss them because they are not germane to the topic at hand, namely, Benjamin Franklin’s spiritual beliefs. Please show a little intellectual integrity, stick to the topic, and stop engaging in distractions. Could you please address McIntyre’s arguments?--Jamest 10:34, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

One more thing Mr. Schlafly. I do not know how you arrive at a figure of “95% certainty.” But I will share one observation with you. I have long noticed that a debater who employs distraction and non-sequiturs is in a desperate position. Will you respond to McIntyre’s argument? Or are you unable to do so?--Jamest 11:05, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
James, liberals crave attention and don't mind being deceitful. See Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia. Whether you are a liberal or not, I observe that you are not willing to be forthright about your views here, so my time is better spent discussing issues with others. Please leave my talk page, which is respected as one's castle here on Conservapedia. See Differences with Wikipedia. Thank you and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 11:25, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly, I am hardly a liberal. I will comply with your rules and stay off your talk page. However, if one does not have the intellectual fortitude to debate, one should not make unfounded assertions, such as “Franklin was not a deist” that are based on belief, rather than rigorous historical scholarship. Good day Sir.--Jamest 13:43, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
I don't find you to be forthright in stating your views. You may say that you are "hardly a liberal," but I'm not fooled by that. I'm 95% confident that you oppose prayer in the classroom, and that you believe in evolution.
I know liberals insist on having the last word. But this is my talk page, and the last word will be mine. Don't post here again on this issue. Thank you and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 14:08, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

You still did not try to answer professor McIntyre. I thought this was about Franklin? Why are you talking about prayer and evolution? --Willed 22:38, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
Nice try, "Willed". You're a sock of Jamest, and both account IDs and IP address have just been blocked for this.--Aschlafly 22:44, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
Ok, then. I'm not a sock of Jamest or Willed, but I second the question. Why bring up questions about evolution and school prayer when they are irrelevant to the question of Franklin's faith and McIntyre's research? JohnSmith 15:26, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
Someone who insists on censoring classroom prayer, even when everyone in the class wants to pray, is going to have a bias on issues related to religion. He should disclose his position so that others can evaluate his bias. So should you if you are going to insist that Franklin was a deist towards the end of his life.--Aschlafly 15:47, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
So if everybody in the class wanted to smoke Marijuana, would that be acceptable, via your ad populum argument? --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 17:25, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
There are laws against smoking marijuana to prevent the harm it causes. But there is no harm from praying in a classroom, while there is much good. Also, praying is a form of speech, unlike smoking marijuana. At bottom, liberals insist on censoring speech in the classroom. But notice how they won't admit it. Those who insist on censoring prayer in the classroom are unlikely to be objective in evaluating the faith of others, such as Benjamin Franklin. It's a bit like asking a Red Sox fan what he thinks of the Yankees this year; the answer is not likely to be objective. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 18:10, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Your response to the above posters does not make sense. They are trying to discuss Benjamin Franklin, and you try to make it about prayer. You also say you are 90% or 95% sure about their positions, but you provide no proof. It appears that you are really afraid of debating McIntyre on this point. He also seems to have proved his point, and you keep trying to distract people from the discussion. Why don't you simply discuss the Franklin/Deism question?--Franklin 18:54, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

I just read the conservapedia entry on Andrew Schlafly and I am very surprised. I am sure a graduate of Harvard law school knows that changing the subject is not a valid form of argumentation. If anything, it is the mark of an intellectual coward.--Franklin 19:20, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
We don't allow that kind of name-calling here. I've given you a very lenient block of only 2 hours. Next time it will be an infinite block if you engage in name-calling on someone's own talk page. See how Conservapedia differs from Wikipedia and have some respect for someone's talk page here. Thanks.--Aschlafly 19:31, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for being lenient in your block. But the question remains: Why does a man of your obvious education and intelligence not forthrightly respond to McIntyre? Surely you can articulate a good argument for your position rather than engaging in distractions.--Franklin 22:19, 28 May 2007 (EDT) Its nice the way that, failing to adequately change the subject when you are losing, you send Karajou to threaten the debaters on their talk pages. Classy, and, might i add, very Christian.GoddisapprovesofbulliesKarajou 23:07, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
Thank you for your sarcasm, but no thank you for your name. You will be blocked, but allowed to re-register with a non-offensive name, unless you turn out to be a sock.--Aschlafly 23:15, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Sock of Sevenstring. See Karajou's and my own talk pages. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 23:26, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

I tend to agree with the above poster (but I agree his name was improper). Now, enough with the distractions. Please respond to McIntyre--Franklin 06:15, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
Franklin, what am I missing here? Is this some debate forum? Is there some obligation that a user here incurs, in being forced to answer? I say this not to be argumentative, but some will take it so. I just have never figured out what about an online encyclopedia makes so many believe there is some burning need to debate every entry. I know people who are editors of traditional ones, and they assure me none of this constant arguing ever occurs? Is is because CP is branded and self-identified as a Conservative and Christian POV friendly? Is that all there is to this constant strife, that those who do not agree have set it as their "mission" to make the "nutty Christians" fall into line? You do know, right, that has been tried for thousands of years with any real success whatsoever? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 06:42, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

TK, I don't think you are missing anything. But surely you do not think that simple unsupported asserations trump scholarship do you? I don't think that anyone is trying to make "nutty Christians" as you put it, fall into line. But to avoid responding to dircet questions, and avoidance of the issue is unseemly. So I ask again. Please address the question, please address McIntyre, and quit trying to change the subject. --Franklin 08:23, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
What I believe is that any person whatsoever has the inviolable right to refuse to respond, without prejudice. Intellectual discourse must come without rancor or "demands", and be in a civil tone, for any advancement to occur. I suggest sending a personal email, or even perhaps waiting a day or so to cool this item down a bit. Now, I am bowing out here. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 09:01, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Intellectual discourse should be done without rancor and I think most of the people that have posted here have avoided that. However, trying to divert the issue by raising issues of prayer, evolution, etc., does not advance the discussion.--Franklin 09:07, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Wow. I have been away a while and I had no idea the discussion would expand like this! I notice one poster thinks he knows me (and I am pretty sure I know him). On to other matters. Do you concede that Franklin was a Deist, and if you do not, please articulate your reasons. Best, Mac.--McIntyre 10:55, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
[e

==NO==

Debate:Was Benjamin Franklin a deist?

2007-05-31T15:37:30Z

McIntyre:

{{debate}}

==YES==

He states so in his autobiography, and again in a letter written to Ezra Stiles a month before his death. He did see Christianity as valuable, noting the positive effects of George Whitefield’s preaching to the colonists, and expressed his admiration of Christ’s moral teachings. --[[User:McIntyre|McIntyre]] 17:29, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

Here is an excerpt from another page. It seems that the forces of truth, justice, sweetness and light (that is to say, those who understand that Franklin was a Deist) won:
-
- His autobiography was published in 1791. I added this to the article here. --Ed Poor 09:28, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
- Was that a posthumous publication? Do we know when he actually wrote it?--Aschlafly 17:25, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
- Franklin wrote it over a period of time, starting and stopping. He wrote the first few chapters in 1771, wrote more in 1784-5, and finished it in 1788. It was, like Ed Poor says, partly first published, posthumously, in French in 1791, and then translated into English in 1793.--Steve 19:53, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
- Thanks for the enlightening information. Obviously any claim that Franklin said he was a deist should have a date next to it, as people's religious views change throughout their lives. Moreover, no one should claim that a work is an autobiography if it was published without his consent, as in posthumously. The best I can infer from this is that Franklin viewed himself as a deist in 1771, but by 1787 (Constitutional Convention) viewed the world differently, and by the time he died he viewed it still differently again. If our entry about Franklin does not yet reflect this, then I'll change it now. Thanks for your efforts. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 00:16, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
- Further review reveals that Franklin did not even claim to be a deist in 1771, but merely said he was a deist in his youth! Really, the attempts by liberals to insist that Franklin was a deist towards the end of his life are astounding.--Aschlafly 00:50, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
- Aschlafly, you are ignoring some ambiguity about the meaning of the word "deist." At the end of his life Franklin was not a deist, according to current dictionary definitions of the word, but his stated views in his "Creed" accord pretty well with the definition of deist according to Edward Herbert of Cherbury, who coined the word. And that may have been the definition that was current in his time.
- Everyone in their life acquires what I'm going to call a stock of "fables," which are narratives that do have some connection with reality but have been grossly oversimplified and distorted. A good neutral example of one would be "Columbus thought the world was round when everyone else thought it was flat." The simple statement "The Founding Fathers were deists" is a good example of a liberal fable.
- It's certainly fair to say Franklin advocated public prayer, and admired Christianity in some sense. But he wasn't a traditional Christian or close to one, either. Dpbsmith 09:13, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
- It's common for liberals to deny that people find faith in life. Once an atheist or deist, always an atheist or deist, according to anti-Christians. Under this view, Abraham Lincoln was there an atheist (not true, he found faith as he grew older), and Benjamin Franklin was a deist (not true, he request divine intervention at the Constitutional Convention). Citing what Franklin wrote in 1771 about his youthful deism is obviously not proof that he was a deist at the Convention in 1787. Quite the contrary, as deists do not believe in divine intervention.--Aschlafly 15:03, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
-
- Read Franklin's letters to Ezra Stiles, written one month before his death. The first paragraph shows his deist leanings, while the in the second one he acknowledges the value of Christianity, but doubts that Christ was the son of god. --McIntyre 17:23, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
- I did read them here: Benjamin Franklin. Franklin does not describe himself as a deist. Enough said. About Jesus's divinity, Franklin says he has not studied it and is open to the possibility. A deist, by the way, requires a non-interventionist God. Franklin rejected that.--Aschlafly 22:57, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
-
- I must note the irony here in connection with a prior discussion. Liberals insist on calling all supporters of abortion "pro-choice" rather than "pro-abortion" because that is the term they use for themselves. But then liberals insist on falling Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson "deists" when they did not use that term to describe their views as adults! Franklin believed in an interventionist God and Jefferson frequently attended a Christian church until he died.--Aschlafly 15:18, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
-
- A more careful reading of the letter to Stiles, written a month before Franklin's death, reveals his diest leanings. Franklin states that he believes in one God and that our behavior in this life dictates how we be treated in the next. Notice he does not identify the God, or use the term Christian. Sounds very much like a diest. As for the second paragraph, doubting if Christ is divine does not seem very Christian. Please respond to the content of Franklin's letter, rather than attempting to divert the discussion with references to current terms used in highly charged debates today. --McIntyre 15:45, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
- The most important aspect of that letter is that Franklin does not call himself a deist. He'd known the term all his life, and he clearly would have used it if applied to him. It did not. We should not call him by a religious name that he himself rejected. Surely you wouldn't claim that someone is a Catholic, for example, if the person himself rejects that label.
- Where do you get that Franklin "does not identify the God"??? He says, "Here is my Creed: I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe."--Aschlafly 15:54, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
- Odd, McIntyre, but that was what I was about to post to you. You are the one adding modern interpretations and your own suppositions, to almost 300 year old letters. Revisionist thinking at its finest! I think the fact that Jefferson attended church services weekly speaks louder than all the modernist "conclusions". --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 15:59, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
-
- He was also familiar with the term Christian, and he did not use it. Plus, he doubts the divinity of Christ. That does not sound like a firm statement of Christian faith, does it? Eighteenth century deists tended to subscribe to the notion of God, but declined to identify the deity in question. As TK's objection: Where did you get the idea that I am using modern ideas? I also do not recall discussing Jefferson--McIntyre 16:04, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
- You didn't respond to our rebuttal of your claim that Franklin did not identify God. I assume you're conceding that Franklin expressly did identify God.
- I would also like a concession that Franklin was not a deist towards the end of his life before moving on to the very different question of whether Franklin was a Christian. More generally, I don't want a perpetuation of the liberal view that people cannot grow into stronger faith. Many do.--Aschlafly 16:11, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
-
- Franklin does identify there is a god or deity of some sort. But he does not identify it as Christian. Why do you want a concession that Franklin was not a deist? It appears (based on his writings up to the end of his life) that he was.--McIntyre 16:25, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
- McIntyre, unfortunately I can only conclude that you don't have an open mind about this. Perhaps you're repeating something you heard elsewhere and won't reconsider your views about it. Franklin strongly believed in an interventionist God and that disqualifies him from being a deist. Franklin did not call himself a deist. It's slanderous to insist that Franklin was a deist, and a sign that you're pushing an agenda based on bias. Enough. Please move on to another topic here with more of an open mind. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 17:06, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
- This reminds me of a larger theme called "debunking the founding". The idea is that whatever flaws there may be in America's founding (and Founding Fathers) somehow invalidates America's special claim to being a Godly nation. Like, since we didn't immediately abolish slavery, we are worthless slime.
- Don't forget the prayer embedding in our patriotic song: "God mend thine every flaw and crown thy good with brotherhood". America is great because it strives to be good. It is the cream of the crop and will continue to be as long as it so strives. --Ed Poor 17:57, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
-
- Aschlafly, I think your desire that McIntyre concede that Franklin was deist is unfortunate. He has cited primary sources--Franklin's own writings--rather than "something he heard.", He also correctly noted that Franklin did not identify the god in question--all hallmarks of eighteenth century deism. If someone does not have an "open mind" on the subject, as you put it, it is not McIntyre. I even think I know who McIntyre is, and when I see this person this weekend, I will ask him. He is really quite a scholar.--Jamest 12:12, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
- The insistence on liberals describing Franklin as a deist continues to amaze me. I'll bet the correlation between those who insist Franklin was a deist and liberals is nearly 100%. It doesn't matter if the claim is made by a scholar or a student. Liberals want Franklin to have been a deist, even though Franklin himself implicitly rejected that label and prayed for divine intervention, something deists rejected.--Aschlafly 12:22, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
-
- You should not be amazed. A reading of eighteenth century diest works reveals they have nothing against praying, and you have not addressed this point: Franklin never says he is a Christian, but he did say he was a deist. You say it "does not matter" who makes the claim, and that you willfully choose not to address the point that the writings McIntyre noted were Franklin's own. I think it is rather obvious who has the closed mind in this debate. --Jamest 12:42, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
-
- By the way, the thought occurs to me: why do you reject what a Franklin scholar has to say? Surely a scholar has read more works by and about Franklin than you. Why do you reject their assertions out of hand or wish for them to concede something that they know--base on their research--is not true? Conservapedia wants to accurate and true, right? --Jamest 12:55, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
- James, please disclose your political point-of-view along with that of the "scholar". Let me guess: do both of you oppose prayer in the classrooms of public schools? Enough said.--Aschlafly 13:11, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
-
- We are discussing the past, not the political present. So, why bring up school prayer? What does that have to so with Franklin's deism?--Jamest 13:17, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
- It explains your views. If you're opposed to prayer in the classroom, then there is over a 90% chance that (1) you'll insist that Franklin was a deist and (2) you believe in evolution. That extraordinary correlation suggests that the facts are irrelevant. If you're not open-minded about prayer in the classroom, then it's futile to expect you to be open-minded about these other issues.--Aschlafly 18:41, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
-
- Mr. Schlafly, I fail to see how my position on school prayer (which, by the way, you do not know) is germane to a conversation regarding Benjamin Franklin’s spiritual beliefs. You also do not know my position regarding evolution (I am also uncertain as to how that is relevant to this conversation). As for your other suppositions (the 90% figure), do you have evidence to support this? Now could you please show a little intellectual integrity, and address the substance of McIntyre’s arguments, rather than engaging in distractions? I do have an open mind about such matters sir, and I hope that you have the same. --Jamest 08:23, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
- I do know, with 95% certainty, what your positions are on classroom prayer and evolution. The 95% confidence level is all that science requires. I know your positions with greater certainty than I know what the weather will be like tomorrow.
- But why do you refuse to disclose your positions? Are you embarrassed about them? Do you feel they are indefensible? Conservatives don't hide their views; liberals do. Why?--Aschlafly 10:26, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
-
- Mr. Schlafly, my positions on school prayer and evolution would probably surprise you. I do not discuss them because they are not germane to the topic at hand, namely, Benjamin Franklin’s spiritual beliefs. Please show a little intellectual integrity, stick to the topic, and stop engaging in distractions. Could you please address McIntyre’s arguments?--Jamest 10:34, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
-
- One more thing Mr. Schlafly. I do not know how you arrive at a figure of “95% certainty.” But I will share one observation with you. I have long noticed that a debater who employs distraction and non-sequiturs is in a desperate position. Will you respond to McIntyre’s argument? Or are you unable to do so?--Jamest 11:05, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
- James, liberals crave attention and don't mind being deceitful. See Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia. Whether you are a liberal or not, I observe that you are not willing to be forthright about your views here, so my time is better spent discussing issues with others. Please leave my talk page, which is respected as one's castle here on Conservapedia. See Differences with Wikipedia. Thank you and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 11:25, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
-
- Mr. Schlafly, I am hardly a liberal. I will comply with your rules and stay off your talk page. However, if one does not have the intellectual fortitude to debate, one should not make unfounded assertions, such as “Franklin was not a deist” that are based on belief, rather than rigorous historical scholarship. Good day Sir.--Jamest 13:43, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
- I don't find you to be forthright in stating your views. You may say that you are "hardly a liberal," but I'm not fooled by that. I'm 95% confident that you oppose prayer in the classroom, and that you believe in evolution.
- I know liberals insist on having the last word. But this is my talk page, and the last word will be mine. Don't post here again on this issue. Thank you and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 14:08, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
-
- You still did not try to answer professor McIntyre. I thought this was about Franklin? Why are you talking about prayer and evolution? --Willed 22:38, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
- Nice try, "Willed". You're a sock of Jamest, and both account IDs and IP address have just been blocked for this.--Aschlafly 22:44, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
- Ok, then. I'm not a sock of Jamest or Willed, but I second the question. Why bring up questions about evolution and school prayer when they are irrelevant to the question of Franklin's faith and McIntyre's research? JohnSmith 15:26, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
- Someone who insists on censoring classroom prayer, even when everyone in the class wants to pray, is going to have a bias on issues related to religion. He should disclose his position so that others can evaluate his bias. So should you if you are going to insist that Franklin was a deist towards the end of his life.--Aschlafly 15:47, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
- So if everybody in the class wanted to smoke Marijuana, would that be acceptable, via your ad populum argument? --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 17:25, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
- There are laws against smoking marijuana to prevent the harm it causes. But there is no harm from praying in a classroom, while there is much good. Also, praying is a form of speech, unlike smoking marijuana. At bottom, liberals insist on censoring speech in the classroom. But notice how they won't admit it. Those who insist on censoring prayer in the classroom are unlikely to be objective in evaluating the faith of others, such as Benjamin Franklin. It's a bit like asking a Red Sox fan what he thinks of the Yankees this year; the answer is not likely to be objective. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 18:10, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
-
- Your response to the above posters does not make sense. They are trying to discuss Benjamin Franklin, and you try to make it about prayer. You also say you are 90% or 95% sure about their positions, but you provide no proof. It appears that you are really afraid of debating McIntyre on this point. He also seems to have proved his point, and you keep trying to distract people from the discussion. Why don't you simply discuss the Franklin/Deism question?--Franklin 18:54, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
-
- I just read the conservapedia entry on Andrew Schlafly and I am very surprised. I am sure a graduate of Harvard law school knows that changing the subject is not a valid form of argumentation. If anything, it is the mark of an intellectual coward.--Franklin 19:20, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
- We don't allow that kind of name-calling here. I've given you a very lenient block of only 2 hours. Next time it will be an infinite block if you engage in name-calling on someone's own talk page. See how Conservapedia differs from Wikipedia and have some respect for someone's talk page here. Thanks.--Aschlafly 19:31, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
-
- Thank you for being lenient in your block. But the question remains: Why does a man of your obvious education and intelligence not forthrightly respond to McIntyre? Surely you can articulate a good argument for your position rather than engaging in distractions.--Franklin 22:19, 28 May 2007 (EDT) Its nice the way that, failing to adequately change the subject when you are losing, you send Karajou to threaten the debaters on their talk pages. Classy, and, might i add, very Christian.GoddisapprovesofbulliesKarajou 23:07, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
- Thank you for your sarcasm, but no thank you for your name. You will be blocked, but allowed to re-register with a non-offensive name, unless you turn out to be a sock.--Aschlafly 23:15, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
-
- Sock of Sevenstring. See Karajou's and my own talk pages. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 23:26, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
-
- I tend to agree with the above poster (but I agree his name was improper). Now, enough with the distractions. Please respond to McIntyre--Franklin 06:15, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
- Franklin, what am I missing here? Is this some debate forum? Is there some obligation that a user here incurs, in being forced to answer? I say this not to be argumentative, but some will take it so. I just have never figured out what about an online encyclopedia makes so many believe there is some burning need to debate every entry. I know people who are editors of traditional ones, and they assure me none of this constant arguing ever occurs? Is is because CP is branded and self-identified as a Conservative and Christian POV friendly? Is that all there is to this constant strife, that those who do not agree have set it as their "mission" to make the "nutty Christians" fall into line? You do know, right, that has been tried for thousands of years with any real success whatsoever? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 06:42, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
-
- TK, I don't think you are missing anything. But surely you do not think that simple unsupported asserations trump scholarship do you? I don't think that anyone is trying to make "nutty Christians" as you put it, fall into line. But to avoid responding to dircet questions, and avoidance of the issue is unseemly. So I ask again. Please address the question, please address McIntyre, and quit trying to change the subject. --Franklin 08:23, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
- What I believe is that any person whatsoever has the inviolable right to refuse to respond, without prejudice. Intellectual discourse must come without rancor or "demands", and be in a civil tone, for any advancement to occur. I suggest sending a personal email, or even perhaps waiting a day or so to cool this item down a bit. Now, I am bowing out here. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 09:01, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
-
- Intellectual discourse should be done without rancor and I think most of the people that have posted here have avoided that. However, trying to divert the issue by raising issues of prayer, evolution, etc., does not advance the discussion.--Franklin 09:07, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
-
- Wow. I have been away a while and I had no idea the discussion would expand like this! I notice one poster thinks he knows me (and I am pretty sure I know him). On to other matters. Do you concede that Franklin was a Deist, and if you do not, please articulate your reasons. Best, Mac.--McIntyre 10:55, 31 May 2007 (E
==NO==

Debate:Was Benjamin Franklin a deist?

2007-05-31T15:29:09Z

McIntyre:

{{debate}}

==YES==

He states so in his autobiography, and again in a letter written to Ezra Stiles a month before his death. He did see Christianity as valuable, noting the positive effects of George Whitefield’s preaching to the colonists, and expressed his admiration of Christ’s moral teachings. --[[User:McIntyre|McIntyre]] 17:29, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

Here is an excerpt from another page. It seems that the forces of truth, justice, sweetness and light (that is to say, those who understand that Franklin was a Deist) won:

His autobiography was published in 1791. I added this to the article here. --Ed Poor 09:28, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
Was that a posthumous publication? Do we know when he actually wrote it?--Aschlafly 17:25, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
Franklin wrote it over a period of time, starting and stopping. He wrote the first few chapters in 1771, wrote more in 1784-5, and finished it in 1788. It was, like Ed Poor says, partly first published, posthumously, in French in 1791, and then translated into English in 1793.--Steve 19:53, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for the enlightening information. Obviously any claim that Franklin said he was a deist should have a date next to it, as people's religious views change throughout their lives. Moreover, no one should claim that a work is an autobiography if it was published without his consent, as in posthumously. The best I can infer from this is that Franklin viewed himself as a deist in 1771, but by 1787 (Constitutional Convention) viewed the world differently, and by the time he died he viewed it still differently again. If our entry about Franklin does not yet reflect this, then I'll change it now. Thanks for your efforts. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 00:16, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
Further review reveals that Franklin did not even claim to be a deist in 1771, but merely said he was a deist in his youth! Really, the attempts by liberals to insist that Franklin was a deist towards the end of his life are astounding.--Aschlafly 00:50, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
Aschlafly, you are ignoring some ambiguity about the meaning of the word "deist." At the end of his life Franklin was not a deist, according to current dictionary definitions of the word, but his stated views in his "Creed" accord pretty well with the definition of deist according to Edward Herbert of Cherbury, who coined the word. And that may have been the definition that was current in his time.
Everyone in their life acquires what I'm going to call a stock of "fables," which are narratives that do have some connection with reality but have been grossly oversimplified and distorted. A good neutral example of one would be "Columbus thought the world was round when everyone else thought it was flat." The simple statement "The Founding Fathers were deists" is a good example of a liberal fable.
It's certainly fair to say Franklin advocated public prayer, and admired Christianity in some sense. But he wasn't a traditional Christian or close to one, either. Dpbsmith 09:13, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
It's common for liberals to deny that people find faith in life. Once an atheist or deist, always an atheist or deist, according to anti-Christians. Under this view, Abraham Lincoln was there an atheist (not true, he found faith as he grew older), and Benjamin Franklin was a deist (not true, he request divine intervention at the Constitutional Convention). Citing what Franklin wrote in 1771 about his youthful deism is obviously not proof that he was a deist at the Convention in 1787. Quite the contrary, as deists do not believe in divine intervention.--Aschlafly 15:03, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

Read Franklin's letters to Ezra Stiles, written one month before his death. The first paragraph shows his deist leanings, while the in the second one he acknowledges the value of Christianity, but doubts that Christ was the son of god. --McIntyre 17:23, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
I did read them here: Benjamin Franklin. Franklin does not describe himself as a deist. Enough said. About Jesus's divinity, Franklin says he has not studied it and is open to the possibility. A deist, by the way, requires a non-interventionist God. Franklin rejected that.--Aschlafly 22:57, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

I must note the irony here in connection with a prior discussion. Liberals insist on calling all supporters of abortion "pro-choice" rather than "pro-abortion" because that is the term they use for themselves. But then liberals insist on falling Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson "deists" when they did not use that term to describe their views as adults! Franklin believed in an interventionist God and Jefferson frequently attended a Christian church until he died.--Aschlafly 15:18, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

A more careful reading of the letter to Stiles, written a month before Franklin's death, reveals his diest leanings. Franklin states that he believes in one God and that our behavior in this life dictates how we be treated in the next. Notice he does not identify the God, or use the term Christian. Sounds very much like a diest. As for the second paragraph, doubting if Christ is divine does not seem very Christian. Please respond to the content of Franklin's letter, rather than attempting to divert the discussion with references to current terms used in highly charged debates today. --McIntyre 15:45, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
The most important aspect of that letter is that Franklin does not call himself a deist. He'd known the term all his life, and he clearly would have used it if applied to him. It did not. We should not call him by a religious name that he himself rejected. Surely you wouldn't claim that someone is a Catholic, for example, if the person himself rejects that label.
Where do you get that Franklin "does not identify the God"??? He says, "Here is my Creed: I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe."--Aschlafly 15:54, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
Odd, McIntyre, but that was what I was about to post to you. You are the one adding modern interpretations and your own suppositions, to almost 300 year old letters. Revisionist thinking at its finest! I think the fact that Jefferson attended church services weekly speaks louder than all the modernist "conclusions". --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 15:59, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

He was also familiar with the term Christian, and he did not use it. Plus, he doubts the divinity of Christ. That does not sound like a firm statement of Christian faith, does it? Eighteenth century deists tended to subscribe to the notion of God, but declined to identify the deity in question. As TK's objection: Where did you get the idea that I am using modern ideas? I also do not recall discussing Jefferson--McIntyre 16:04, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
You didn't respond to our rebuttal of your claim that Franklin did not identify God. I assume you're conceding that Franklin expressly did identify God.
I would also like a concession that Franklin was not a deist towards the end of his life before moving on to the very different question of whether Franklin was a Christian. More generally, I don't want a perpetuation of the liberal view that people cannot grow into stronger faith. Many do.--Aschlafly 16:11, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Franklin does identify there is a god or deity of some sort. But he does not identify it as Christian. Why do you want a concession that Franklin was not a deist? It appears (based on his writings up to the end of his life) that he was.--McIntyre 16:25, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
McIntyre, unfortunately I can only conclude that you don't have an open mind about this. Perhaps you're repeating something you heard elsewhere and won't reconsider your views about it. Franklin strongly believed in an interventionist God and that disqualifies him from being a deist. Franklin did not call himself a deist. It's slanderous to insist that Franklin was a deist, and a sign that you're pushing an agenda based on bias. Enough. Please move on to another topic here with more of an open mind. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 17:06, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
This reminds me of a larger theme called "debunking the founding". The idea is that whatever flaws there may be in America's founding (and Founding Fathers) somehow invalidates America's special claim to being a Godly nation. Like, since we didn't immediately abolish slavery, we are worthless slime.
Don't forget the prayer embedding in our patriotic song: "God mend thine every flaw and crown thy good with brotherhood". America is great because it strives to be good. It is the cream of the crop and will continue to be as long as it so strives. --Ed Poor 17:57, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Aschlafly, I think your desire that McIntyre concede that Franklin was deist is unfortunate. He has cited primary sources--Franklin's own writings--rather than "something he heard.", He also correctly noted that Franklin did not identify the god in question--all hallmarks of eighteenth century deism. If someone does not have an "open mind" on the subject, as you put it, it is not McIntyre. I even think I know who McIntyre is, and when I see this person this weekend, I will ask him. He is really quite a scholar.--Jamest 12:12, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
The insistence on liberals describing Franklin as a deist continues to amaze me. I'll bet the correlation between those who insist Franklin was a deist and liberals is nearly 100%. It doesn't matter if the claim is made by a scholar or a student. Liberals want Franklin to have been a deist, even though Franklin himself implicitly rejected that label and prayed for divine intervention, something deists rejected.--Aschlafly 12:22, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

You should not be amazed. A reading of eighteenth century diest works reveals they have nothing against praying, and you have not addressed this point: Franklin never says he is a Christian, but he did say he was a deist. You say it "does not matter" who makes the claim, and that you willfully choose not to address the point that the writings McIntyre noted were Franklin's own. I think it is rather obvious who has the closed mind in this debate. --Jamest 12:42, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

By the way, the thought occurs to me: why do you reject what a Franklin scholar has to say? Surely a scholar has read more works by and about Franklin than you. Why do you reject their assertions out of hand or wish for them to concede something that they know--base on their research--is not true? Conservapedia wants to accurate and true, right? --Jamest 12:55, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
James, please disclose your political point-of-view along with that of the "scholar". Let me guess: do both of you oppose prayer in the classrooms of public schools? Enough said.--Aschlafly 13:11, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

We are discussing the past, not the political present. So, why bring up school prayer? What does that have to so with Franklin's deism?--Jamest 13:17, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
It explains your views. If you're opposed to prayer in the classroom, then there is over a 90% chance that (1) you'll insist that Franklin was a deist and (2) you believe in evolution. That extraordinary correlation suggests that the facts are irrelevant. If you're not open-minded about prayer in the classroom, then it's futile to expect you to be open-minded about these other issues.--Aschlafly 18:41, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly, I fail to see how my position on school prayer (which, by the way, you do not know) is germane to a conversation regarding Benjamin Franklin’s spiritual beliefs. You also do not know my position regarding evolution (I am also uncertain as to how that is relevant to this conversation). As for your other suppositions (the 90% figure), do you have evidence to support this? Now could you please show a little intellectual integrity, and address the substance of McIntyre’s arguments, rather than engaging in distractions? I do have an open mind about such matters sir, and I hope that you have the same. --Jamest 08:23, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
I do know, with 95% certainty, what your positions are on classroom prayer and evolution. The 95% confidence level is all that science requires. I know your positions with greater certainty than I know what the weather will be like tomorrow.
But why do you refuse to disclose your positions? Are you embarrassed about them? Do you feel they are indefensible? Conservatives don't hide their views; liberals do. Why?--Aschlafly 10:26, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly, my positions on school prayer and evolution would probably surprise you. I do not discuss them because they are not germane to the topic at hand, namely, Benjamin Franklin’s spiritual beliefs. Please show a little intellectual integrity, stick to the topic, and stop engaging in distractions. Could you please address McIntyre’s arguments?--Jamest 10:34, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

One more thing Mr. Schlafly. I do not know how you arrive at a figure of “95% certainty.” But I will share one observation with you. I have long noticed that a debater who employs distraction and non-sequiturs is in a desperate position. Will you respond to McIntyre’s argument? Or are you unable to do so?--Jamest 11:05, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
James, liberals crave attention and don't mind being deceitful. See Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia. Whether you are a liberal or not, I observe that you are not willing to be forthright about your views here, so my time is better spent discussing issues with others. Please leave my talk page, which is respected as one's castle here on Conservapedia. See Differences with Wikipedia. Thank you and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 11:25, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly, I am hardly a liberal. I will comply with your rules and stay off your talk page. However, if one does not have the intellectual fortitude to debate, one should not make unfounded assertions, such as “Franklin was not a deist” that are based on belief, rather than rigorous historical scholarship. Good day Sir.--Jamest 13:43, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
I don't find you to be forthright in stating your views. You may say that you are "hardly a liberal," but I'm not fooled by that. I'm 95% confident that you oppose prayer in the classroom, and that you believe in evolution.
I know liberals insist on having the last word. But this is my talk page, and the last word will be mine. Don't post here again on this issue. Thank you and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 14:08, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

You still did not try to answer professor McIntyre. I thought this was about Franklin? Why are you talking about prayer and evolution? --Willed 22:38, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
Nice try, "Willed". You're a sock of Jamest, and both account IDs and IP address have just been blocked for this.--Aschlafly 22:44, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
Ok, then. I'm not a sock of Jamest or Willed, but I second the question. Why bring up questions about evolution and school prayer when they are irrelevant to the question of Franklin's faith and McIntyre's research? JohnSmith 15:26, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
Someone who insists on censoring classroom prayer, even when everyone in the class wants to pray, is going to have a bias on issues related to religion. He should disclose his position so that others can evaluate his bias. So should you if you are going to insist that Franklin was a deist towards the end of his life.--Aschlafly 15:47, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
So if everybody in the class wanted to smoke Marijuana, would that be acceptable, via your ad populum argument? --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 17:25, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
There are laws against smoking marijuana to prevent the harm it causes. But there is no harm from praying in a classroom, while there is much good. Also, praying is a form of speech, unlike smoking marijuana. At bottom, liberals insist on censoring speech in the classroom. But notice how they won't admit it. Those who insist on censoring prayer in the classroom are unlikely to be objective in evaluating the faith of others, such as Benjamin Franklin. It's a bit like asking a Red Sox fan what he thinks of the Yankees this year; the answer is not likely to be objective. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 18:10, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Your response to the above posters does not make sense. They are trying to discuss Benjamin Franklin, and you try to make it about prayer. You also say you are 90% or 95% sure about their positions, but you provide no proof. It appears that you are really afraid of debating McIntyre on this point. He also seems to have proved his point, and you keep trying to distract people from the discussion. Why don't you simply discuss the Franklin/Deism question?--Franklin 18:54, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

I just read the conservapedia entry on Andrew Schlafly and I am very surprised. I am sure a graduate of Harvard law school knows that changing the subject is not a valid form of argumentation. If anything, it is the mark of an intellectual coward.--Franklin 19:20, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
We don't allow that kind of name-calling here. I've given you a very lenient block of only 2 hours. Next time it will be an infinite block if you engage in name-calling on someone's own talk page. See how Conservapedia differs from Wikipedia and have some respect for someone's talk page here. Thanks.--Aschlafly 19:31, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for being lenient in your block. But the question remains: Why does a man of your obvious education and intelligence not forthrightly respond to McIntyre? Surely you can articulate a good argument for your position rather than engaging in distractions.--Franklin 22:19, 28 May 2007 (EDT) Its nice the way that, failing to adequately change the subject when you are losing, you send Karajou to threaten the debaters on their talk pages. Classy, and, might i add, very Christian.GoddisapprovesofbulliesKarajou 23:07, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
Thank you for your sarcasm, but no thank you for your name. You will be blocked, but allowed to re-register with a non-offensive name, unless you turn out to be a sock.--Aschlafly 23:15, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Sock of Sevenstring. See Karajou's and my own talk pages. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 23:26, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

I tend to agree with the above poster (but I agree his name was improper). Now, enough with the distractions. Please respond to McIntyre--Franklin 06:15, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
Franklin, what am I missing here? Is this some debate forum? Is there some obligation that a user here incurs, in being forced to answer? I say this not to be argumentative, but some will take it so. I just have never figured out what about an online encyclopedia makes so many believe there is some burning need to debate every entry. I know people who are editors of traditional ones, and they assure me none of this constant arguing ever occurs? Is is because CP is branded and self-identified as a Conservative and Christian POV friendly? Is that all there is to this constant strife, that those who do not agree have set it as their "mission" to make the "nutty Christians" fall into line? You do know, right, that has been tried for thousands of years with any real success whatsoever? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 06:42, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

TK, I don't think you are missing anything. But surely you do not think that simple unsupported asserations trump scholarship do you? I don't think that anyone is trying to make "nutty Christians" as you put it, fall into line. But to avoid responding to dircet questions, and avoidance of the issue is unseemly. So I ask again. Please address the question, please address McIntyre, and quit trying to change the subject. --Franklin 08:23, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
What I believe is that any person whatsoever has the inviolable right to refuse to respond, without prejudice. Intellectual discourse must come without rancor or "demands", and be in a civil tone, for any advancement to occur. I suggest sending a personal email, or even perhaps waiting a day or so to cool this item down a bit. Now, I am bowing out here. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 09:01, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Intellectual discourse should be done without rancor and I think most of the people that have posted here have avoided that. However, trying to divert the issue by raising issues of prayer, evolution, etc., does not advance the discussion.--Franklin 09:07, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Wow. I have been away a while and I had no idea the discussion would expand like this! I notice one poster thinks he knows me (and I am pretty sure I know him). On to other matters. Do you concede that Franklin was a Deist, and if you do not, please articulate your reasons. Best, Mac.--McIntyre 10:55, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

==NO==

User talk:Aschlafly/Archive23

2007-05-31T14:55:04Z

McIntyre: /* Benjamin Franklin */

==Benjamin Franklin==

His autobiography was published in 1791. I added this to the article [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Benjamin_Franklin&diff=prev&oldid=166743 here]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:28, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

: Was that a posthumous publication? Do we know when he actually wrote it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:25, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

::Franklin wrote it over a period of time, starting and stopping. He wrote the first few chapters in 1771, wrote more in 1784-5, and finished it in 1788. It was, like Ed Poor says, partly first published, posthumously, in French in 1791, and then translated into English in 1793.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 19:53, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Thanks for the enlightening information. Obviously any claim that Franklin said he was a deist should have a date next to it, as people's religious views change throughout their lives. Moreover, no one should claim that a work is an autobiography if it was published without his consent, as in posthumously. The best I can infer from this is that Franklin viewed himself as a deist in 1771, but by 1787 (Constitutional Convention) viewed the world differently, and by the time he died he viewed it still differently again. If our entry about Franklin does not yet reflect this, then I'll change it now. Thanks for your efforts. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:16, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Further review reveals that Franklin did not even claim to be a deist in 1771, but merely said he was a deist in his youth! Really, the attempts by liberals to insist that Franklin was a deist towards the end of his life are astounding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:50, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

::::[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], you are ignoring some ambiguity about the meaning of the word "deist." At the end of his life Franklin was not a deist, according to current dictionary definitions of the word, but his stated views in his "Creed" accord pretty well with the definition of deist according to [http://www.iep.utm.edu/h/herbert.htm#Deism Edward Herbert of Cherbury], who coined the word. And that may have been the definition that was current in his time.

::::Everyone in their life acquires what I'm going to call a stock of "fables," which are narratives that do have some connection with reality but have been grossly oversimplified and distorted. A good neutral example of one would be "Columbus thought the world was round when everyone else thought it was flat." The simple statement "The Founding Fathers were deists" is a good example of a liberal fable.

::::It's certainly fair to say Franklin advocated public prayer, and admired Christianity in some sense. But he wasn't a traditional Christian or close to one, either. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:13, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

::: It's common for [[liberals]] to deny that people find faith in life. Once an atheist or deist, always an atheist or deist, according to anti-Christians. Under this view, [[Abraham Lincoln]] was there an atheist (not true, he found [[faith]] as he grew older), and [[Benjamin Franklin]] was a deist (not true, he request divine intervention at the Constitutional Convention). Citing what Franklin wrote in 1771 about his youthful deism is obviously not proof that he was a deist at the Convention in 1787. Quite the contrary, as deists do not believe in divine intervention.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:03, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

Read Franklin's letters to Ezra Stiles, written one month before his death. The first paragraph shows his deist leanings, while the in the second one he acknowledges the value of Christianity, but doubts that Christ was the son of god. --[[User:McIntyre|McIntyre]] 17:23, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

: I did read them here: [[Benjamin Franklin]]. '''Franklin does not describe himself as a deist.''' Enough said. About Jesus's divinity, Franklin says he has not studied it and is open to the possibility. A [[deist]], by the way, requires a non-interventionist God. Franklin rejected that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:57, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

I must note the irony here in connection with a prior discussion. Liberals insist on calling all supporters of abortion "pro-choice" rather than "pro-abortion" because that is the term they use for themselves. But then liberals insist on falling [[Benjamin Franklin]] and [[Thomas Jefferson]] "deists" when they did not use that term to describe their views as adults! Franklin believed in an interventionist God and Jefferson frequently attended a Christian church until he died.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:18, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

A more careful reading of the letter to Stiles, written a month before Franklin's death, reveals his diest leanings. Franklin states that he believes in one God and that our behavior in this life dictates how we be treated in the next. Notice he does not identify the God, or use the term Christian. Sounds very much like a diest. As for the second paragraph, doubting if Christ is divine does not seem very Christian. Please respond to the content of Franklin's letter, rather than attempting to divert the discussion with references to current terms used in highly charged debates today. --[[User:McIntyre|McIntyre]] 15:45, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

: The most important aspect of that letter is that Franklin does not call himself a deist. He'd known the term all his life, and he clearly would have used it if applied to him. It did not. We should not call him by a religious name that he himself rejected. Surely you wouldn't claim that someone is a Catholic, for example, if the person himself rejects that label.

: Where do you get that Franklin "does not identify the God"??? He says, "Here is my Creed: I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:54, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

:*Odd, McIntyre, but that was what I was about to post to you. You are the one adding modern interpretations and your own suppositions, to almost 300 year old letters. Revisionist thinking at its finest! I think the ''fact'' that Jefferson attended church services weekly speaks louder than all the modernist "conclusions". --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 15:59, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

He was also familiar with the term Christian, and he did not use it. Plus, he doubts the divinity of Christ. That does not sound like a firm statement of Christian faith, does it? Eighteenth century deists tended to subscribe to the notion of God, but declined to identify the deity in question. As TK's objection: Where did you get the idea that I am using modern ideas? I also do not recall discussing Jefferson--[[User:McIntyre|McIntyre]] 16:04, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

: You didn't respond to our rebuttal of your claim that Franklin did not identify God. I assume you're conceding that Franklin expressly did identify God.

: I would also like a concession that Franklin was not a deist towards the end of his life before moving on to the very different question of whether Franklin was a Christian. More generally, I don't want a perpetuation of the [[liberal]] view that people cannot grow into stronger [[faith]]. Many do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:11, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Franklin does identify there is a god or deity of some sort. But he does not identify it as Christian. Why do you want a concession that Franklin was not a deist? It appears (based on his writings up to the end of his life) that he was.--[[User:McIntyre|McIntyre]] 16:25, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

: McIntyre, unfortunately I can only conclude that you don't have an open mind about this. Perhaps you're repeating something you heard elsewhere and won't reconsider your views about it. Franklin strongly believed in an interventionist God and that disqualifies him from being a [[deist]]. Franklin did not call himself a deist. It's slanderous to insist that Franklin was a deist, and a sign that you're pushing an agenda based on bias. Enough. Please move on to another topic here with more of an open mind. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:06, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

::This reminds me of a larger theme called "debunking the founding". The idea is that whatever flaws there may be in America's founding (and Founding Fathers) somehow ''invalidates'' America's special claim to being a Godly nation. Like, since we didn't immediately abolish slavery, we are worthless slime.

::Don't forget the prayer embedding in our patriotic song: "God mend thine every flaw and crown thy good with brotherhood". America is great because it strives to be good. It is the cream of the crop and will continue to be as long as it so strives. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:57, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Aschlafly, I think your desire that McIntyre concede that Franklin was deist is unfortunate. He has cited primary sources--Franklin's own writings--rather than "something he heard.", He also correctly noted that Franklin did not identify the god in question--all hallmarks of eighteenth century deism. If someone does not have an "open mind" on the subject, as you put it, it is not McIntyre. I even think I know who McIntyre is, and when I see this person this weekend, I will ask him. He is really quite a scholar.--[[User:Jamest|Jamest]] 12:12, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

: The insistence on liberals describing Franklin as a deist continues to amaze me. I'll bet the correlation between those who insist Franklin was a deist and liberals is nearly 100%. It doesn't matter if the claim is made by a scholar or a student. Liberals want Franklin to have been a deist, even though Franklin himself implicitly rejected that label and prayed for divine intervention, something deists rejected.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:22, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

You should not be amazed. A reading of eighteenth century diest works reveals they have nothing against praying, and you have not addressed this point: Franklin never says he is a Christian, but he did say he was a deist. You say it "does not matter" who makes the claim, and that you willfully choose not to address the point that the writings McIntyre noted were Franklin's own. I think it is rather obvious who has the closed mind in this debate. --[[User:Jamest|Jamest]] 12:42, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

By the way, the thought occurs to me: why do you reject what a Franklin scholar has to say? Surely a scholar has read more works by and about Franklin than you. Why do you reject their assertions out of hand or wish for them to concede something that they know--base on their research--is not true? Conservapedia wants to accurate and true, right? --[[User:Jamest|Jamest]] 12:55, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

: James, please disclose your political point-of-view along with that of the "scholar". Let me guess: do both of you oppose prayer in the classrooms of public schools? Enough said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:11, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

We are discussing the past, not the political present. So, why bring up school prayer? What does that have to so with Franklin's deism?--[[User:Jamest|Jamest]] 13:17, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

: It explains your views. If you're opposed to prayer in the classroom, then there is over a 90% chance that (1) you'll insist that Franklin was a deist and (2) you believe in evolution. That extraordinary correlation suggests that the facts are irrelevant. If you're not open-minded about prayer in the classroom, then it's futile to expect you to be open-minded about these other issues.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:41, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly, I fail to see how my position on school prayer (which, by the way, you do not know) is germane to a conversation regarding Benjamin Franklin’s spiritual beliefs. You also do not know my position regarding evolution (I am also uncertain as to how that is relevant to this conversation). As for your other suppositions (the 90% figure), do you have evidence to support this? Now could you please show a little intellectual integrity, and address the substance of McIntyre’s arguments, rather than engaging in distractions? I do have an open mind about such matters sir, and I hope that you have the same. --[[User:Jamest|Jamest]] 08:23, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

: I do know, with 95% certainty, what your positions are on classroom prayer and evolution. The 95% confidence level is all that science requires. I know your positions with greater certainty than I know what the weather will be like tomorrow.

: But why do you refuse to disclose your positions? Are you embarrassed about them? Do you feel they are indefensible? Conservatives don't hide their views; liberals do. Why?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:26, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly, my positions on school prayer and evolution would probably surprise you. I do not discuss them because they are not germane to the topic at hand, namely, Benjamin Franklin’s spiritual beliefs. Please show a little intellectual integrity, stick to the topic, and stop engaging in distractions. Could you please address McIntyre’s arguments?--[[User:Jamest|Jamest]] 10:34, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

One more thing Mr. Schlafly. I do not know how you arrive at a figure of “95% certainty.” But I will share one observation with you. I have long noticed that a debater who employs distraction and non-sequiturs is in a desperate position. Will you respond to McIntyre’s argument? Or are you unable to do so?--[[User:Jamest|Jamest]] 11:05, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

: James, [[liberal]]s crave attention and don't mind being deceitful. See [[Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]]. Whether you are a liberal or not, I observe that you are not willing to be forthright about your views here, so my time is better spent discussing issues with others. Please leave my talk page, which is respected as one's castle here on Conservapedia. See [[Differences with Wikipedia]]. Thank you and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:25, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly, I am hardly a liberal. I will comply with your rules and stay off your talk page. However, if one does not have the intellectual fortitude to debate, one should not make unfounded assertions, such as “Franklin was not a deist” that are based on belief, rather than rigorous historical scholarship. Good day Sir.--[[User:Jamest|Jamest]] 13:43, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

: I don't find you to be forthright in stating your views. You may say that you are "hardly a liberal," but I'm not fooled by that. I'm 95% confident that you oppose prayer in the classroom, and that you believe in evolution.

: I know [[liberals]] insist on having the last word. But this is my talk page, and the last word will be mine. Don't post here again on this issue. Thank you and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:08, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

You still did not try to answer professor McIntyre. I thought this was about Franklin? Why are you talking about prayer and evolution? --[[User:Willed|Willed]] 22:38, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

:Nice try, "Willed". You're a sock of Jamest, and both account IDs and IP address have just been blocked for this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:44, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

::Ok, then. I'm not a sock of Jamest or Willed, but I second the question. Why bring up questions about evolution and school prayer when they are irrelevant to the question of Franklin's faith and McIntyre's research? [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 15:26, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Someone who insists on censoring classroom prayer, even when everyone in the class wants to pray, is going to have a bias on issues related to religion. He should disclose his position so that others can evaluate his bias. So should you if you are going to insist that Franklin was a deist towards the end of his life.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:47, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
:::: So if everybody in the class wanted to smoke Marijuana, would that be acceptable, via your ''ad populum'' argument? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:25, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: There are laws against smoking marijuana to prevent the harm it causes. But there is no harm from praying in a classroom, while there is much good. Also, praying is a form of speech, unlike smoking marijuana. At bottom, [[liberals]] insist on censoring speech in the classroom. But notice how they won't admit it. Those who insist on censoring prayer in the classroom are unlikely to be objective in evaluating the [[faith]] of others, such as [[Benjamin Franklin]]. It's a bit like asking a Red Sox fan what he thinks of the Yankees this year; the answer is not likely to be objective. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:10, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Your response to the above posters does not make sense. They are trying to discuss Benjamin Franklin, and you try to make it about prayer. You also say you are 90% or 95% sure about their positions, but you provide no proof. It appears that you are really afraid of debating McIntyre on this point. He also seems to have proved his point, and you keep trying to distract people from the discussion. Why don't you simply discuss the Franklin/Deism question?--[[User:Franklin|Franklin]] 18:54, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

I just read the conservapedia entry on Andrew Schlafly and I am very surprised. I am sure a graduate of Harvard law school knows that changing the subject is not a valid form of argumentation. If anything, it is the mark of an intellectual coward.--[[User:Franklin|Franklin]] 19:20, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

: We don't allow that kind of name-calling here. I've given you a very lenient block of only 2 hours. Next time it will be an infinite block if you engage in name-calling on someone's own talk page. See [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia|how Conservapedia differs from Wikipedia]] and have some respect for someone's talk page here. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:31, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for being lenient in your block. But the question remains: Why does a man of your obvious education and intelligence not forthrightly respond to McIntyre? Surely you can articulate a good argument for your position rather than engaging in distractions.--[[User:Franklin|Franklin]] 22:19, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
Its nice the way that, failing to adequately change the subject when you are losing, you send Karajou to threaten the debaters on their talk pages. Classy, and, might i add, very Christian.[[User:GoddisapprovesofbulliesKarajou|GoddisapprovesofbulliesKarajou]] 23:07, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

: Thank you for your sarcasm, but no thank you for your name. You will be blocked, but allowed to re-register with a non-offensive name, unless you turn out to be a sock.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:15, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Sock of Sevenstring. See Karajou's and my own talk pages. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:26, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

I tend to agree with the above poster (but I agree his name was improper). Now, enough with the distractions. Please respond to McIntyre--[[User:Franklin|Franklin]] 06:15, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

*Franklin, what am I missing here? Is this some debate forum? Is there some obligation that a user here incurs, in being forced to answer? I say this not to be argumentative, but some will take it so. I just have never figured out what about an online encyclopedia makes so many believe there is some burning need to debate every entry. I know people who are editors of traditional ones, and they assure me none of this constant arguing ever occurs? Is is because CP is branded and self-identified as a Conservative and Christian POV friendly? Is that all there is to this constant strife, that those who do not agree have set it as their "mission" to make the "nutty Christians" fall into line? You do know, right, that has been tried for thousands of years with any real success whatsoever? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 06:42, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

TK, I don't think you are missing anything. But surely you do not think that simple unsupported asserations trump scholarship do you? I don't think that anyone is trying to make "nutty Christians" as you put it, fall into line. But to avoid responding to dircet questions, and avoidance of the issue is unseemly. So I ask again. Please address the question, please address McIntyre, and quit trying to change the subject. --[[User:Franklin|Franklin]] 08:23, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

*What I believe is that any person whatsoever has the inviolable right to refuse to respond, without prejudice. Intellectual discourse must come without rancor or "demands", and be in a civil tone, for any advancement to occur. I suggest sending a personal email, or even perhaps waiting a day or so to cool this item down a bit. Now, I am bowing out here. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:01, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Intellectual discourse should be done without rancor and I think most of the people that have posted here have avoided that. However, trying to divert the issue by raising issues of prayer, evolution, etc., does not advance the discussion.--[[User:Franklin|Franklin]] 09:07, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Wow. I have been away a while and I had no idea the discussion would expand like this! I notice one poster thinks he knows me (and I am pretty sure I know him). On to other matters. Do you concede that Franklin was a Deist, and if you do not, please articulate your reasons. Best, Mac.--[[User:McIntyre|McIntyre]] 10:55, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

== Anything wrong with the Constitution Party? ==

I have a user box stating that I support the Constitution Party. If you are unaware of them, this is their [http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php platform]. However, a request was made on my talk page that I remove the user box from my user page so that the template can be deleted. Just wanted to seek guidance on how to proceed. Thanks. [[User:HeartOfGold|<big>H</big>eart<big>O</big>f<big>G</big>old]][[User_talk:HeartOfGold|talk]] 22:38, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

:I did remove the reference to the template on my user page, though I replaced it with the code to generate the same code. As my user page is my castle, I assume this is acceptable. Meanwhile, I do disagree with the reasoning about why the userbox template should be deleted. [[User:HeartOfGold|<big>H</big>eart<big>O</big>f<big>G</big>old]][[User_talk:HeartOfGold|talk]] 22:47, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

*Please see our guidelines, HeartOfGold. Your efforts have been mighty here, and well appreciated! However many things happen in the realm of Admins that users cannot possibly know anything about, eh? So RobS's request was totally in line, and within our Guidelines, that the requests of Administrators be complied with. It had nothing to do with politics, or your chosen party, I assure you. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:47, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

:*Per my response on my talk page, this was to seek guidance on the matter. When I recieved none, I simply complied with the request. Hope everything is kosher. [[User:HeartOfGold|<big>H</big>eart<big>O</big>f<big>G</big>old]][[User_talk:HeartOfGold|talk]] 01:07, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for being cooperative, HeartOfGold. I look forward to reviewing your future edits. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:10, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

== Observation & Request for Guidance ==

I just heard about your site & joined it. I wondered if you had any suggestions for me. I'm a new editor with experience in history. That's my request for help - my observation is that your guys seem to be banning left & right. I think they're stifling new users.

I realize, too, that (having read the Commandments) I'm toeing the line of 90/10. As I said above, if you give me some ideas, I'm gonna start contributing :-).-[[User:RenegadeNinja|RenegadeNinja]] 12:07, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

: Welcome! We ban vandals, who are mostly [[liberals]] attempting to disrupt and censor this site. Legitimate editors are welcome. We have American and World History lectures [[Conservapedia:Index|here]] that provide a great resource for ideas for new historical entries. Also, entries that anticipate the "on this day" events of upcoming dates are most welcome. You can find from search engines the upcoming "on this day" happenings for May 19, 20, 21, etc. An entry for the [[Spanish Armada]] linked on the front page today would be great! Welcome again and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:57, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, Andy, if you'll remember, some of your [[User:TK|more aggressive sysops]] ban legitimate editors who happen to be not far-right conservative or YEC. You actually have not been a big offender, thank God, but legitimate, non-vandal contributors who try to help inject information that is "not doctrine" are pretty quickly tossed. BTW, I do have contributions to make, so don't ban me yet. I promise I'll make some good ones.[[User:AStojanovic|AStojanovic]] 23:14, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Now why was TK selected in the above line "more aggressive sysops" by an extremely new user? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:51, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

: Both of the above complaints about "stifling new users" are by folks who have not yet made a single substantive edit. Folks, how about making some substantive edits and then let's chat? Thanks and, as I told "RenegadeNinja", Godspeed to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:58, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

::Of course, I'd rather not "stifle", but would love to see some good editing. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:59, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Join us on AIM if you like. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:02, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

*Well, Astojanovic, I can't remember reading something more moronic in the recent weeks. First, I am not a YEC. Second, I am not "born again", as Ronald Reagan said: "I was born right the first time." As a Reagan Conservative, I hardly think you could find me "far right" in any legitimate expert opinion. But thanks for the belly laugh! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:38, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

== Please check your email ==

I sent you two messages. [[User:HeartOfGold|<big>H</big>eart<big>O</big>f<big>G</big>old]][[User_talk:HeartOfGold|talk]] 23:32, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

== My DEFAULTSORT activities ==

Please see [[Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style#Persons]], where I added a note about adding a DEFAULTSORT tag. The DEFAULTSORT tag allows articles to be correctly alphabetized when the articles appear in lists or categories of other articles. I added some notes about individuals with multiple or concatenated surnames, and I am not sure my contribution was correct when it comes to individuals such as Vicente Fox Quesada. I assume you may have some knowledge in this area; if so, please help, but if not, my apologies. Also, you might have noticed that last night, being tired, I conducted quite a bit of ''routine maintenance'' so that articles on individuals will be correctly alphabetized when they show up in lists or categories (I did not create, edit, or move any categories last night, though I support efforts to change and/or reorganize the "political people" category, per discussion on [[Category_talk:Political_people]].) [[User:HeartOfGold|<big>H</big>eart<big>O</big>f<big>G</big>old]][[User_talk:HeartOfGold|talk]] 12:42, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

: I don't fully understand this but it seems to be a big help with the issue of alphabetizing individuals. So please continue and Lord bless you for your untiring efforts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:55, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

::Trying for a more streamlined look, Andy...."Political People" is a category that we contemplate renaming into something, perhaps just a top tier "Political" or separate "Elected Officials". HeartOfGold and I were discussing more help for the non-wiki initiated, like putting more explanations on the technical pages, explaining why certain things, like categories, default sort, templates are there, and what they do, and how/why they help. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 13:01, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

: Super! Thanks much, TK. Lord willing this just grows and grows!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:06, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

== dfgdesh ==

Alright, feel free to spread misinformation and bias to non-Christians. But, just so you know, I posted Ninetyte's edit summary ''"remove liberal bias"'' to FSTDT. I am currently logging out, and I have forgot my password, so there will be no need to contact me back. I will be compelled to create some socks and removeany bias, unless you regard spherical views being presented as one. Also, please view this entry from Wiktionary:

'''to strive:'''

''to try to achieve a result.''

So, "political correctness" or -in relity, and not some bizarre ultra-conservative world- neutrality is allowed, unless you would care to form a new definition of "strive" in your "Conserviktionary". NPOV will be upheld by my sockpuppets and my compatriots, who happen to have excellent computing skills.

P.S. Do not try to block my IP adress. I specifically possess TCP/IP modifying software and I will care to modify the respective parameters. I am also fully capable of impersonating other users here, simply by identifying their passwords. Surprisingly, you shall not see any vandalism by me or my fellows in the future, unless you consider neutrality to be vandalism to your closed minds.

: Thank your for your [[Parthian Shot]], which was not the first we've received. Though we obviously disagree, I wish you all the best. Feel free to have a change of heart and return in the future. Lord willing, we'll be even better then.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:15, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

==Suggestion (not a Parthian shot)==

I've been hanging around here since, oh, early-mid March. While I haven't the time/skill to contribute as much as others, I've tried to do a fair job here, making edits and suggestions, cleaning up after the occasional vandal, and so forth. And though I'm strictly a centrist (maybe even a little right of center) politically, I've tried to be mindful of this site's goals, and have tried to keep my edits "conservative" (AmesG I ain't). My primary goal has been to try to help make Conservapedia a reliable source of information. However, it becomes increasingly obvious that my contributions are unwelcome, mild though they be. So be it--I'll be signing off for good and spending my energies where they're better needed.
:Before I go, however, a serious suggestion...It's quite clear that anything even remotely smacking or suspected of being insufficiently conservative is not wanted here (and there's nothing wrong with that, as it's your project and you can run it as you desire). As a consequence, however, the sysops and others spend an inordinate amount of time policing that, reverting, blocking, arguing, etc, when they could be adding and editing. So, if the wiki software allows, you might want to implement a procedure whereby new members/editors are not allowed access to article pages until they have proved themselves. If they have some suggested text to add/change, they can post it on the talk pages, and those with full edit privileges may use it or not, as they see fit. And no arguing on said pages--that nonsense just goes 'round and 'round, never moving forward (maybe change "Talk" pages to "Suggestion" pages). Only after a user has shown that they understand the site's vibe should they be promoted to editor (and there doesn't need to be a complicated process involved--it should be patently obvious who gets it and who doesn't, and at that point any sysop should be able to grant edit power). As for the rest, toss them overboard at the first opportunity; This business about banning people over and over is rather ridiculous--at the point when someone has received 5 or 10 or 20 bans it should be painfully obvious they don't belong here.
:Good luck with your project, and God Bless.--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 17:21, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

WJ, I've never had a conflict with you, but you only made about a dozen substantive edits in over two months. We have many e

Your contributions are welcome. If you stuck around and did more, then your suggestions would carry more weight. When delivered as a [[Parthian shot]], the best I can say is thanks and hope you return to do more sometime. Godspeed to you, and hope you can come back to do more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:02, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

== Good Evening ==

Hello. In reference to the folloing message you sent me: "Did you copy and paste Neighborhoods of Jacksonville, Florida? That is only allowed if you wrote it. Thanks.--Aschlafly 17:36, 17 May 2007 (EDT)" ... The answer is "yes", I wrote every word. Took some time too. Add to it if you like. -- [[User:Starfleet7|Starfleet7]] 19:05, May 20, 2007 (EDT)

: Great work. Thanks much. Godspeed in your efforts and hope you can write more here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:33, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

== [[User:Reaganomist]] ==

Thank you for blocking me, Mr. Schlafly. I appreciate knowing that I can not take a vacation without being suspected as being a criminal. [[User:Reaganomist2|Reaganomist2]] 20:45, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

: This is your only edit??? Unless you contribute to the encyclopedia, then I'm afraid you'll be blocked again. Godspeed and please improve this encyclopedia, as so many others are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:47, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

::Click the above link. That is my old account that you blocked for being 'recenttly inactive' and 'likely a sock'. [[User:Reaganomist2|Reaganomist2]] 20:49, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Thank you. I will be sure to notify you next time I plan not to keep up with my commitment to this site. [[User:Reaganomist|Reaganomist]] 21:23, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

: Sir, the blocking was obviously a mistake, and I apologize; no one accused you of being a criminal. I'm a bit troubled by your negative postings here. Can we cheer up a bit and be more constructive? I look forward to learning from your future edits. Lord willing, you'll help improve this encyclopedia as many other editors are. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:28, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

I believe Reaganomist to ba a sockpuppet account. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:32, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

: So what about that, Reaganomist? Perhaps you are a fake after all? I must say, your sarcastic and exaggerated comments above do not inspire confidence, and your edits have not been much help. What sayeth thou?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:41, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

*Andy, after much searching, DanH found GodlessLiberal's (previously banned user) posts on another wiki where he admitted to being Reaganomist here, and hatching a plan to accuse Bohdan of being Ice, which was carried out on DanH's talk page just a few days later! He now sleeps again with the fishes. God's speed to him. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:58, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

=== Admitted sock? ===
See [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABohdan&diff=172925&oldid=172758 here]. thanks. [[User:HeartOfGold|<big>HG</big>HeartOfGold]] [[User_talk:HeartOfGold|talk]] 16:04, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes that's me. And I have many, many more. [[User:GLib|GLib]] 17:35, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

== Archives ==

I just fixed a typo in the link for your archive pages as there appeared to be a gap between the current page and the last available archive. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 03:08, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Legal cases ==

Mr. Schlafly, I notice that you have created several articles about legal cases. Souldn't they be categorized in some way? I would do it myself but am not sure of how categories are organized here. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 04:11, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

: Great idea. How about "Category:Law"? Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:40, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Photo ==

Andy

How about a pic for your [[Andrew Schlafly| personal article]]?

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:39, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

: OK, thanks. Not sure I have one, but I'll take a look.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:41, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Thank You ==
Thank you for allowing me to be a sysop on your site. I am honored and I will do my best. Thanks again.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 18:36, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

: You've been superb in your edits and blocks. THANK YOU!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:36, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

==Entries==
WOW already!!! As me and Jimmy calculated (a while back) to catch up with Wikipedia, we need to do 10,000 entries for 13 years. Not to disheart anyone. Lol I cant believe it though. Started as a class vote to do it and work on it as homework.... Wow I cant believe it!--[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 10:48, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Thank you Mr. Schlafly. You have been a great inspiration with my school work and everything. You have helped me greatly in everything dilberatly or not. Thank you so much for Conservapedia and I hope it last a long time.--[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 12:59, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

== Problem==
I think I am being framed [http://cpcolumn.wordpress.com/2007/05/20/column-9-on-legitimate-authority-on-conservapedia/#comment-345_]
"Bohdan
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:59 am
Now that I have been given sysopship and gained Andy’s trust, I was wondering if you guys had any suggestions on how I should vandalize CP. I don’t want to make it so obvious that I get caught. Some help would be greatly appreciated."
I did not post this.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 13:07, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
:I wouldn't worry too much about it, it is an obvious and juvinile attempt to smear your good reputation. I certainly would have recognized it as such. [[User:HeartOfGold|<big>HG</big>HeartOfGold]] [[User_talk:HeartOfGold|talk]] 13:13, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
::Its not the first time, look here at who made this change [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Conservapedia&diff=next&oldid=126710147][[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 13:13, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

:THhis Icew3dge guy is very good at what he does seems like. He keeps coming back again and again. Why doesn't he go somewere else and vandalize? People are funky.--[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 13:17, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

*Most of this isn't the several people using the "Ice" account, but Tmtoulouse, ColinR, AmesG, AKjeldsen, Palmd and Sterile, among others and their many socks. The poor things are so devoid of a life, they crave argument for arguments sake. Feel free to contact me for a more complete list. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:18, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

:The problem of forgery is real. The first time I spoke to Jimbo Wales online at #wikipedia, his first comment to me was "How do I know it's really Ed Poor?" I had to tell him something I had only said to him on the phone, to prove it was me.

:We are trying to become a "trustworthy encyclopedia", and there are people who are trying to break down or sabotage that trust. I cannot fathom their motives. :-( --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:50, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

This site ''deserves'' at least 70-80% of the vandalism it receives. Most of the users TK lists above would have been perfectly happy to contribute constructively if their viewpoints had been accorded something ''approaching'' equal recognition. Almost to a man, they were willing to let YEC and other zealotry stand as long as they had some reasonable right of reply somewhere in the article in question. Instead, they had to fight tooth and nail for every scrap they got and now you block them all. Trustworthy encyclopedia? You blew it... --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 18:43, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

: What a perfect illustration of liberal morality! Under your logic, someone would be justified in vandalizing property if told to leave. Many liberals do think that way. Thank you for your comment, and I'm putting this in the [[Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Sorry, I really hate to interject here but your analogy is a little spurious Andrew. If you had said you invited them into your home (this encyclopedia is free to edit) and you asked them for a debate (again, this is free to edit) then threw them out because you disagreed you'd at least be honest. I'm not here to cause trouble, far from it, but painting your detractors thus is no way to prove we're better than them. If the Conservative party in the UK was a little slower to criticise and a little faster to offer an alternative we'd have a better government over here. Win the debates and the hearts and minds will follow. [[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]] 19:19, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Conservatives in the U.S. don't dilute our message, and perhaps we're stronger for it. The point is this: vandalism is never justified. The liberal above claimed that vandalism is justified if someone tells someone else to leave the property. Don't allow that logic, not for a minute. A property owner can tell someone to leave for any reason he wants, or for no reason at all. That does not justify that person then vandalizing the place.

::: I trust you can see an analogy to many crimes, from juvenile delinquency to full blown terrorism. Don't defend the underlying rationale in any way, shape or form. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:25, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

::::When phrased like that, I see exactly where you are coming from Andrew. I tend to be a little forgiving myself but perhaps I just see the follies of youth. God willing, in a few years, many of these vandals will mature a little and decide to contribute more to society. [[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]] 19:34, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Garbage, and you know it. The "vandalism" here can be corrected at the click of a button, unlike broken windows or graffiti. No property is destroyed or damaged in any meaningful sense. Your concern should be ''why'' people want to subvert your project, and ''whether the behaviour of some of your administrators is feeding that desire''. Some will continue to "vandalise" simply because it's a Christian site (the 20-30%); the rest could be brought on board with evidence of more even-handed treatment of editors and differing viewpoints. You have the opportunity to make many of your problems disappear. I suggest you take it. --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 19:57, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

*Ahhh....so your point would be the "victim" is the cause? Somehow our POV and rules are the cause? Much the same as a woman dressing sexy "invites" being raped? Interesting logic there! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:00, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

: Robledo, the vandalism is exactly what the word means: the destruction of other persons' property, causing the victims to waste time and effort. You used the word yourself. For you to try to blame the victim of vandalism is an outrage, and I suspect you know it. Nowhere in your messages do you admit the vandalism is "wrong". Instead, you imply that it is justified to vandalize. Take your message to the general public, to a court of law, to a respected institution, or to your parents and see how many agree with you. ZERO.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:17, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

== [[User:Richard]] ==

Why was this user blocked? The blog log lists:

18:54, 27 March 2007 Karajou (Talk | contribs) blocked "Richard (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (he knows why)

This isn't a reason that is useful to anyone except him... So... Why was he blocked? [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 17:27, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

: Is Richard a friend of yours? Take a look at his edits and comments and then ask again if you still don't understand.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:30, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

:: I don't know why you assume that, I am merely complaining about the "reason for block". I'd rather not have to go looking through his edits to find out why, I'd like to just know. If you make me, though, I will. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 17:33, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

*Reasons for blocks are not offical ones, merely short hand for the Sysop doing the block. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:44, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

:Okay then, where is the official reason? [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 17:45, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

:*This isn't Wikipedia. Administrative matters here are private. If you don't like the differences between us and WP, you always have a choice, you know. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:47, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Then I request to know the reason of his block, if either you or Karajou wishes to tell me it. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 17:58, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

GofG, while a 5-minute review of Richard's edits would likely answer your question, I'd like to set a precedent here: One editor does not have standing to demand the reason for a block of '''another''' editor. In legal terminology, that means you lack "standing" to assert a privilege for someone else. One reason for this is simply to conserve resources for those who are asserting their own cause, and to minimize distractions. In this case, you don't want to spend your own time reviewing Richard's edits, but you are wasting our time instead. No thanks, and Godspeed in a return to our edits.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:35, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

*Some just seem to insist that because Wikipedia is run one way, and has some established rules, anyone else starting a wiki is somehow bound to their rules. Another case of NLPOV. No Logic Point Of View. :S --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:02, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

== Good luck with your project ==

Keep up the good work. [[User:HeartOfGold|<big>HG</big>HeartOfGold]] [[User_talk:HeartOfGold|talk]] 22:05, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks and all the best to you. Hope you can return and continue to contribute in the future. Thanks much for your efforts so far. Godspeed to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:28, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

::You're welcome. I don't think I will be back. I am considering starting a Christian World View encyclopedia, where content that subverts advertised POV is censored and/or marganalized, but where merit is measured in quality, not quantity (just a difference, not a judgement--as I said previously, I understand your goals of critical mass and/or tipping point). [[User:HeartOfGold|<big>HG</big>HeartOfGold]] [[User_talk:HeartOfGold|talk]] 02:55, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

: You've delivered a bit of a [[Parthian Shot]], but we've seen worse. Quality here is far higher than on rival wiki encyclopedias. Try using the "Random page" option on rival wikis and see all the junk that pops up. I guess you've noticed that I had to revert edits made on the [[Scopes Trial]] during your watch, and soon I will have to revert some of your edits on that entry also. "Poetic license" as a term to describe liberal [[deceit]]???? Oh please. Regardless, Godspeed to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:12, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

::''Higher quality''? You're kidding, right? --[[User:Sysiphus|Sysiphus]] 22:52, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

You seem to know what's going on quite a bit for a new user. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:56, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

:Good observation, DanH.

:To prove my point, I just went to Wikipedia and typed in the silliest term I could think of: "duh". And what do you know: Wikipedia has an equally silly entry for it! I'm going to enter that Wikipedia's insight into our [[Wikipedia]] entry now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:11, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

::*They have an almost Pavlovian attraction to mindlessly bashing CP, and as if that isn't enough, the actually come here to do it. Maybe they should take up a sport or something? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:17, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

: No, that wouldn't work. Sports have rules! What we're really witnessing is a craving for attention by these liberals. They want someone to recognize them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:20, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

So basically, when they cannot win debates or political arguments, they turn to attacking a person, or thing, as some sort of.....deflection? Is that not the highest form of intellectual dishonesty there is? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:26, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

: How about this: we'll set aside 15 minutes each day to give special attention to the liberals who need it. Then they won't have to spend 24 hours a day spewing nonsense in a futile attempt to attract someone's attention!! It's win-win.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

*Excellent! Only they will need at least 30 minutes. Maybe while watching Bill O'Reilly, so we won't be totally bored? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:15, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

== Elite‎ ==

Look at user Elite.. poor spelling and potential vandalism. Wasn't sure how/who to report this to. --[[User:CastleVania|CastleVania]] 15:05, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks. I gave Elite more time, but your concern proved to be right and I eventually blocked Elite.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:53, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks for your quick attention. It's great that you really put so much time and energy into this site! --[[User:CastleVania|CastleVania]] 19:59, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

== front page looking good :) ==

Hi Andy!
I love the look of the front page today, "Celebrating 10,000 entries" it looks like a party invitation! lol. I have also enjoyed reading the other main page features, especially the "Today in History", "Daily Historical Quote" and "Daily Bible quote" - informative and interesting. Congrats to the new Sysops & Best Wishes for Conservapedia's continued growth and success. --[[User:Taj|Taj]] 15:41, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

: Thank you! Hope you can stick around and edit some more along with the rest of us. I really enjoyed your [[Golden Gate Bridge]]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:54, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Thanks! I'm glad you enjoyed it. :) I also enjoy researching and writing the pages, I learn from it, and like to share the info. I've written a few new pages, I think the most recent are: [[Jeddah]] and [[Eleanor Roosevelt]]. I hope to be able to contribute more, and will have more time after finals! God bless --[[User:Taj|Taj]] 17:00, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

== Economy ==

NEW HOME SALES POST LARGEST GAIN IN 14 YEARS; MEDIAN PRICE DROPS BY LARGEST AMOUNT ON RECORD!

Watch FOX News Channel or go to http://foxnews.com for more

--[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 10:37, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

==[[User:Pwnsivander|Pwnsivander]]==

I think he's a vandal. Take a look at the only article he's made: [[Ambition]]. [[User:NSmyth|Nsmyth]] 12:24, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

:Infi-blocked. You can also report problems like this at [[Conservapedia:Abuse]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:28, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
::Right, forgot about that. Thanks.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]]12:30, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

==Sysop?==

I was wondering if I could be a sysop again now that I'm back full-time. If not, I'll gladly submit my name for discussion on the sysop nomination page as I recognize that there are others who are better qualified than I am. Just thought I'd ask. [[User:NSmyth|Nsmyth]]16:44, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

*I agree. Glad to see you are back, NSmyth. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:20, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

== Photographs ==

Hi Andy,

I hope the "no using Wikipedia" rule doesn't apply to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_pictures featured pictures] (particularly the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Animals/Mammals animals]), as all of them are OK to use as long as they are attributed properly. Would using these be OK? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:12, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

: Sure, please use any images in the public domain or from Wikipedia pursuant to its rules. Godspeed to your efforts, Hoji.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:13, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

==Locked article==

I'm not sure whether this is the right place to ask about this, but there's really nowhere else I've found - this is regarding the Conservapedia [[Witchcraft]] "article". The only factual information to be found in this piece is that the word Witchcraft is spelled correctly. I and others have tried to correct this article, but our changes have been labelled "biased vandalism" and the article is now locked. Is there any way we can unlock this article, fix all the inaccuracies and then have it locked again? --[[User:LunarStorm|LunarStorm]] 21:39, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

*LunarStorm, I beleive you have been talking about this with Sysop PhilipR, no? Rather than post here for Mr. Schlafly to help, I would respectfully refer you back to PhilipR, okay? Thanks! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:06, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

== Comment ==
I thought that you might find this a little interesting. Especially the part of the EU literally violating Poland's sovereignty and attempting to make their laws for them. I find it a little frightening. I love the in-existant "right to abortion". [http://www.polskieradio.pl/zagranica/gb/dokument.aspx?iid=52919][[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 23:58, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::Also, in case I forget, tomorrow(may 27) is the global day of prayer[http://www.globaldayofprayer.com/][[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 01:10, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

== Image protection ==

Excluding recent images, there are now only 1,000 images left to protect. I'll get onto it soon. [[User:Niandra|JustineA --sysop--]][[User talk:Niandra|talk]] 15:34, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

:Lord bless you, Justine! If you want to give me an assignment to block a few hundred of the remainder, then I'll work with you on this!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:43, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
::Done. [[User:Niandra|JustineA --sysop--]][[User talk:Niandra|talk]] 09:41, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

::: '''GOD BLESS YOU, JUSTINE!!!! THAT'S FANTASTIC!!!!'''--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:51, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

==Vandal ALERT==
Several vandals are attacking the site, including the Conservapedia:Abuse page. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]]) 03:43, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

==Featured Article Candidate==

[[User:stevendavy|stevendavy]] has made some significant improvements to the [[French Revolution]] article. I think it is a candidate for the featured article spotlight. ~ [[User:SharonS|Sharon]][[User talk:SharonS|Talk]] 10:48, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

: Excellent idea! Done! (see front page)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:52, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

==[[User:Shinerduarm]]==
I understand that a person's user space may be their castle, but is their a way to stop this user insulting Jews from his castle window? [[User:Fox|Fox]] 11:56, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:Nevermind, I see he got a justly deserved boot :) [[User:Fox|Fox]] 11:57, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:*Andy, I have a tool for those who violate our CP Guidelines, and take advantage of their host. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 12:34, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="border: 1px solid #CC9999; background-color: #FFCCCC;"
|-
|align="center"|[[Image:Stop_hand.svg|50px|Warning]]
|align="center" width="100%"|<big>'''Ad hominem Attack Page'''</big> ''an argument "against the man" or person. This is a device employed to attack not the issues but rather the one you are arguing with, especially on a personal level or basis. It is usually employed by those whose arguments are weak.[http://library.sebts.edu/smadden/cross/terms.htm]when people can't find fault with an argument, they sometimes attack the arguer, substituting irrelevant assertions about that person's character for an analysis of the argument itself.''[http://home.olemiss.edu/~gbrown/reserve/fallacies_and_causes.htm] '''Is that the same as giving examples of what people have done or written? The answer is yes, when done to mock or attack a person or place for what they believe in, rather than logically state your opposition and rest. "Seclective examples", taken out of context, or showing a person or place ''only as you wish to present it or them'' is intellectual dishonesty. More than not allowing Ad hominem attacks, our CP Guidelines are even stricter, as we do not allow bullying, mockery or intimidation.'''
|}

:Err... could you move this to a template? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 12:35, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

::How about [[Template:Attack page]] ? [[User:Fox|Fox]] 12:38, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

*Hoji, Fox....what is with you guys and hating HTML? You know I don't understand, lol. Feel free, as I am sure I would not do it correctly, and then be attacked for that. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 12:39, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
::It ain't HTML, it's a good ol' fashioned [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Tables Wikitable]! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:33, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

::*I just don't understand the template comments/need is all. So, no problem with me using the wikitable? Cool! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:09, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:Hey [[User:TK|TK]] you forgot to mention its based on an [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:WhatIsG0ing0n&oldid=180852 idea of mine]. Surely I deserve some credit too? [[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 06:25, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't know what you want to use this template for, but for what it's worth I think that we should be '''''very''''' hesitant to block someone for their userpage contents. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 08:08, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

*Whenever the contents of any User page violates the CP Guidelines, Bejamin we will. Perhaps you should check them out....--[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:13, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

==On Captcha==
A small doubt on protection against automated attacks:
"To help protect against automated account creation, please solve the simple sum below and enter the answer in the box (more info):

16 - 2 = <box>"
It remains unclear to me as to how this protects against automated account login. Similarly, elsewhere on the site, this seems to be the primary Captcha used.
Evaluating expressions should be pretty simple, right? Do correct me if im wrong. Thanks, [[User:Arpith|Arpith]]

== Scientology? ==

Why isn't there a page on Scientilogy? --[[User:Tetra|Tetra]] 18:15, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

: The topic attracted vandalism by enemies of this site. We don't need that kind of distraction. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:23, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

*The following users, most blocked, share IP 75.71.78.212:

'''Tetra''' (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 22:15, 28 May 2007) (Earliest: 22:11, 28 May 2007) [5] 
Ghoti (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 22:09, 28 May 2007) (Earliest: 23:01, 26 May 2007) [20] 
Catfish (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 02:08, 25 May 2007) (Earliest: 23:53, 24 May 2007) [3] 
Gulik3 (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 04:34, 22 May 2007) (Earliest: 01:21, 22 May 2007) [32] 

Liberals soooo need attention and argument! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:16, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

== Stop Calling Me a "Liberal!" ==

I think my politics are far more radical than liberal. Liberals are bourgeois who want to change the system. My politics favor tearing down the system. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 19:38, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

: So sorry, Sevenstring, but when did I call you a "liberal"???

: Is there anyone, just anyone, who admits that he's a liberal? Why so much denial?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:22, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:: he's a communist. And, for the record, '''''I am a liberal'''''. there, I said it! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:22, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

::: That was refreshing, Hoji!!! :-) --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:30, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:::: Like a splash of cold water ;-). --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:33, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

*LMAO! Hoji, you and I have talked lots. You aren't particularly Liberal compared to many of my friends. Sorry, this isn't an attack, but just an observation, lol. Many Conservatives here think I am Liberal. Of course they are wrong, but I just don't acknowledge their POV, as everyone is entitled to one. Sevenstring, have you thought of joining some board? ''Political Palace'' over on EzBoard seems radical enough.... --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:06, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

== Comment ==
Just to let you know, I just read about your mother in Mark w. Smith's book ''The Official Handbook of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy''. She is listed at the end as an "inspirational individual". But he didnt write about CP in his list of conservative websites :( [[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 21:52, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:I guess we're flying under the radar!!! Ha ha ha. :-) --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:55, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
::Just to be clear, its a conservative book, mocking Hillary's weird claim.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 13:20, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

::Or the book was published before March 2007, when people started to notice CP. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 21:58, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

*No matter what one might think of her political POV, Phyllis Schlafly is indeed an inspirational figure! She attended Washington University in St. Louis, and in 1945 (this was a time of few women doing this) earned a master's degree in political science from Harvard University, and a law degree from Washington University in 1978. She worked as a researcher for several Congressmen, and was known for her abilities to find accurate and meaningful research under deadline pressure, and was always completely in command of the facts. ''She single-handedly beat back the so-called Equal Rights Amendment.'' This is not an exaggeration. She opposed the ERA because it would require women to serve in combat, and because she believed it would take away legal rights of wives already in place, and would negatively influence family life. Without being active in the "arena" few readers here can understand the huge sacrifices she has made for her country. I recommend her book ''The Power of the Positive Woman''(1977) to all of you. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:24, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:::He calls her, "one of the most extraordinary women of the 20th century".[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 13:20, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

==Blocked User==

What is the rationale behind the blanking and protecting of blocked users' pages(other than the obvious cases of profanity and the like)? It seems to me like a waste of time and it is sometimes rather annoying. (For example I was trying to read the page of our good friend (sarcasm) AmesG but it had been blanked and protected. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 08:18, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

*Oh, we have all of his pages, and as a Sysop, I believe you can see them. If you need more from AmesG contact Karajou, he can enlighten you lots. The reason is, once someone has been blocked from using CP, would we not be out of our minds to leave the kind of personal attacks and half-truths these Liberals spew? Unless you believe we should provide a free platform for haters? Once they are gone, they are gone. We give people many chances here. Once they have refused our hand to work together to build a great Conservative and Christian-friendly encyclopedia, all we can say is: Godspeed to them! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:39, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

== Pastor Martin Niemöller ==

[[User:TK]]'s activities brought this to mind:

:When the Nazis came for the communists,
:I remained silent;
:I was not a communist.

:When they locked up the social democrats,
:I remained silent;
:I was not a social democrat.

:When they came for the trade unionists,
:I did not speak out;
:I was not a trade unionist.

:When they came for me,
:there was no one left to speak out.

::Pastor Martin Niemöller

:::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 09:11, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

*Yes! A fine example of Liberal's non-actions throughout history! Thanks for reminding us, once again, why we must remain dedicated to resisting their attempts to turn this place into yet another secular-relativist wiki.--[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:15, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

::Yes, being a victim in [[holocaust]] was really a [[Liberal]]'s non-action. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 12:50, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

::That's all - user deleted already. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 13:34, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

The South

2007-05-20T20:21:56Z

McIntyre: /* Presidential politics */

<div class="boilerplate metadata" id="toomanyboxes" style="margin: 0 5%; text-align: justify; background: #f0d0f0; padding: 0 10px; border: 1px solid #b0b0d0">
'''This article is a candidate for immediate deletion.''' 
The article is not of encyclopedic quality. It is '''uninformative''' and '''superfluous'''. Please vote at [[AFD The South]].
</div>

'''The South''' is usually identified as the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America which consisted of [[South Carolina]], [[Mississippi]], [[Florida]], [[Alabama]], [[Georgia]], [[Louisiana]], [[Texas]], [[Virginia]], [[Arkansas]], [[Tennessee]] and [[North Carolina]].{{fact}}

Although these states once fought against the [[United States]] in the [[Civil War]], today they are known for their patriotism and commitment to morality in government.

==Presidential politics==

From the end of the Civil War to the 1960 election, the "Solid South" as political pundits called it, nearly always supported Democratic candidates. Since 1964, the South has become increasingly important to Presidential victors.

The Solid South began to break down in the 1964 election, when five southern states voted for Republican Barry Goldwater. The largest and President Johnson's homestate, Texas, remained Democratic. In 1968, Richard Nixon carried Florida, and the Carolinas, while Independent George Wallace carried the others with the exception of Texas, which remained Democratic. Alabama Gov. George Wallace commenting on his 1968 Presidential bid, thought by using a base of electoral votes in the Solid South <ref>[http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/elections/maps/1968ec.gif 1968 Electoral Distribution]</ref> and adding a few Northern and Midwestern industrial belt states he could accumulate enough electoral votes to win. This strategy failed for Wallace, succeded eight years later in the 1976 election for Democratic candidate Jimmy Carter. <ref>[http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/elections/maps/1976ec.gif 1976 Electoral Distribution].</ref>
Beginning with the 1972 election, candidates Richard Nixon (1972), Jimmy Carter (1976), Ronald Reagan (1984), George H.W. Bush (1988), and George W. Bush (2000 and 2004) won their elections by carring a "Solid South" (that is, each of the southern states). In the 1980 election, Ronald Reagan carried all of the south with the exception of President Jimmy Carter's home state of Georgia. Bill Clinton carried Arkansas, Tennessee, Florida, and Georgia in 1992, but lost Georgia in 1996.<ref>http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/elections/maps/></ref>

Large numbers of Southerners have served in the U.S. military. Ironically, southerners did not volunteer in large numbers during the Civil War. Approximately twenty percent of all Confederate soldiers were draftees (compared to eight percent in the Union armies), and they were subject to “compulsory reenlistment.” The "twenty negro" law, which exempted men who owned more than twenty slaves from military service, caused a great deal of resentment and was the basis for the saying "A rich man's war, but a poor man's fight."<ref>Tinadall & Shi, ''America: A Narrative History'', 7th ed.(New York Norton, 2007):616-618.</ref>

The South also tends to lag behind the rest of the nation academically. Schools in the south tend to recieve less support. Reading and math scores of students in the region are somewhat slightly below national averages. <ref>http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Geography]]
[[Category:Politics]]

Debate:Was Benjamin Franklin a deist?

2007-05-20T19:50:56Z

McIntyre: /* YES */

Benjamin Franklin

2007-05-20T19:48:26Z

McIntyre:

[[Image:Benjamin.jpg|thumb|right]]
'''Benjamin Franklin''' (January 17, 1706 – April 17, 1790), printer, scientist, inventor, philosopher, and diplomat, was born in [[Boston]], [[Massachusetts]], to a tallow-maker.

Early in life, Franklin developed a love of reading. As he recalled in his autobiography, ''"From a child I was fond of reading, and all the little money that came into my hands was ever laid out in books. Pleased with the Pilgrim's Progress, my first collection was of John Bunyan's works in separate little volumes. My old favorite author, Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress ... has been translated into most of the languages of Europe, and suppose it has been more generally read than any other book, except perhaps the Bible."''

As a youth, Franklin was apprenticed to his older brother James, as a printer. Using several different pen names, Benjamin contributed many articles to Jame's newspaper. However, Benjamin felt his brother mistreated him and in 1723, he ran away to Philadelphia, then the largest city in British North America.

In Philadelphia, Franklin began publishing the ''Pennsylvania Gazette'', which was the longest lived and most successful of colonial newspapers. He published his ''Poor Richard's Almanack'' for twenty-five years; it was filled with witty sayings penned by Franklin and others. Franklin often borrowed material and rewrote it as he saw fit.

Franklin became one of Philadelphia's leading citizens, founding a sanitation department, a fire brigade, the American Philosophical Society, and the first circulating library in British North America.

In a draft autobiography written mostly in 1771, nearly 20 years prior to his death, Franklin described how he came to deism in his youth.<ref>A year after Benjamin Franklin's death, his unfinished draft autobiography, entitled "Memoires De La Vie Privee," was published in Paris in March of 1791. [http://www.earlyamerica.com/lives/franklin/] </ref> He recalled that his ''"parents had early given me religious impressions, and brought me through my childhood piously in the Dissenting way. But I was scarce fifteen, when, after doubting by turns of several points, as I found them disputed in the different books I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself. Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's Lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist."'' <ref>http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=Fra2Aut.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=all The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, p.57</ref>

Franklin remained a deist until the end of his life. In a letter dated March 9, 1790, a little more than a month before his death, Franklin outlined his beliefs to Ezra Stiles, president of Yale:

:''"Here is my Creed: I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That he governs it by Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we render to him is doing good to his other Children. That the soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its conduct in in this. These I take to be the fundamental Principles of all sound Religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.

:''"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of Morals and His Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some doubt as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I need not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble. I see no harm in its being believed, if that belief has the good Consequence, as probably it has, of making his Doctrines more respected and better observed; especially as I do not perceive, that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the Unbelievers in his Government of the world with any peculiar Marks of his Displeasure."'' <ref>http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/franklin-stiles.html</ref>

This quote reflects Franklin’s leanings toward deism. In the first paragraph, Franklin professes a belief in a god, but does not name that deity. In the second paragraph, Franklin acknowledges that Jesus Christ existed, but he doubts he is the son of God. While he recognizes the value of Christ’s moral teachings, he thinks they may have been corrupted over time.

As Franklin grew older, he recognized that Christianity had positive effects on colonial society. Franklin befriended George Whitefield, the best known of the Great Awakening evangelicals. The two also had a business relationship, with Franklin printing nearly all of Whitefield’s North American sermons. After one of Whitefield's sermons, Franklin noted the ''"wonderful...change soon made in the manners of our inhabitants. From being thoughtless or indifferent about religion, it seem'd as if all the world were growing religious, so that one could not walk thro' the town in an evening without hearing psalms sung in different families of every street."''<ref>The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, p.104-108</ref><ref>At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Franklin proposed a prayer for divine intervention to aid the troubled proceedings.</ref>

By age 42, Franklin was wealthy enough to retire from news papering, and devoted most of his time to his scientific pursuits. Franklin invented bi-focal lenses, a heat efficient stove, and the swivel chair. His famous experiment with a kite won him membership in the prestigious Royal Society, but it also had a practical effect. It also led to Franklin’s invention of the lighting rod, and increased his fortune when he was contracted to outfit all the ships in the Royal Navy with lighting rods. By 1750, Franklin was easily the most famous of the King’s North American subjects.

While Franklin thought of himself as a loyal subject, he did question some of the Crown’s actions. In 1754, he proposed the Albany Plan of Union, which would have united the colonies (and the Iroquois League as well) under a Royal governor, and given the colonies the power to tax themselves. Many of the colonies did not send representatives to Albany, and nothing came of the plan.

Franklin put his prestige on the line to assist the expedition of British general Edward Braddock to capture Fort Duquesne (present day Pittsburgh) from the French. Pennsylvania’s Quaker dominated legislature refused to help provide supplies for the expedition, so Franklin made an appeal for colonists to provide provisions, horses, and wagons for Braddock’s army. In his autobiography, Franklin recalled questioning Braddock about the expedition’s chances of success. Braddock assured him he would easily capture the fort. After the disaster that Braddock met on the Monongahela, Franklin was less sanguine about accepting professional military opinion.

In 1757, Franklin went to London to represent Pennsylvania in its quarrel with William Penn’s heirs (Pennsylvania was the last of the propriety colonies). He remained abroad for eighteen years, not returning to American until 1775.

During Franklin’s tenure in England, he also represented several other colonies and became a regular observer, and unofficial representative of the colonies. In 1765, he assured British politicians that Americans would accept the Stamp Act, but news of colonial protest caused him to back away from that position. Afterwards, Franklin regularly opposed English attempts to tax the colonies.

Returning from England in 1775, Franklin surprised by coming out in favor of independence. For Franklin, this stance carried a personal price. His son William, the Royal Governor of New Jersey, remained loyal to the Crown, and father and son never reconciled.

Until the end of the American Revolution, he was easily the most famous American in the world. He was one of the most prominent of the [[Founding Fathers]], early political figures and statesmen of the [[United States]].

He served as the Continental Congress [[ambassador]] to [[France]], where where he was instrumental in obtaining military and economic support for the struggle against England. Franklin is one of the few non-presidents whose likeness appears on U.S. currency. Franklin graces the $100 bill while Alexander Hamilton appears on the $10 bill.

Franklin is responsible for the nomenclature of "positive" and "negative" charge. He believed he could tell the direction in which electricity traveled by observing sparks. Unfortunately he was wrong; the electrons, which are the particles carrying ordinary electricity, move in the opposite of the direction he thought they did. As a result, when electrons were discovered, according to Franklin's designation they had to be considered as having a negative charge — creating a minor headache for scientists and engineers.

However, Franklin realized the value of Christianity in public life, making the following motion for prayers to be said at the [[Constitutional Convention]]:<ref>http://www.homeofheroes.com/hallofheroes/3rd_floor/god/2_convention.html</ref>

:''"Mr. President ([George Washington]) ... I have lived, sir, a long time, and, the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth--that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings, that 'Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.

:''"I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed, in this political building, no better than the builders of Babel. We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded; and we ourselves shall become a reproach and by-word down to future ages. And, what is worse, mankind may hereafter, from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom, and leave it to chance, war, and conquest.

:''"I therefore beg leave to move that, henceforth, prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service."''

Benjamin Franklin guided the establishment of the University of Pennsylvania, which was chartered as nonsectarian. According to the University, it was "a new type of learning institution, that unlike other American Colonial colleges, would not focus on education for the clergy, but would instead prepare students for lives of business and public service. The proposed program of study would become the nation's first modern liberal arts curriculum."[http://www.upenn.edu/about/heritage.php] In ''Proposals Relating to the Education of Youth in Pensilvania [sic]'', (1749) he outlines an essentially secular curriculum. Religion is to be taught under the rubric of History; Franklin, however, makes a point of saying that
:"History ''will also afford frequent Opportunities of showing the Necessity of a ''Publick Religion,'' from its Usefulness to the Publick; the advantage of a Religious Character among private Persons; the Mischiefs of Superstition, &c. and the Excellency of the CHRISTIAN RELIGION above all others, antient and modern."''

Before the American Revolution, Benjamin Franklin was a frequent visitor to [[England]]. He was a member of the [[Lunar Society]] based in [[Birmingham]], creators of the Industrial Revolution, and also the [[Hellfire Club]] of Sir Francis Dashwood.

Franklin believed strongly in the importance of political freedom to the American experiment. As such, he remarked, ''"those who would give up a little liberty, to gain a little security, deserve neither, and will lose both,"'' a stern warning applicable especially in today's world.

==In fiction and popular culture==
===''Ben and Me''===
Robert Lawson's 1939 book, ''Ben and Me: An Astonishing Life of Benjamin Franklin by His Good Mouse Amos,'' is a children's classic continuously in print since publication. It is written at level suitable for ages 10 and up, but is also enjoyed by adults. As the title indicates, the narrator is a mouse. Amos is not very respectful toward Franklin. He see Franklin as absent-minded, lacking in common sense, and barely able to take care of himself. According to Amos, it is Amos himself who inspired, and should be credited with most of Franklin's great inventions. Amos has nothing but scorn for Franklin's "Poor Richard" maxims:
:"'Early to bed, early to rise, makes a healthy, wealthy and wise!' ''Bah!'' When have you been ever been to bed early, or risen early, except when you've had insomnia? Yet you're healthy and wealthy."
:"Perhaps if I lived by the maxim I should also be—wise," he suggested, meekly.
:"That I doubt," I said. "it would require more than a maxim. A miracle, like."

In 1953, Walt Disney made a 20-minute animated short film from the book, but it failed to capture the spirit of the story and did not even attempt to be faithful to the style of Lawson's illustrations.

In 2006, ''Ben and Me'' was selected for the annual "One Book, One Philadelphia" project, in honor of Franklin's 300th birthday.

== Occult Activities ==

Benjamin Franklin was a [[Freemason]], and a member of the [[Hellfire Club]], a secret society that conducted black masses and orgies.<ref>[http://www.infowars.com/articles/occult/hellfire.htm Benjamin Franklin, the Occult and The Elite]</ref>
In 1998, workmen restoring Franklin's London home dug up the remains of six children and four adults hidden below the home.<ref>[http://benfranklin.tribe.net/thread/510cda6f-3ee8-4ef1-86b4-9525f4ed28c4]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==Benjamin Franklin's Writings Online==
*[http://franklinpapers.org/franklin/ Yale edition of complete works of Benjamin Franklin]
*[http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/fellows/bob_morse_04/ The Electrical Writings of Benjamin Franklin] Collected by Robert A. Morse, 2004.
*[http://sln.fi.edu/franklin/family/lastwill.html Franklin's Last Will & Testament] Transcription.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Franklin, Benjamin}}
[[category:political people]]

Debate:Was Benjamin Franklin a deist?

2007-05-19T21:29:19Z

McIntyre: /* YES */

{{debate}}

==YES==

He states so in his autobiography, and in a letter written to Ezra Stiles a month before his death. He did see Christianity as valuable, as he noted the effect of George Whitefield’s preaching on the colonists, and expressed his admiration of Christ’s moral teachings. --[[User:McIntyre|McIntyre]] 17:29, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

==NO==

Talk:The South

2007-05-19T17:28:23Z

McIntyre:

It gets tricky defining "The South" as far as a geographic region in the United States. The ones listed in the article are what I would consider to be Civil War Era south. However, I've found this map as well on the census website that has a considerably larger scope [http://www.census.gov/geo/www/us_regdiv.pdf here]. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 15:48, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

==Solid South==
Both of the Bushs carried a solid South in 1988, 2000, and 2004. Clinton won in 1992 & 1996 by winning some southern states, but not all of them. <http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/elections/maps/>

Any reason that you removed the category Rob? --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 12:25, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

I removed Missouri and Kentucky because they were not part of the Confedracy.--[[User:Cobb|Cobb]] 12:35, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

I made a change regarding the 1968 election. The Democrats carried Texas.--[[User:McIntyre|McIntyre]] 13:28, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

== Kerry material ==

:Democratic [[Senator John Kerry]], the party's 2004 Presidential nominee, [[mock]]ed Southerners and their tradition of military service during the 2006 Midterm elections saying,
{{Cquote|You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq. <ref>[http://www.airforcetimes.com/legacy/new/1-292925-2325787.php Blistering of Kerry for stuck in Iraq' remark continues] By Rick Maze, Military News ''Air Force Times'', November 01, 2006.</ref>}}
:The incident is widely believed to have killed any hope for Kerry to run as a viable Presidential candidate in 2008, or ever again.

I don't see what this has to do with the South. According to the reference, the speech was made in California, and the reference does not, as far as I can see, even mention the South. If you assume that he was mocking military volunteers (my perception is that he was attempting to mock Bush for getting ''the U. S.'' stuck in Iraq, and phrased it so clumsily and gracelessly that it was readily subject to misinterpretation... but never mind), well, military volunteers are not limited to the South. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:48, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

<references/>

The South

2007-05-19T17:27:25Z

McIntyre: /* Presidential politics */

<div class="boilerplate metadata" id="toomanyboxes" style="margin: 0 5%; text-align: justify; background: #f0d0f0; padding: 0 10px; border: 1px solid #b0b0d0">
'''This article is a candidate for immediate deletion.''' 
The article is not of encyclopedic quality. It is '''uninformative''' and '''superfluous'''. Please vote at [[AFD The South]].
</div>

'''The South''' is usually identified as the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America which consisted of [[South Carolina]], [[Mississippi]], [[Florida]], [[Alabama]], [[Georgia]], [[Louisiana]], [[Texas]], [[Virginia]], [[Arkansas]], [[Tennessee]] and [[North Carolina]].{{fact}}

Although these states once fought against the [[United States]] in the [[Civil War]], today they are known for their patriotism and commitment to morality in government.

==Presidential politics==

From the end of the Civil War to the 1960 election, the "Solid South" as political pundits called it, nearly always supported Democratic candidates. Since 1964, the South has become increasingly important to Presidential victors.

The Solid South began to break down in the 1964 election, when five southern states voted for Republican Barry Goldwater. The largest and President Johnson's homestate, Texas, remained Democratic. In 1968, Richard Nixon carried Florida, and the Carolinas, while and Independent George Wallace still carried the rest. Only Texas remained Democratic. Former Democratic Gov. George Wallace commenting on his 1968 Presidential bid declared, by using a base of electoral votes in the Solid South <ref>[http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/elections/maps/1968ec.gif 1968 Electoral Distribution]</ref> and adding a few Northern and Midwestern industrial belt states could accumulate enough electoral votes to win. The strategy was repeated 8 years later by Democratic contender Jimmy Carter effectively. <ref>[http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/elections/maps/1976ec.gif 1976 Electoral Distribution].</ref> Since the 1972 election, candidates Richard Nixon (1972), Jimmy Carter (1976), Ronald Reagan (1984), George H.W. Bush (1988), and George W. Bush (2000 and 2004) carried every Southern state with the exception of the 1980 election, when President Jimmy Carter carried his home state of Georgia. Bill Clinton carried Arkansas, Tennessee, Florida, and Georgia in 1992, but lost Georgia in 1996.<ref>http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/elections/maps/></ref>

Large numbers of Southerners have served in the U.S. military. During the Civil War southerners did not volunteer in large numbers. Approximately twenty percent of all Confederate soldiers were draftees (compared to eight percent in the Union armies), and they were subject to “compulsory reenlistment.”<ref>Tinadall & Shi, ''America: A Narrative History'', 7th ed.(New York Norton, 2007):616-618.</ref>

The South also tends to lag behind the rest of the nation academically. Reading and math scores of students in the region are somewhat slightly below national averages. <ref>http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Geography]]
[[Category:Politics]]

Benjamin Franklin

2007-05-19T17:20:24Z

McIntyre:

[[Image:Benjamin.jpg|thumb|right]]
'''Benjamin Franklin''' (January 17, 1706 – April 17, 1790), printer, scientist, inventor, philosopher, and diplomat, was born in [[Boston]], [[Massachusetts]], to a tallow-maker.

Early in life, Franklin developed a love of reading. As he recalled in his autobiography, "From a child I was fond of reading, and all the little money that came into my hands was ever laid out in books. Pleased with the Pilgrim's Progress, my first collection was of John Bunyan's works in separate little volumes. My old favorite author, Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress ... has been translated into most of the languages of Europe, and suppose it has been more generally read than any other book, except perhaps the Bible."

As a youth, Franklin was apprenticed to his older brother James, as a printer. Using several different pen names, Benjamin contributed many articles to Jame's newspaper. However, Benjamin felt his brother mistreated him and in 1723, he ran away to Philadelphia, then the largest city in British North America.

In Philadelphia, Franklin began publishing the ''Pennsylvania Gazette'', which was the longest lived and most successful of colonial newspapers. He published his ''Poor Richard's Almanack'' for twenty-five years; it was filled with witty sayings penned by Franklin and others. Franklin often borrowed material and rewrote it as he saw fit.

Franklin became one of Philadelphia's leading citizens, founding a sanitation department, a fire brigade, the American Philosophical Society, and the first circulating library in British North America.

In a draft autobiography written mostly in 1771, nearly 20 years prior to his death, Franklin described how he came to deism in his youth.<ref>A year after Benjamin Franklin's death, his unfinished draft autobiography, entitled "Memoires De La Vie Privee," was published in Paris in March of 1791. [http://www.earlyamerica.com/lives/franklin/] </ref> He recalled that his “parents had early given me religious impressions, and brought me through my childhood piously in the Dissenting way. But I was scarce fifteen, when, after doubting by turns of several points, as I found them disputed in the different books I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself. Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's Lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist.” {The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, p. 57 at http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=Fra2Aut.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=all

Franklin remained a deist until the end of his life. In a letter dated March 9, 1790, a little more than a month before his death, Franklin outlined his beliefs to Ezra Stiles, president of Yale:

"Here is my Creed: I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That he governs it by Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we render to him is doing good to his other Children. That the soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its conduct in in this. These I take to be the fundamental Principles of all sound Religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.

As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of Morals and His Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some doubt as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I need not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble. I see no harm in its being believed, if that belief has the good Consequence, as probably it has, of making his Doctrines more respected and better observed; especially as I do not perceive, that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the Unbelievers in his Government of the world with any peculiar Marks of his Displeasure." <http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/franklin-stiles.html>

This quote reflects Franklin’s leanings toward deism. In the first paragraph, Franklin professes a belief in a god, but does not name that deity. In the second paragraph, Franklin acknowledges that Jesus Christ existed, but he doubts he is the son of God. While he recognizes the value of Christ’s moral teachings, he thinks they may have been corrupted over time.

As Franklin grew older, he recognized that Christianity had positive effects on colonial society. Franklin befriended George Whitefield, the best known of the Great Awakening evangelicals. The two also had a business relationship, with Franklin printing nearly all of Whitefield’s North American sermons. After one of Whitefield's sermons, Franklin noted the “wonderful...change soon made in the manners of our inhabitants. From being thoughtless or indifferent about religion, it seem'd as if all the world were growing religious, so that one could not walk thro' the town in an evening without hearing psalms sung in different families of every street.”<The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, p.104-108>

<ref>At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Franklin proposed a prayer for divine intervention to aid the troubled proceedings.</ref>

By age 42, Franklin was wealthy enough to retire from news papering, and devoted most of his time to his scientific pursuits. Franklin invented bi-focal lenses, a heat efficient stove, and the swivel chair. His famous experiment with a kite won him membership in the prestigious Royal Society, but it also had a practical effect. It also led to Franklin’s invention of the lighting rod, and increased his fortune when he was contracted to outfit all the ships in the Royal Navy with lighting rods. By 1750, Franklin was easily the most famous of the King’s North American subjects.

While Franklin thought of himself as a loyal subject, he did question some of the Crown’s actions. In 1754, he proposed the Albany Plan of Union, which would have united the colonies (and the Iroquois League as well) under a Royal governor, and given the colonies the power to tax themselves. Many of the colonies did not send representatives to Albany, and nothing came of the plan.

Franklin put his prestige on the line to assist the expedition of British general Edward Braddock to capture Fort Duquesne (present day Pittsburgh) from the French. Pennsylvania’s Quaker dominated legislature refused to help provide supplies for the expedition, so Franklin made an appeal for colonists to provide provisions, horses, and wagons for Braddock’s army. In his autobiography, Franklin recalled questioning Braddock about the expedition’s chances of success. Braddock assured him he would easily capture the fort. After the disaster that Braddock met on the Monongahela, Franklin was less sanguine about accepting professional military opinion.

In 1757, Franklin went to London to represent Pennsylvania in its quarrel with William Penn’s heirs (Pennsylvania was the last of the propriety colonies). He remained abroad for eighteen years, not returning to American until 1775.

During Franklin’s tenure in England, he also represented several other colonies and became a regular observer, and unofficial representative of the colonies. In 1765, he assured British politicians that Americans would accept the Stamp Act, but news of colonial protest caused him to back away from that position. Afterwards, Franklin regularly opposed English attempts to tax the colonies.

Returning from England in 1775, Franklin surprised by coming out in favor of independence. For Franklin, this stance carried a personal price. His son William, the Royal Governor of New Jersey, remained loyal to the Crown, and father and son never reconciled.

Until the end of the American Revolution, he was easily the most famous American in the world. He was one of the most prominent of the [[Founding Fathers of the United States|Founders]], early political figures and statesmen of the [[United States]].

He served as the Continental Congress [[ambassador]] to [[France]], where where he was instrumental in obtaining military and economic support for the struggle against England. Franklin is one of the few non-presidents whose likeness appears on U.S. currency. Franklin graces the $100 bill while Alexander Hamilton appears on the $10 bill.

Franklin is responsible for the nomenclature of "positive" and "negative" charge. He believed he could tell the direction in which electricity traveled by observing sparks. Unfortunately he was wrong; the electrons, which are the particles carrying ordinary electricity, move in the opposite of the direction he thought they did. As a result, when electrons were discovered, according to Franklin's designation they had to be considered as having a negative charge — creating a minor headache for scientists and engineers.

However, Franklin realized the value of Christianity in public life, making the following motion for prayers to be said at the [[Constitutional Convention]]:<ref>http://www.homeofheroes.com/hallofheroes/3rd_floor/god/2_convention.html</ref>

:Mr. President [George Washington] ... I have lived, sir, a long time, and, the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth--that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings, that 'Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.

I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed, in this political building, no better than the builders of Babel. We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded; and we ourselves shall become a reproach and by-word down to future ages. And, what is worse, mankind may hereafter, from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom, and leave it to chance, war, and conquest.

:I therefore beg leave to move that, henceforth, prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service.

Benjamin Franklin guided the establishment of the University of Pennsylvania, which was chartered as nonsectarian. According to the University, it was "a new type of learning institution, that unlike other American Colonial colleges, would not focus on education for the clergy, but would instead prepare students for lives of business and public service. The proposed program of study would become the nation's first modern liberal arts curriculum."[http://www.upenn.edu/about/heritage.php] In his 1749 ''Proposals relating to the education of youth in Pensilvania[sic],'' he outlines an essentially secular curriculum. Religion is to be taught under the rubric of History; Franklin, however, makes a point of saying that
:History will also afford frequent Opportunities of showing the Necessity of a ''Publick Religion,'' from its Usefulness to the Publick; the advantage of a Religious Character among private Persons; the Mischiefs of Superstition, &c. and the excellency of the CHRISTIAN RELIGION above all others, antient and modern.

Before the American Revolution, Benjamin Franklin was a frequent visitor to [[England]]. He was a member of the [[Lunar Society]] based in [[Birmingham]], creators of the Industrial Revolution, and also the [[Hellfire Club]] of Sir Francis Dashwood.

Franklin believed strongly in the importance of political freedom to the American experiment. As such, he remarked, "those who would give up a little liberty, to gain a little security, deserve neither, and will lose both," a stern warning applicable especially in today's world.

==In fiction and popular culture==
===''Ben and Me''===
Robert Lawson's 1939 book, ''Ben and Me: An Astonishing Life of Benjamin Franklin by His Good Mouse Amos,'' is a children's classic continuously in print since publication. It is written at level suitable for ages 10 and up, but is also enjoyed by adults. As the title indicates, the narrator is a mouse. Amos is not very respectful toward Franklin. He see Franklin as absent-minded, lacking in common sense, and barely able to take care of himself. According to Amos, it is Amos himself who inspired, and should be credited with most of Franklin's great inventions. Amos has nothing but scorn for Franklin's "Poor Richard" maxims:
:"'Early to bed, early to rise, makes a healthy, wealthy and wise!' ''Bah!'' When have you been ever been to bed early, or risen early, except when you've had insomnia? Yet you're healthy and wealthy."
:"Perhaps if I lived by the maxim I should also be—wise," he suggested, meekly.
:"That I doubt," I said. "it would require more than a maxim. A miracle, like."

In 1953, Walt Disney made a 20-minute animated short film from the book, but it failed to capture the spirit of the story and did not even attempt to be faithful to the style of Lawson's illustrations.

In 2006, ''Ben and Me'' was selected for the annual "One Book, One Philadelphia" project, in honor of Franklin's 300th birthday.

==References==
<references/>

==Benjamin Franklin's Writings Online==
*[http://franklinpapers.org/franklin/ Yale edition of complete works of Benjamin Franklin]
*[http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/fellows/bob_morse_04/ The Electrical Writings of Benjamin Franklin] Collected by Robert A. Morse, 2004.
*[http://sln.fi.edu/franklin/family/lastwill.html Franklin's Last Will & Testament] Transcription.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Franklin, Benjamin}}
[[category:political people]]

The South

2007-05-18T16:57:18Z

McIntyre:

Democratic Party

2007-05-18T16:47:21Z

McIntyre: /* History */

[[Image:democraticpartyusalogo.png|right|thumb|200px|Official logo of the Democratic Party.]]

The '''Democratic Party''' is one of the two major political [[parties]] in the [[United States of America]]. It is generally seen as being politically between center and [[leftist | left]] of center, while the rival [[Republican Party]] is positioned to the [[rightist | right]] of center (see [[political spectrum theory]]). Members and supporters of the Democratic Party are known as Democrats.

The Democrats currently control the United States [[House of Representatives]] and the [[Senate]], together with the majority of State governorships and legislatures. <ref>[http://www.multistate.com/Site.nsf/Elections2006PostMaps?OpenPage Multistate.com] Post-Election 2006 Maps</ref> According to a Pew Research Center poll, 50 percent of Americans identify themselves with the Democratic Party as opposed to 35 percent for the Republican Party.<ref>[http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=312 Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2007] Pew Research Center, 22 March 2007</ref> However, Democrats have served out only three of the last ten presidential terms. Democrats in the US Congress currently have a 55.5% disapproval and a 36.7% approval rating according to the RealClearPolitics Average of several dozens of Congressional Job Approval polls conducted 04/05 - 04/18. <ref>[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/archive/?poll_id=18 RealClearPolitics Congressional Job Approval Poll], 04/12 - 05/13 </ref>

Like the Republicans, the Democrats are currently selecting their candidate for the 2008 presidential election; the front-runners in the contest are Senator [[Hillary Clinton]] of [[New York]] and Senator [[Barack Obama]] of [[Illinois]]. The most recent president who was a Democrat was [[Bill Clinton]], who served from 1993 to 2001.

==History==
The Democratic Party was founded in 1792 by [[Thomas Jefferson]] as a congressional caucus to fight for the [[Bill of Rights]] and to oppose the elitist [[Federalist Party]].

In 1798 , the party was officially named the "Democratic-Republican Party", and in 1800 Jefferson was elected as the first Democrat [[President of the United States]]. Jefferson, a member of the landed gentry and a slave owner, served two terms as president with distinction, and was succeeded by another Democrat, [[James Madison]], in 1808 . During Madison's tenure, the United States fought the [[United Kingdom]] to a draw in the [[War of 1812]]. James Monroe, another Democratic-Republican, was elected president in 1816 and led the nation through a time commonly known as "The Era of Good Feelings". In this period, the party dominated American politics with little opposition. Monroe was followed by John Quincy Adams who won the hotly contested election of 1824, becoming the first son of a former president to be elected president.

[[Andrew Jackson]], who signed into law the [[Indian Removal Act of 1830]] <ref>[http://edweb.tusd.k12.az.us/UHS/APUSH/1st%20Sem/Articles%20Semester%201/Artiles%20Semester%201/Remini.htm Andrew Jackson and Indian Removal], by Robert Remini.</ref> according to the Democratic National Committee's website is "considered — along with Jefferson — one of the founding fathers of the Democratic Party." <ref>[http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/06/our_history.php Democratic National Committee, ''Our History''], retrieved 25 March 2007.</ref> Annual Jefferson-Jackson Day celebrations nationwide by local chapters of the Democratic Party commemorate the two founders of the Democratic Party. <ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/20/AR2007022001949.html String of Successes Enlivens Democratic Party], Michael D. Shear, ''The Washington Post'', 22 February 2007.</ref> The Indian Removal Act, enforced through a series of dishonest dealings with native people such as the Treaty of Dancing Rabitt Creek and the Treaty of New Echota, resulted in the wholesale deportation of Native Americans from the Southeastern states to Indian Territory (present day Oklahoma). <http://digital.library.okstate.edu/kappler/>

The Jacksonian period also saw the expansion of the voting franchise as most states did away with, or decreased property requirements for voting. The beneficiaries of the expansion of the franchise however, were nearly all white males. Annual Jefferson-Jackson Day celebrations nationwide by local chapters of the Democratic Party commemorate the two founders of the Democratic Party. <ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/20/AR2007022001949.html String of Successes Enlivens Democratic Party], Michael D. Shear, ''The Washington Post'', 22 February 2007.</ref>

Democrat [[Franklin Roosevelt]], who served as President from 1933 to 1945, led the United States during the [[Great Depression]] and throughout most of the [[Second World War]]. Under his successor, [[Harry Truman]] the Doctine of [[Containment]] was articulated which committed the U.S. to stop the spread of global [[Communism]]. Truman ordered the Berlin airlift in 1948 and sent U.S. troops to Korea in 1950.

==Policies and criticism==

In June 2005, while Democrats held a mock impeachment inquiry in President's Bush's foreign policy, [[anti-Semitic]] materials were distributed at the Democratic Party National headquarters. The literature claimed that an Israeli company had warning of the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]], and an "insider trading scam" on Wall Street had occured simultaneously. <ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061601570.html Democrats Play House To Rally Against the War], Dana Milbank, ''Washington Post'', June 17, 2005.</ref>

It should be noted that the views of individual Democrats sometimes diverge from the party's official stance as expressed in its national platform. The same is true of individual Republicans. Nonetheless, Tyrell accuses Democrats of wearing ideological blinders:

:Can anything embarrass [[Speaker Pelosi]] and the rest of the Democratic leadership? Frankly I doubt it. They are all neatly shut off from the world in their fantasy of moral and intellectual superiority. [http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20070510-092027-4746r.htm]

===Economic policy===
In the field of economic policy, Democrats favor high progressive taxes, higher government spending and a relatively high minimum wage.'{{fact}}

The Democratic Party has historically had ties to [[union|organized labor]]. The [[National Education Association]],<ref>[http://www.nea.org/index.html National Education Association homepage]</ref> the largest union of public school teachers, is a backbone of the party, supplying the largest number of delegates to its national conventions.{{fact}}

===Foreign and military policy===
According to its platform, the Democratic Party has the objective of strengthening America. Democratic national leadership has been accused of being ambivalent about terrorism<ref>[http://www.news10.net/display_story.aspx?storyid=22045 "Democrats, ACLU Outraged Over Traveler Terrorism Screening Program"] C. Johnson, Associated Press</ref> and insufficiently patriotic <ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/01/smn.19.html CNN Saturday Morning News]Transcript: December 1, 2001 </ref>, such as Saxby Chambliss' campaign against Senator Max Cleland--a Vietnam veteran and triple amputee.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14474-2002Jun19.html "Dirty-Bomb Politics"] Mary McGrory, ''The Washington Post'', 20 June 2002</ref>

===Education===
An organization affiliated with the [[Democratic Leadership Council]] called the [[Progressive Policy Institute]] which claims a long standing opposition to school vouchers <ref>21st Century Schools Project Bulletin: Special Edition [http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=110&subsecID=900001&contentID=250630 ''Putting Vouchers in Perspective''], PPI E-newsletter 2 July 2002</ref> reported Jonathan Alter of ''Newsweek'' saying,
:"Can wealthy white liberals - many of whom send their kids to private school - really say to poor parents: 'We can have choices, but you must not?'...This is a glaring hypocrisy sitting at the heart of the liberal opposition to targeted vouchers… Right now, Democrats are in a highly compromised position on education." <ref>[http://www.edreform.com/index.cfm?fuseAction=newsLetter&sectionID=29&NLissueID=4&articleID=11&altCol=2 Center For Education Reform, Monthly Letter to Friends No. 75], Back to School 2002.</ref>

===Environment vs Labor===
Two other important coalition groups also find themselves in direct conflict with each other within the Democratic party coalition--Environmentalists and Labor Unions. While environmentalists support efforts like clean air and alternative fuels, for example, this creates tension with the workers of American automobile manufactures whose jobs are threatened by environmental policies such as increasing regulations and high costs. Such policies can lead to cutbacks and layoffs. Balancing these issues is difficult because some sacrifices of interests must be made by both sides.

===Healthcare===
The Democrat fondness for heavy government intervention into the marketplace and social engineering means that a significant proportion of their base and of their candidates for the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election ideologically favor introducing a system of [[socialized healthcare]]; regardless of the crippling tax burden this would require to sustain itself and the low standard of care achieved by socialized health programs in other countries compared to the United States. Among the leading proponents for this idea include [[Barack Obama|Sen. Barack Hussein Obama]] and [[John Edwards|Sen. John Edwards]]; the latter formerly being the running mate to [[John Kerry|Sen. John Kerry]] in the disastrous [[2004 Presidential Election]].

===Homosexual Agenda===
Democrat lawmakers and opinion-formers consistently favor measures such as the establishment of same-sex civil unions, gay marriage and gay adoption of heterosexual children over defense of the traditional family. Likewise they are vigorous in attempting to amend [[hate crime|"hate crime"]] laws to make criticism of the homosexual lifestyle illegal;<ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54535 Christian belief a 'hate crime' under plan], WorldNetDaily, March 3, 2007. </ref> while at the same time supporting efforts to [[propaganda|disseminate favorable opinions]] regarding [[homosexuality]] through channels such as the mainstream media and even the educational system in the face of opposition from churches and religious authorities, a broad coalition of [[Republican Party|Republican]] and Independent politicians and a clear majority of the American public{{fact}}. Democrats reject the idea of a [[Homosexual agenda]] preferring to speak in terms of [[Gay rights|"gay rights"]] when this issue is raised; but from their actions the Democratic Party can be considered the United States' largest and most powerful ''de facto'' supporter of the Homosexual Agenda.{{fact}}

===Other Policies===
Democrats frequently support [[abortion]], [[gun control]], same- sex civil unions, and the separation of church and state.

==Religion==
In the United States, there is some correlation between religious and political affiliation, though people of all faiths and denominations can be found among the supporters of each of the main parties.

Both historically and today, [[Roman Catholic Church|Catholic]] voters have had a tendency to identify with the Democratic Party, and a number of Democratic office-holders, such as Senator [[Jim Webb]] of [[Virginia]], are Catholics. However, several general ideals of the Democratic Party's platform - most notably, the party's overall support for the legality of [[abortion]] - are contrary to the position of the [[Catholic Church]].

With regard to [[Protestant]] Christians, members of [[Evangelical]] churches in particular are associated with the [[Republican Party]]. One unusual feature of the Democratic Party, however, is that it draws substantial support both from committed African-American Protestant Christians and from secular and atheist white voters. The strong opposition to [[homosexuality]] found among many Black Protestant Christians (and, indeed, among orthodox Catholics) contrasts strikingly with the support frequently shown by other Democrats for the [[homosexual agenda]].

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Political Parties]]

Talk:AFD The South

2007-05-18T16:09:37Z

McIntyre:

Maybe you should try talking to the "socks." You banned them, yet their edits (if you look at the link on the talk page for the article) were accurate.--[[User:McIntyre|McIntyre]] 11:59, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

The South

2007-05-18T16:07:58Z

McIntyre:

The South

2007-05-18T16:05:24Z

McIntyre:

The South

2007-05-18T16:01:25Z

McIntyre:

Talk:AFD The South

2007-05-18T15:59:55Z

McIntyre: New page: Maybe you should try talking to the "socks." You banned them yet their edits (if you look at the link on the talk page for the article) were accurate.--~~~~

Maybe you should try talking to the "socks." You banned them yet their edits (if you look at the link on the talk page for the article) were accurate.--[[User:McIntyre|McIntyre]] 11:59, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

Plymouth Colony

2007-05-18T15:53:10Z

McIntyre:

'''Plymouth Colony''', founded in 1620 in what is now [[Massachusetts]], was an early [[England|English]] colony in the [[New World]]. Many of the so-called Pilgrims to Plymouth were members of a religious group known as the Separatists, who believed the [[Anglican Church]] of England was too [[hierarchy|hierarchical]]and had retained many of the trappings of the Catholic Church. They drew much of their influence from [[John Calvin]], such as the notion of [[predestination]], and the right of the individual to interpret the [[Bible]] for himself. The Mayflower Compact, signed aboard their ship, the Mayflower, guaranteed all citizens of the colony self-government. [[William Bradford]], the leader of the colony, authored ''Of Plimouth Plantation'', a history of the colony. Despite mostly good relations with local [[Native Americans]], half of the colonists died in the first two years. Plymouth Colony later merged with the [[Massachusetts Bay Colony]] to form the colony of [[Massachusetts]].

Plymouth Colony

2007-05-18T15:52:04Z

McIntyre:

'''Plymouth Colony''', founded in 1620 in what is now [[Massachusetts]], was an early [[England|English]] colony in the [[New World]]. Many of the so-called Pilgrims to Plymouth were members of a religious group known as the Separatists, who believed the [[Anglican Church]] of England to be too [[hierarchy|hierarchical]]. They drew much of their influence from [[John Calvin]], such as the notion of [[predestination]], and the right of the individual to interpret the [[Bible]] for himself. The Mayflower Compact, signed aboard their ship, the Mayflower, guaranteed all citizens of the colony self-government. [[William Bradford]], the leader of the colony, authored ''Of Plimouth Plantation'', a history of the colony. Despite mostly good relations with local [[Native Americans]], half of the colonists died in the first two years. Plymouth Colony later merged with the [[Massachusetts Bay Colony]] to form the colony of [[Massachusetts]].