Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Word Analysis of Bible

2013-07-07T21:17:14Z

NKeaton: 10:5 refers to household harmony. 10:6 may be what you say.

A word analysis of the [[Bible]] utilizes a [[concordance]] or an online search engine to study and understand the Bible by learning the words it uses and does not use.

For example, the most common word in the Bible is "Lord", which is used with even greater frequency than "God".

Many insights are gained by reviewing what terms appear, and which what frequency, in the Bible. Recognition that certain words are not used is also enlightening. For example, the word "exodus" is not used even once in the [[Old Testament]]. It appears only once in the [[New Testament]], in the [[Letter to the Hebrews]]. Another term, "expatiate" (meaning to speak or write at length), does not appear in the entire Bible, not even once.

== Mistranslated Terms ==

* "εἰρήνη" is mistranslated as "peace" (e.g., Luke 10:6), but the word has nothing to with physical violence. It is a "Messiah's peace," and perhaps should be translated as "[[faith]]"
* "nation": English translations of the Bible frequently use the word "nation" in both the Old and New Testaments. Yet real "nations" did not exist until long after [[Christ]]. Is the term "nation" a mistranslation of a concept referring to a group of people, or a kingdom
* "government"
* "slave" (44 times in the NT, including in reference to "sin") and "slavery" (6 times in the NT) (the better translation for "doulos" in John is as "servant" or "bond-servant")
* "world" (255 times) increasingly means the non-human world rather than the people as intended

== Missing Words ==

These words are entirely missing from English translations of the Bible ([[ESV]]), and not mentioned, not even once:

*gamble and [[gambling]] (which could be used to describe the casting lots for Jesus's clothing)
*probability
*self-centered
*accountability (could be used in some parables, or to describe the Pharisees)
*drugs
*mental
*obesity, overweight, fat (in the sense of an overweight person)
*[[cremation]]
*impetuous
*ingratiate
*future (missing from [[King James Version]], but mentioned 14 times by the [[ESV]], though only 3 times in its [[New Testament]])
*Godspeed (but the [[KJV]] uses it as two words, "God speed")
*constructive
*economics
*premonition (no such thing?)
*chaos
*suicide (which could be used to describe the demon-possessed pigs, and Judas)
*exorcism (but Jewish "exorcists" are referenced at Acts 19:13) (could be used to describe the casting out of demons)
*anti-life
*cogent, coherent (modern translations tend to lack modern terms of logic or reason)
*open-minded and closed-minded, which could work as an improvement to the traditional "hardening one's heart"
*death penalty (used only once in [[ESV]], in Acts 28:18, and in a disparaging sense there; missing from other versions)
*superstition
*temptress (should be used in mark 9:22, for example)
*Devil (used 34 times in the New Testament, but not once in the Old Testament)
*atheist, agnostic
*ethic (as in "work ethic")
*gratitude (just once in [[ESV]], in Acts 243), grateful (just once, in Hebrews), and ungrateful (just twice, in Luke and Timothy)
*captive, indentured servant, prisoner-of-war (more accurate words for ancient slavery; in Luke 4:18 the prophecy refers to "captives" rather than "slaves")
*profanity (no wonder so many people use it pervasively!)
*incumbent (could describe the Pharisees)
*publicity is missing, but the word smear is used
*alarmist
*absurd, fallacy, disingenuous, strawman (argumentative terms)
*student
*impossibility (no such thing?)
*chastity, abstinence (only mention of abstinence refers to abstinence from food)
*censor, censorship (could use in dealing with Pharisees' attempt to silence Jesus)
*ostracize (could use in passages dealing with leprosy)
*intellectual (could use to refer to Pharisees and scribes)
*ostensibly (good potential use is Luke 3:23: Jesus was ostensibly the son of Joseph)
*rectify (a powerful English word that dates back to the 14th century, but not used by Bible translators)
*materialistic (works well in Luke 18:25, see translated version here)
*unique (originated in 1602, and descriptive of Jesus, yet not used even once in most New Testament translations; we use it in Luke 4)
*disorder (used only in the Old Testament by the KJV (5 times, including disorderly), and used only the New Testament by the ESV (2 times))
*discontinuity
*selfish (used by the ESV only once in the Old Testament, and only twice in the New Testament)
*congruous, congruent (the KJV committees were deficient in mathematicians!)
*conscientious
*anxiety (not mentioned even once by the KJV, and mentioned only 8 times (including the plural form) by the ESV)
*surplus (a good conservative term, yet nowhere used in the ESV; good use in Luke 5:6 here)
*rapture
*handicap (no mention, but works well in Luke 7:21), disability (only one reference in ESV)
*"caved in" (could be used in many places of wrongdoing, from Adam to Herod to Pontius Pilate)
*illogical (no mention, but works well in Luke 11:40 to characterize a practice of the Pharisees, and perhaps other places also)
*mind (used only 10 times in the ESV translation of the Gospels, but should be used more (e.g. Luke 11) to emphasize intellectual side of message)
*regulation (no mention in a negative sense, but should be used critically in Luke 11)

(add more)

== Mistranslated New Testament Words? ==

It is claimed that over 100 words are mistranslated in the New Testament from the Greek.<ref>http://ntwords.com/</ref> However, many of those mistranslations are due to the inadequacy of the Greek, as a powerful a language as it was, to express the novel ideas and concepts of Christianity.

== Issues ==

*How should one translate certain references to God in [[Genesis]]? In Genesis 2:18, most versions translate the reference as "Lord God," but less modern versions use "Yahweh God " or "Jehovah God." "Jehovah" has fallen into disfavor as a translation in modern versions.

== Sources ==

* This analysis relies heavily on the [[English Standard Version]], which is notable for literal word-for-word translation style. This makes it most suitable to a word-based analysis.

== References ==
<References/>

== See also ==

*[[Bible Translations]]
*[[Conservative Bible Project]]
*[[Bible Retranslation Project]]
*[[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]]
*[http://www.ntwords.com/ List of over 100 words allegedly mistranslated in the New Testament]

[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Bible Versions]]

Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs

2013-06-24T01:41:07Z

NKeaton: And no songs about beating children

There are many brilliant—and popular—conservative songs. Here is our growing list (click the box next to "Billboard Rank" to list the most popular first):

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Songs "Classic"
!Artist
!Comments
!Billboard Rank
!Category
|-
|''Living In America''
|[[James Brown]]
|Song that espouses the virtues of, and pride in, living in the United States. Appears in the movie "Rocky IV" and on the film's soundtrack.
|NA
|Classic/R&B/Funk
I-
|-"Sister Christian"
INight Ranger
IThis song advices the drummers sister to remain a virgin till she finds 'mr right'
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sEqzEgDZ0g "Ain't I Right"]
|[[Marty Robbins]]
|Song against Communism and socialism.
|NA
|Classic/Folk
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iT88jBAoVIM ''Amazing Grace'']
|[[John Newton]]
|A Christian hymn published in 1779.
|NA
|Classic/Spiritual
|-
|Amen
|Kid Rock
|Talks about "Stop living off handouts and favors". Written and performed by a republican.
|N/A
|Country/Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3S7mlRYL-8 America]
|Neil Diamond
|Freedom, Liberty, Patriotism
|8
|Classic/Pop
|-
|''America USA''
|Joey Sudyka
|Not very well known, perhaps, but a good patriotic song.
|NA
|Classic/Pop
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErPywgiMb4k ''Angry Young Man'']
|[[Billy Joel]]
|The doctrinaire leftist radical with "his fist in the air and his head in the sand" comes in for biting criticism.
|NA
|Classic/Pop
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4eonyfRet8&feature=related ''Back in the U.S.A.'']
|[[Chuck Berry]]
|A patriotic song about missing life in the U.S.A.
|Sixteen
|Classic/Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y5GDvN9_OE ''Ballad of the Green Berets'']
|Sergeant Barry Sadler
|Pro-American and pro-military.
|1
|Classic/Traditional
|-
|[http://youtu.be/r5Q8Xa0bPy8''Battle Hymn of the Republic'']
|[[Lee Greenwood]]
|"As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free."
|NA
|Classic/Traditional
|-
|''Bus Stop''
|The Hollies
|Pro-[[chivalry]], pro-romance and pro-marriage: "Someday my name and hers are going to be the same."
|5
|Classic
|-
|[http://youtu.be/cMfrLFirGWc ''Chapel of Love'']
|Dixie Cups
|Marriage in a church
|1
|Classic/Pop
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIF4U_QFSxQ ''Chores'']
|Animal Collective
|"Now I've got these chores / and I'm not gonna hurt no-one" -- Hard work is praised and violence is discouraged. A scary song for [[liberals]]!
|NA
|Classic/Traditional
|-
|''Country Trash''
|Johnny Cash
|In a comedic way, the song praises the small town conservative virtues of the people looked down upon by big city liberals as "Country trash"
|NA
|Classic/Country
|-
|[http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Crying-in-the-Chapel-lyrics-Elvis-Presley/E547D833F0BBFADF48256874002B3358 ''Crying In The Chapel'']
|[[Elvis Presley]]
|Pro-marriage
|1
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruNrdmjcNTc&ob=av2n''Courtesy of the Red, White & Blue (The Angry American)'']
|[[Toby Keith]]
|A patriotic response to the Sept. 11 attacks
|1 (Hot Country Songs)
|Classic/Country
|-
|''D-I-V-O-R-C-E''
|[[Tammy Wynette]]
|This sad song was a huge hit in 1968.
|1
|Classic/Country
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38oeBgvbMYA ''Don't Let 'Em Take Your Gun'']
|Grand Funk Railroad
|A father gives his son some sage advice.
|NA
|Classic/Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/v9BtLRWbkmA ''Don't Stop (Thinking About Tomorrow)'']
|Fleetwood Mac
|Used by Bill Clinton as his campaign theme song in 1992, but liberals often try to appeal to conservative themes for elections.
|3
|Classic/Rock
|-
|''Do You Hear the People Sing''
|Claude-Michel Schönberg
|Standing up to government in the name of freedom, from the musical ''Les Miserables''
|NA
|Classic
|-
|[http://youtu.be/5Jxnt-QY-j4 ''Game of Love'']
|Wayne Fontana and the Mindbenders
|"The purpose of a man is to love a woman, and the purpose of a woman is to love a man... It started long ago in the Garden of Eden when Adam said to Eve 'Baby, you're for me.'"
|1
|Classic/Pop
|-
|''Get a Job''
|The Silhouettes
|Self-explanatory; a rebuke to lazy [[liberals]] who want to sit around and wait for government handouts.
|1
|Classic
|-
|[http://youtu.be/4ZEE8utquP8 ''Get it Right the First Time'']
|Louisiana's LeRoux
|Wealthy Georgia politician is placed in high office and turns out to be a puppet with no ideas of his own. Released in 1980 when Jimmy Carter was up for re-election.
|NA
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzU2iJ9qfXg ''Gimme Back My Bullets'']
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|The name says it all.
|NA
|Classic/Rock
|-
|''Glory Hallelujah''
|Frank Turner
|Rejects those who say there is no God, insisting that never was the case
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-z5hD38Bs8Y''God Bless America'']
|Irving Berlin
|American patriotic, classic song.
|NA
|Classic/Traditional
|-
|''God and Guns''
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|A powerful new song that elaborates on the song title.
|NA
|Classic/Country
|-
|[http://www.scoutsongs.com/lyrics/proudtobeamerican.html ''God Bless the USA'']
|Lee Greenwood
|
|7 (Hot Country)
|Classic/Country
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP5EfwBWgg0&feature=related ''Go Down Moses'']
|[[Louis Armstrong]]
|
|NA
|Classic/Spiritual
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IStlBOX9F4o ''God's Gonna Cut You Down'']
|
|"Go tell that long tongue liar, go and tell that midnight rider, tell the rambler, the gambler, the back biter, tell 'em that God's gonna cut 'em down"
|NA
|Classic/Traditional
|-
|[http://www.cowboylyrics.com/lyrics/jones-george/gods-gonna-get-cha-for-that-6638.html ''God's Gonna Get 'Cha For That'']
|Tammy Wynette & George Jones
|You cannot escape God's gaze, no matter who you are
|Twenty-five
|Classic
|-
|''God Save the Queen''
|
|Despite being frighteningly atheistic, the British have enough sense to keep this God-inclusive song as their national anthem. The anthem rightly attributes the success and good fortune of the nation and its monarch to God.
|NA
|national anthem
|-
|[http://youtu.be/EgkBx8csEws ''Goodbye, Yellow Brick Road'']
|[[Elton John]]
|The same message as the [[Prodigal Son]]: look objectively at our own lives, and realize that "I should have listened to my old man."
|2
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/serve.html ''Gotta Serve Somebody'']
|[[Bob Dylan]]
|"It may be the devil or it may be the Lord."
|Twenty-four
|Classic/Folk
|-
|[http://www.ixlyrics.com/CLIVE-DUNN/GRANDAD.html ''Grandad'']
|Clive Dunn
|UK Number 1 hit, in praise of senior citizens and their values
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZVPv9B-ZlM ''Government Cheese'']
|The Rainmakers
|Humorous spoof of welfare.
|NA
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6yLQRF-cEU&ob=av2nHave You Forgotten?]
|Darryl Worley
|Patriotic response to [[September 11, 2001 attacks]]<ref>http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=15568</ref>
|1 (US Country)
|Classic/Country
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1KtScrqtbc "He Ain't Heavy, He's My Brother"]
|Hollies
|Repeats the slogan of Boys Town, a Christian charity for youngsters founded by Father Edward J. Flanagan in Omaha<ref>http://www.boystown.org/about/father-edward-|j-|flanagan</ref>
|NA
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0heL2Czeraw ''I Am America'']
|Krista Branch
|American [[Tea Party Movement]] Song
|NA
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16u0wwCfoJ4 ''I Fought the Law (and the Law Won)'']
|The Crickets
|Its title says it all. The version by ''The Clash'' has a particularly good tempo.
|9 (Bobby Fuller Four version)
|Classic
|-
|[http://youtu.be/OtZ5YsvREi4 ''In America'']
|The [[Charlie Daniels]] Band
|Patriotism makes a comeback in response to the Iran hostage crisis and Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
|Eleven
|Classic/Country
|-
|''I Saw The Light''
|Hank Williams
|Redemption of sin through faith.
|NA
|Classic/Country
|-
|''It's America''
|Rodney Atkins
|Celebrates the American spirit and all the good things about the United States.
|1 (US Country)
|Classic/Country
|-
|[http://www.justsomelyrics.com/767663/McCarthy-Keep-an-Open-Mind-or-Else-Lyrics ''Keep an Open Mind or Else'']
|McCarthy
|About the conservative value of keeping an [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|open mind]].
|NA
|Classic/Pop
|-
|''Last Kiss''
|Wayne Cochran and the C.C. Riders
|"Oh where oh where can my baby be; The Lord took her away from me; She's gone to heaven so I got to be good; So I can see my baby when."
|2 (J. Frank Wilson version)
|Classic
|-
|[http://youtu.be/BvPugOWeZiA ''Let It Be'']
|[[The Beatles]]
|Very popular in Russia under the Soviets
|1
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-1_d6bbM1I ''My Love'']
|[[Petula Clark]]
|A Christian love in secular form.
|1
|Classic
|-
|[http://youtu.be/kD5M_i6JceU ''Neighborhood Bully'']
|[[Bob Dylan]]
|Israel's right to exist and defend itself.
|NA
|Classic/Folk
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kZ0pA9REyU ''No Opportunity Necessary, No Experience Needed'']
|Richie Havens (Covered by Yes)
|"...I know your cross is heavier With every step Every step But I know a man who'd walk miles for you..."
|NA
|Classic/Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdZTKvNXxPA "Nothing Like You"]
|[[Miles Davis]] and Bob Dorough
|Celebrates the sight of ones beloved - Isaiah 43:4
|NA
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iYY2FQHFwE ''Okie From Muskogee'']
|[[Merle Haggard]]
|Anti-drug and anti-hippie; a song about praising the traditional American values in Mid-America. Was written in response to the Vietnam War protests and counter-culture movement.
|1 (Billboard Hot Country)
|Classic
|-
|''People Get Ready''
|Curtis Mayfield and the Impressions
|An all-time classic song about the glory of the [[Lord]].
|3
|Classic/Spiritual
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6XZDb045xU ''Red White & Blue (Love It or Leave)'']
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|"It was all based around this somewhat Utopian view of the world. The idea was that music would lift man up to a higher plane, and that world leaders, if they were able |to sit down on some big grassy knoll where the sun was shining and hear music..." Tom Johnston of LS
|Twenty-seven
|Classic/Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2lRcxlYx40''Renegade'']
|[[Steppenwolf]]
|[[John Kay]]'s childhood escape from Communist [[East Germany]].
|NA
|Classic/Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FOUqQt3Kg0''Respect'']
|Aretha Franklin
|This song is about respecting woman and their choices to be equal members in society.
|1
|Classic/Soul
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBohsCG8emk ''Simple Man'']
|[[Charlie Daniels]]
|A song about how drugs and poor politics are a result of people putting their Bibles down. Also a strongly pro death penalty song.
|Twelve
|Classic/Country/Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/RCqxq6xqoXI ''Sin City'']
|The Flying Burrito Brothers
|Attacks modern decadence and predicts divine punishment for sin.
|NA
|Classic/Country
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPPlGFh6OpQ ''Spirit In The Sky'']
|Norman Greenbaum
|A religious rock song written in 1969.
|3
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwBirf4BWew ''Stand By Your Man'']
|[[Tammy Wynette]]
|Don't expect [[feminists]] to like that one! Or [[Hillary Clinton]]!
|1 (Hot Country Singles)
|Classic/Country
|-
|''Star Spangled Banner''
|Francis Scott Key
|The American national anthem.
|NA
|Classic/Traditional
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8sUMv5sbW8 ''Star Spangled Banner'']
|Madison Rising
|The American national anthem, as performed by rock band Madison Rising, who put out a challenge to the American public to renew its intimacy with and understanding of the anthem and its patriotic message. [http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/you-havent-heard-this-star-spangled-banner/]
|NA
|Classic/Traditional/Rock
|-
|''Starting All Over Again''
|[[Petula Clark]]
|Keep moving onward, even in the most difficult of times.
|NA
|Classic/Traditional
|-
|''Stayin' Alive''
|[[The Bee Gees]]
|Pro-people and pro-staying alive, and this: "we can try to understand/the [[New York Times]]' effect on man."
|1
|Classic/Pop
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgrQST6VlnQ "Stay With Me"]
|[[Frank Sinatra]]
|Beautiful song of Christian faith.
|NA
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKdAVYKYZfo''Storm the Embassy'']
|The Stray Cats
|Another conservative song about the Iran hostage crisis. "Fifteen man taken captive in a hostile foreign land/Scorchin' sun beaming down onto miles and miles of sand..."
|NA
|Classic/Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCXiuqJ1E6g ''Supper's Ready'']
|[[Genesis (band)|Genesis]]
|''There's an angel standing in the sun, and he's crying with a loud voice, "This is the supper of the mighty one", Lord of Lords, King of Kings, Has returned to lead his |children home, To take them to the new Jerusalem.''
|NA
|Classic/Rock
|-
|''Sympathy for the Devil''
|The Rolling Stones
|Reminds humanity that evil is present in the world and needs to be fought.
|NA
|Classic/Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukUL_I14GPw''Take Me Home, Country Roads'']
|John Denver
|Celebrates Southern country landscape and traditions.
|2
|Classic/Folk
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Maz9ddxEQnM ''Taxman'']
|[[The Beatles]]
|George Harrison said, "Taxman was when I first realized that even though we had started earning money, we were actually giving most of it away in taxes."
|NA
|Classic/Rock
|-
|[http://youtube.com/p6q9nBusrq8 ''That Smell'']
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|A very strong anti-drug use song by America's most well-known Southern rock band.
|NA
|Classic/Country/Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeWZhuzFMM8 ''The Ascent of Stan'']
|[[Ben Folds]]
|Tells the story of a former "textbook hippie man" who realizes that he has become everything that he was protesting against.
|NA
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=6547 ''The Devil Went Down To Georgia'']
|[[Charlie Daniels]]
|A deeper message here, as Daniels explains.
|3
|Classic/Country
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHAFmFsb9XM&feature=related ''The Fightin' Side of Me'']
|Merle Haggard
|A song about patriotism and standing up for [[America]].
|1 (Hot Country Singles)
|Classic/Country
|-
|[http://youtu.be/fHvf20Y6eoM ''Turn, Turn, Turn'']
|The Byrds
|An almost word-for-word direct quotation from the [[Bible]], specifically [[Ecclesiastes]], with the addition of the refrain "Turn, Turn, Turn".
|1
|Classic/Folk
|-
|[http://youtu.be/C68J1tJM6vU ''Unborn Child'']
|Seals and Crofts
|This pro-life song was a hit single in 1974, but for some reason gets left off the Seals and Crofts greatest hits albums.
|sixty-six
|Classic/Folk
|-
|''Union Sundown''
|Bob Dylan
|The title says it all.
|NA
|Classic/Folk
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvkUXKyl5wY "Waiting List"]
|[[Dr. Octagon]]
|A powerful song about socialized medicine and rationing
|NA
|Hip-hop
|-
|''Way Out Here''
|Josh Thompson
|"Our house is all protected by the good Lord and a gun", and "We wont take a dime if we aint earned it, when it comes to weight, brother we pull our own". It is pro gun |ownership, the Lord, and hard work. Also preaches the morals and ethics that are known from small towns.
|Fifteen (US Country)
|Classic/Country
|-
|''We Must Take America Back''
|Steve Vaus
|Became an underground country music hit in 1992 after RCA dropped him and took the album out of print due to the political lyrics.
|NA
|Classic/Country
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mjWhMn-VnU ''The Well Below the Valley'']
|Traditional. Covered by Christy Moore
|Song loosely based on the story of [[Jesus]] and the woman at the well. Lyrics about old-fashioned family relationships and traditional attitudes to women. Promotes all children's right to life.
|NA
|Traditional/Folk
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nElc2vMU-b0 ''When You Love A Woman'']
|Journey
|True love from the heart
|Twelve
|Classic/Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yw5RkzbHb-w ''You Can't Hurry Love (You Just Have to Wait)'']
|The Supremes
|Abstinence for rock fans. Also performed by Phil Collins.
|1
|Classic
|-
|[http://youtu.be/lnk8SKD9zcA''You Light Up My Life'']
|Debby Boone
|One of the biggest hits ever, but [[liberals]] omit that this song is about [[Jesus]].
|1
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2UE5g72s0o ''Yours Is No Disgrace'']
|[[Yes]]
|Written to, and about, the troops headed for Vietnam.
|NA
|Classic/Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJfJPxLntZU ''Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition'']
|Written by Frank Loesser; made famous by Kay Kyser and His Orchestra
|A patriotic song written and published as sheet music in 1942; Kay Kyser's recording came out in 1943. This rousing tune is about a chaplain (called a "sky pilot" in the song) who is with some men on a warship in the heat of a battle. One of the soldiers asks the chaplain to pray for the men shooting at the enemy aircraft. In response, the chaplain puts down his Bible, mans one of the gun turrets on the ship, and begins firing at the planes himself, and tells the soldiers, "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition, and we'll all stay free!" Beyond the obvious pro-Christian and pro-American messages, it also tells us that sometimes, the Lord calls on us to put down the Bible and pick up our guns to defend the American way.
|1
|Patriotic/Jazz, Classic
|-
!Songs "Rock"
!Artist
!Comments
!Billboard Rank
!Category
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qjSmODTQsk ''A Dead Man's Words'']
|Queensrÿche
|No Man Left Behind. "The word we hear is there's one man down and he's alive. They ask for volunteers. I raise my hand high. I'm sure he'd do the same for me. It's three days through the desert heat to save one man's life and I don't even know his name."
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVsZap7WBm8 ''All In'']
|Lifehouse
|Describes a relationship with God as being full of commitment and without reservations.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TefSlVqENRM ''At 30,000 Ft.'']
|Queensrÿche
|Pro-soldier, pro-Iraqi/Afghanistan action. "Flaming oil blackens the sky. I don't know why...their hate is the reason for the Hell that I make."
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/bHpw6CzprNY ''Bad Rap (Who You Tryin' To Kid, Kid?)'']
|Steve Taylor
|Takes aim at LA, NYC and SF hipsters, the Village Voice, abortion, and "the left-wing band with their heads in the sand".
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.robertchristgau.com/get_artist.php?name=sex+pistols''Bodies'']
|The Sex Pistols
|Profane but graphically anti-abortion.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|''Critical Acclaim''
|Avenged Sevenfold
|Pro-America and pro-Military.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVOEoo1oXBs ''Declaration Day'']
|Iced Earth
|A song about the Revolutionary War.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRNrzgDHmQE ''Devil is a Loser'']
|Lordi
|About how actions have consequences, mixed with contempt for the devil and Satanists.
|NA
|Rock/Metal
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjJ9v__NyR0 ''Disparity by Design'']
|Rise Against
|Refers to the 'over-reaching arm' of the government, and considers whether welfare is a 'handout undeserved'. Also refers to the American ideal of 'pulling yourself up by your bootstraps'.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.lyricsfreak.com/p/pearl+jam/dissident_20106414.html ''Dissident'']
|Pearl Jam
|About a woman who engages in [[liberal values]] by being impregnated out of wedlock and having an abortion, but immediately regrets doing so.
|3
|Rock
|-
|[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIHuF8WvdFk ''Don't Tread On Me'']
|Metallica
|Tune about Gadsden flag
|N/A
|Metal
|-
|[http://youtu.be/K5N2WJ1szHE ''Father of Mine'']
|Everclear
|A reminder of the importance of good parenting. Everclear singer Art Alexakis wrote much of his material from his own perspective of a troubled childhood. At the end of |the song, Alexakis promises to be a better father than his own had been.
|4
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/zapGC2PrWiU ''Fair Exchange"]
|[[Kansas (band)|Kansas]]
|Warnings about totalitarian governments who want to take away your freedom in the name of utopia. Also much of their early 1980s material, which has Christian lyrics.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYRZt7xcwpY&feature=youtu.be "Freedom is Colorblind"]
|JoeDanMedia
|A song about how the left uses race to polarize the country. It is a conservative song that tries to unite the country.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hZsG1ikgK8 ''Hundred Mile Stare'']
|Queensrÿche
|Pro-soldier, freedom. "What ever happened to conviction and faith? People trip from side to side; don't know which way or what side to take. Always known the truth. It's really black and white. I've got no fear of judgment when it's time to fight."
|NA
|Rock
|-
|''Iraq No Phobia''
|Pro-Pain
|It is a pro-American, pro-military heavy metal song about the first [[Gulf War]]: ''"Mohammed's no match for the great Uncle Sam."''
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b71clnfgyts ''No Son of Mine'']
|Genesis
|
|Twelve
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzEhnBdOTAM "ONE TEA PARTY"]
|[[Toot Sweet]]
|This song is a metaphoric call to energize, motivate and unite the movement that we are all passionate about... the time is now to stand together, united, "AS ONE".
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/wDrRVlm5HOw "Prayer for America"]
|JoeDanMedia
|A short history lesson put to music regarding our schools and how the Bible was taught there in previous years.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|''Welcome to the Family''
|Avenged Sevenfold
|A song about death row, although not anti-death penalty.
|8
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/wq160PIYjHo "No Rules for Radicals"]
|JoeDanMedia
|This song highlights "rules" Saul Alinsky wrote about in his progressive-liberal book, 'Rules for Radicals'.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|''Real American''
|Rick Derringer
|Patriotic anthem, known as [[Hulk Hogan]]'s pre-match song.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/FAvQSkK8Z8U ''Red Barchetta'']
|[[Rush]]
|Tells the story of a future with excessive regulation, where even driving is illegal.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcT3sIBRv_I ''Sliver'']
|Queensrÿche
|Pro-soldier, bravery. "It's time to sack up and let go of your mothers. Take your gun, it's the cross that's carried by your brothers."
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=096LhjGNNCk ''Something For Nothing'']
|Rush
|"You can't get something for nothing, you can't have freedom for free."
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sticXkHxZC4 ''I've Seen Footage'']
|Death Grips
|Profane. Criticizes the glorification of violence by the mainstream media.
|NA
|Hip Hop
|-
|[http://youtu.be/cnijc9wNpV4 ''Sparks of the Tempest'']
|[[Kansas (band)|Kansas]]
|Warnings about totalitarian governments who want to take away your freedom in the name of utopia. Also much of their early 1980s material, which has Christian lyrics.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|''Stranger in Blue Suede Shoes''
|Kevin Ayers
|Defends the right of businessmen to choose their customers: "we don't serve strangers in blue suede shoes."
|NA
|Rock
|-
|''The Big Money''
|Rush
|Pro-[[capitalism]]
|forty-five
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY_6b4-N9Uo ''Ticket to Ride'']
|[[The Beatles]]
|Lyrics describe anti-feminist attitude
|1
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQYpF2pCkLI ''My Body'']
|Young the Giant
|''"My body tells me no / But I won't quit / Cause I want more"'' — Powerful chorus describes how the singer defies his body's physical desire to stop working and continue working hard because he wants to reap the rewards he has earned from his hard work. It describes conservative traits (persevering with hard work) and capitalistic ideals (wanting the rewards you worked for; working past your limit because you have proper incentive).
|65
|Alternative
|-
!Songs "Spiritual"
!Artist
!Comments
!Billboard Rank
!Category
|-
|[http://youtu.be/iq10bz3PxyY ''Christmas Shoes'']
|NewSong
|A Christmas song by a Christian band.
|NA
|Spiritual
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoaH0I9UwLI ''Your Love Is Extravagant'']
|Casting Crowns
|
|NA
|Spiritual
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnnhYE1DhC4 ''What If His People Prayed'']
|Casting Crowns
|
|NA
|Spiritual
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA_H6C8iLPA ''Liberalism is a Mental Disorder'']
|The Infidel (Gregory Van Leer Jr.) with an opening from [[Michael Savage]]
|Clearly attacks [[liberal values]].
|NA
|Rap
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h1oRP7FfBw ''Sunny Afternoon'']
|The Kinks
|About a rich man trying to enjoy the simple things in life because the nanny-state has nearly bankrupted him.
|Fourteen
|Rock
|-
|''2+2=5 (The Lukewarm)''
|Radiohead
|A song chastising people for accepting the mainstream medias version of events and not paying attention.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|''No Children''
|The Mountain Goats
|A song about a marriage falling apart because the couple has no children to hold the family together.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuUmLIPSasI ''God Loves My Country'']
|Balthrop, Alabama
|A song that declares that God loves America most of all.
|NA
|Folk
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zZE0SrkyNE&ob=av2n ''Where'd You Go'']
|Fort Minor
|Shows the hardship of divorce, liberal values, and the possible future of the families of our service men who could be forced to serve in Libya.
|NA
|Rap
|-
|''Patriotism''
|Company Flow
|While containing bad language it endorses the US as a super-power.
|NA
|Rap
|-
|''Tribute''
|Tenacious D
|Comedy single, but it's also a very popular song about overcoming Satan and alludes to many other Christian themes such as heaven and hell.
|4
|Rock/folk
|-
|''For Martha''
|The Smashing Pumpkins
|Being torn between the anguish of losing a lost one and the joy of knowing you will one day reunite them with in heaven
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDIGzzeQjaE ''Dethharmonic'']
|Dethklok
|Anti-tax
|NA
|Rock
|-
|''Get Over It''
|The Eagles
|Written by Don Henley (who is a liberal) about his frustration of people blaming others for their own problems and believing the world owes them a favor ''"the big bad |world doesn't owe you a thing,"''
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR6oYX1D-0w "I Need A Dollar"]
|Aloe Blacc
|"Please Mr.Bossman I need this job more than you can know" - an excellent paean to the plights of unemployment
|NA
|Pop/Soul
|-
|[http://youtu.be/RlOQBGjkm78 "Extra Extra"]
|[[Toots Sweet]]
|Toots does a great job at making the clips entertaining as well as informative.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yq8zn15EPE "Somebody Must Be Prayin' For Me]
|[[Tim McGraw]]
|Song about prayer and how it is a necessary part of everyday life.
|NA
|Spiritual/Country
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNTUADEhC8Q"The List"]
|The Right Brothers
|A song that melodically lists liberal activists.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/8uxAT6dzKSM "We the People"]
|[[Toots Sweet]]
|A song about the Constitution and how the current administration has been abusing the beloved document we are trying to live by.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/AA1aHrfxgEg "Shut up and Teach"]
|The Right Brothers
|Liberal indoctrination runs rampant in our schools. Song expresses the desire to stick to a non-partisan curriculum.
| NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/ROdsgYyheM4 "On Fire"]
|Switchfoot
|This song is about keeping the faith, in people and in our religion.
|NA
|Spiritual
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pldyz9VS2yY ''Under God'']
|[[Pat Boone]]
|
|NA
|Spiritual
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EBiei21-C8 ''King Without a Crown'']
|Matisyahu
|A Hasidic Jew raps about God as the source of happiness and salvation from the things of this world: "If you're drowning in the waters and you can't stay afloat ask |Hashem for mercy and He'll throw you a rope."
|7 (Hot Modern Rock Tracks)
|Spiritual
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl6yilkU1LI ''Fast Car'']
|Tracy Chapman
|Self-help, free market, division of labor, and a criticism of alcohol. "I know things will get better/You'll find work and I'll get promoted/We'll move out of the |shelter/Buy a bigger house and live in the suburbs"
|6
|Folk
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDK9QqIzhwk ''Livin' on a Prayer'']
|Bon Jovi
|Organized labor is harmful to the welfare of workers, who turn to prayer.
|1
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/o-z2D9lo9-8 ''Bush Was Right'']
|The Right Brothers
|Celebrating the Bush Administration's success and policies.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDSK98Y2FNg "Stop Global Whining"]
|The Right Brothers
|Anti-Global Warming hoax song.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqXAW2snGMI ''Capitalism'']
|Oingo Boingo
|There's nothing wrong with free enterprise.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dHthaNNnds Keep On Loving You]
|REO Speedwagon
|Love overcomes infidelity "When I said that I love you I meant That I love you forever."
|1
|Pop
|-
|[http://youtu.be/oHg5SJYRHA0 ''Sweet Home Alabama'']
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|A response to hippie culture. Defends Southerners from stereotyped attacks by [[liberal]], Canadian rocker Neil Young. "Well, I hope Neil Young will remember/A Southern |man don't need him around anyhow."
|8
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.songmeanings.net/songs/view/3530822107858733660/ ''What's The Use Of Wond'rin?'']
|Amanda Palmer
|Celebrates the command: "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord." -Ephesians 5:22
|NA
|Spiritual
|-
|[http://youtu.be/Ke-r2K0ymWc ''Lightning Crashes'']
|Live
|The joy and significance of childbirth.
|1
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJprEyXMrIk''Takin' Care of Business'']
|Bachman-Turner Overdrive
|The work ethic and promoting self-employment.
|Twelve
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-s5r2sp''Cat's In The Cradle'']
|Harry Chapin
|The importance of traditional families and responsible fatherhood.
|1
|Folk
|-
|[http://youtu.be/bCFWyLwcR6E ''Thank You My Lord'']
|[[Petula Clark]]
|The title says it all.
|NA
|Spiritual
|-
|[http://youtu.be/7NJMTmz7pkg ''Brick'']
|Ben Folds Five
|Shows the regret involved in abortion.
|6 (Modern Rock Tracks)
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/Dw6qmYX1ny4 ''Alive'']
|P.O.D.
|About being thankful for the gift of life.
|2 (US Alternative)
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_iNdbPvrYk ''Jesus Christ'']
|Brand New
|The singer turns to God for advice and assurance.
|thirty (Hot Modern Rock Tracks
|Spiritual
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lydBPm2KRaU ''Jesus, Take The Wheel'']
|[[Carrie Underwood]]
|A gospel-themed hit from the American Idol winner.
|1 (US Country)
|Country
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPBwXKgDTdE ''Mine'']
|[[Taylor Swift]]
|Talks about how her parents stooped to [[liberal values]] and got divorced, and how she doesn't want that to happen with the guy she meets, dates, and marries.
|1 (US Adult Contemporary)
|Pop/Country
|-
| I Won't Back down
| Tom Petty
| Talks about not backing down from a fight. Can be compared to not losing the Iraq War.
|N/A
| Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v7xNSgBkum7o "Pray"]
|[[MC Hammer]]
|Working hard and giving thanks.
|2
|Rap/Pop
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4OI0GUCI_A ''Obama Nation''] and its sequel [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFfoZaOJ5xo ''Obama Nation Part 3'']
|Lowkey
|A song sharply critical of [[Liberal]] president Barack Obama and his policies. Also criticises those that blindly follow him due to his race: 'It's the substance within, not the colour of your skin'
|N/A
|Rap
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wrsZog8qXg ''Such Great Heights'']
|The Postal Service
|Creationist/Biblical lyrics: ''"And I have to speculate that God himself did make us into corresponding shapes like puzzle pieces from the clay."''
|?
|Indie
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZZG4Pw-M58 ''The Dumber They Come'']
|Eddie Cantor
|A song about how [[Professor values|liberal college education]] destroys romance and femininity.
|?
|Vaudeville
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-MRrFWs--g ''Return to Oz'']
|Scissor Sisters
|A song about the connection between [[Homosexuality and Illegal Drug Use|homosexuality and illegal drug use]],<ref>http://dancemusic.about.com/od/artistshomepages/a/ScisSisIntBD.htm</ref> a subject that the [[lamestream media]] prefers not to talk about.
|?
|Glam Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM7H0ooV_o8 ''Brimful of Asha'']
|Cornershop
|A song which mocks big government: " We don't care about no Government warning/'Bout their promotion of the simple life/And the dams they're building"
|?
|Alternative Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qcMjKxt-dE ''53rd & 3rd'']
|The Ramones
|A song denouncing sodomy.
|?
|Punk
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHUsIU161w4 ''Feuer Frei'']
|Rammstein
|An anti-pacifist song which acknowledges that there's some merit in war.
|?
|Industrial
|}

Please add your best conservative picks.

== Debatable Whether Conservative ==

The top five in a poll of the greatest songs in the 20th century, according to the Recording Industry Association of America and the [[NEA]]:

*''Over the Rainbow'' (Judy Garland)
*''White Christmas'' (Bing Crosby)
*''Respect'' (Aretha Franklin)
*''American Pie'' (Don McLean)

Also questionable:

*''Hammer to Fall'' (Queen) - talks about being hopeful for the Soviet Union falling
*''Rocky Raccoon'' (Beatles) - has multiple references to Gideon's Bible
*''Been to Hell'' (Hollywood Undead)-Despite the large amount of swearing, it talks about the destructive nature of Hollywood, including how Hollywood and the quest for fame can cause someone to lose their faith. It also criticizes Hollywood values.
*''Only the Good Die Young'' (Billy Joel)-a boy tries to convince a Catholic girl to have sex with him rather than practice [[abstinence]]. Although it contains a lot of anti-religious dialogue (from the boy's perspective), in the end the girl holds true to her values, and nothing happens between them.
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5aMMRes2u4 ''Still the One''] by Orleans - a very good song about marital fidelity. However, one of the singers, [[John Hall]], later became a Democratic Congressman from New York and sued Republican presidential candidate [[John McCain]] over the use of the song in his campaign.

== References ==

<references/>

== See also ==

*[http://smartgirlpolitics.ning.com/group/support-conservative-entertainment Smart Girl Politics]

*[http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/lmnorton/2011/06/07/bigdawg-spotlight-on-the-in-word-the-antidote-to-liberal-arts-political-correctness Breitbart antidote to political correctness]

*[http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/lmnorton/2011/05/23/bigdawg-spotlight-on-urban-funk-rocker-toots-sweet-a-conservative-sound-in-a-liberal-town/ Urban funk rocker and a conservative sound]
{{Conservatism}}
[[Category:Essays]]
[[category:Music]]
[[Category:Essays about Conservatism]]

Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs

2013-06-24T01:40:27Z

NKeaton: Undo revision 1057817 by Markman (talk) No. I will not allow this on a family website.

There are many brilliant—and popular—conservative songs. Here is our growing list (click the box next to "Billboard Rank" to list the most popular first):

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Songs "Classic"
!Artist
!Comments
!Billboard Rank
!Category
|-
|''Living In America''
|[[James Brown]]
|Song that espouses the virtues of, and pride in, living in the United States. Appears in the movie "Rocky IV" and on the film's soundtrack.
|NA
|Classic/R&B/Funk
I-
|-"Sister Christian"
INight Ranger
IThis song advices the drummers sister to remain a virgin till she finds 'mr right'
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sEqzEgDZ0g "Ain't I Right"]
|[[Marty Robbins]]
|Song against Communism and socialism.
|NA
|Classic/Folk
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iT88jBAoVIM ''Amazing Grace'']
|[[John Newton]]
|A Christian hymn published in 1779.
|NA
|Classic/Spiritual
|-
|Amen
|Kid Rock
|Talks about "Stop living off handouts and favors". Written and performed by a republican.
|N/A
|Country/Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3S7mlRYL-8 America]
|Neil Diamond
|Freedom, Liberty, Patriotism
|8
|Classic/Pop
|-
|''America USA''
|Joey Sudyka
|Not very well known, perhaps, but a good patriotic song.
|NA
|Classic/Pop
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErPywgiMb4k ''Angry Young Man'']
|[[Billy Joel]]
|The doctrinaire leftist radical with "his fist in the air and his head in the sand" comes in for biting criticism.
|NA
|Classic/Pop
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4eonyfRet8&feature=related ''Back in the U.S.A.'']
|[[Chuck Berry]]
|A patriotic song about missing life in the U.S.A.
|Sixteen
|Classic/Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y5GDvN9_OE ''Ballad of the Green Berets'']
|Sergeant Barry Sadler
|Pro-American and pro-military.
|1
|Classic/Traditional
|-
|[http://youtu.be/r5Q8Xa0bPy8''Battle Hymn of the Republic'']
|[[Lee Greenwood]]
|"As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free."
|NA
|Classic/Traditional
|-
|''Bus Stop''
|The Hollies
|Pro-[[chivalry]], pro-romance and pro-marriage: "Someday my name and hers are going to be the same."
|5
|Classic
|-
|[http://youtu.be/cMfrLFirGWc ''Chapel of Love'']
|Dixie Cups
|Marriage in a church
|1
|Classic/Pop
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIF4U_QFSxQ ''Chores'']
|Animal Collective
|"Now I've got these chores / and I'm not gonna hurt no-one" -- Hard work is praised and violence is discouraged. A scary song for [[liberals]]!
|NA
|Classic/Traditional
|-
|''Country Trash''
|Johnny Cash
|In a comedic way, the song praises the small town conservative virtues of the people looked down upon by big city liberals as "Country trash"
|NA
|Classic/Country
|-
|[http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Crying-in-the-Chapel-lyrics-Elvis-Presley/E547D833F0BBFADF48256874002B3358 ''Crying In The Chapel'']
|[[Elvis Presley]]
|Pro-marriage
|1
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruNrdmjcNTc&ob=av2n''Courtesy of the Red, White & Blue (The Angry American)'']
|[[Toby Keith]]
|A patriotic response to the Sept. 11 attacks
|1 (Hot Country Songs)
|Classic/Country
|-
|''D-I-V-O-R-C-E''
|[[Tammy Wynette]]
|This sad song was a huge hit in 1968.
|1
|Classic/Country
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38oeBgvbMYA ''Don't Let 'Em Take Your Gun'']
|Grand Funk Railroad
|A father gives his son some sage advice.
|NA
|Classic/Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/v9BtLRWbkmA ''Don't Stop (Thinking About Tomorrow)'']
|Fleetwood Mac
|Used by Bill Clinton as his campaign theme song in 1992, but liberals often try to appeal to conservative themes for elections.
|3
|Classic/Rock
|-
|''Do You Hear the People Sing''
|Claude-Michel Schönberg
|Standing up to government in the name of freedom, from the musical ''Les Miserables''
|NA
|Classic
|-
|[http://youtu.be/5Jxnt-QY-j4 ''Game of Love'']
|Wayne Fontana and the Mindbenders
|"The purpose of a man is to love a woman, and the purpose of a woman is to love a man... It started long ago in the Garden of Eden when Adam said to Eve 'Baby, you're for me.'"
|1
|Classic/Pop
|-
|''Get a Job''
|The Silhouettes
|Self-explanatory; a rebuke to lazy [[liberals]] who want to sit around and wait for government handouts.
|1
|Classic
|-
|[http://youtu.be/4ZEE8utquP8 ''Get it Right the First Time'']
|Louisiana's LeRoux
|Wealthy Georgia politician is placed in high office and turns out to be a puppet with no ideas of his own. Released in 1980 when Jimmy Carter was up for re-election.
|NA
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzU2iJ9qfXg ''Gimme Back My Bullets'']
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|The name says it all.
|NA
|Classic/Rock
|-
|''Glory Hallelujah''
|Frank Turner
|Rejects those who say there is no God, insisting that never was the case
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-z5hD38Bs8Y''God Bless America'']
|Irving Berlin
|American patriotic, classic song.
|NA
|Classic/Traditional
|-
|''God and Guns''
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|A powerful new song that elaborates on the song title.
|NA
|Classic/Country
|-
|[http://www.scoutsongs.com/lyrics/proudtobeamerican.html ''God Bless the USA'']
|Lee Greenwood
|
|7 (Hot Country)
|Classic/Country
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP5EfwBWgg0&feature=related ''Go Down Moses'']
|[[Louis Armstrong]]
|
|NA
|Classic/Spiritual
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IStlBOX9F4o ''God's Gonna Cut You Down'']
|
|"Go tell that long tongue liar, go and tell that midnight rider, tell the rambler, the gambler, the back biter, tell 'em that God's gonna cut 'em down"
|NA
|Classic/Traditional
|-
|[http://www.cowboylyrics.com/lyrics/jones-george/gods-gonna-get-cha-for-that-6638.html ''God's Gonna Get 'Cha For That'']
|Tammy Wynette & George Jones
|You cannot escape God's gaze, no matter who you are
|Twenty-five
|Classic
|-
|''God Save the Queen''
|
|Despite being frighteningly atheistic, the British have enough sense to keep this God-inclusive song as their national anthem. The anthem rightly attributes the success and good fortune of the nation and its monarch to God.
|NA
|national anthem
|-
|[http://youtu.be/EgkBx8csEws ''Goodbye, Yellow Brick Road'']
|[[Elton John]]
|The same message as the [[Prodigal Son]]: look objectively at our own lives, and realize that "I should have listened to my old man."
|2
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/serve.html ''Gotta Serve Somebody'']
|[[Bob Dylan]]
|"It may be the devil or it may be the Lord."
|Twenty-four
|Classic/Folk
|-
|[http://www.ixlyrics.com/CLIVE-DUNN/GRANDAD.html ''Grandad'']
|Clive Dunn
|UK Number 1 hit, in praise of senior citizens and their values
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZVPv9B-ZlM ''Government Cheese'']
|The Rainmakers
|Humorous spoof of welfare.
|NA
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6yLQRF-cEU&ob=av2nHave You Forgotten?]
|Darryl Worley
|Patriotic response to [[September 11, 2001 attacks]]<ref>http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=15568</ref>
|1 (US Country)
|Classic/Country
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1KtScrqtbc "He Ain't Heavy, He's My Brother"]
|Hollies
|Repeats the slogan of Boys Town, a Christian charity for youngsters founded by Father Edward J. Flanagan in Omaha<ref>http://www.boystown.org/about/father-edward-|j-|flanagan</ref>
|NA
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0heL2Czeraw ''I Am America'']
|Krista Branch
|American [[Tea Party Movement]] Song
|NA
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16u0wwCfoJ4 ''I Fought the Law (and the Law Won)'']
|The Crickets
|Its title says it all. The version by ''The Clash'' has a particularly good tempo.
|9 (Bobby Fuller Four version)
|Classic
|-
|[http://youtu.be/OtZ5YsvREi4 ''In America'']
|The [[Charlie Daniels]] Band
|Patriotism makes a comeback in response to the Iran hostage crisis and Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
|Eleven
|Classic/Country
|-
|''I Saw The Light''
|Hank Williams
|Redemption of sin through faith.
|NA
|Classic/Country
|-
|''It's America''
|Rodney Atkins
|Celebrates the American spirit and all the good things about the United States.
|1 (US Country)
|Classic/Country
|-
|[http://www.justsomelyrics.com/767663/McCarthy-Keep-an-Open-Mind-or-Else-Lyrics ''Keep an Open Mind or Else'']
|McCarthy
|About the conservative value of keeping an [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|open mind]].
|NA
|Classic/Pop
|-
|''Last Kiss''
|Wayne Cochran and the C.C. Riders
|"Oh where oh where can my baby be; The Lord took her away from me; She's gone to heaven so I got to be good; So I can see my baby when."
|2 (J. Frank Wilson version)
|Classic
|-
|[http://youtu.be/BvPugOWeZiA ''Let It Be'']
|[[The Beatles]]
|Very popular in Russia under the Soviets
|1
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-1_d6bbM1I ''My Love'']
|[[Petula Clark]]
|A Christian love in secular form.
|1
|Classic
|-
|[http://youtu.be/kD5M_i6JceU ''Neighborhood Bully'']
|[[Bob Dylan]]
|Israel's right to exist and defend itself.
|NA
|Classic/Folk
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kZ0pA9REyU ''No Opportunity Necessary, No Experience Needed'']
|Richie Havens (Covered by Yes)
|"...I know your cross is heavier With every step Every step But I know a man who'd walk miles for you..."
|NA
|Classic/Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdZTKvNXxPA "Nothing Like You"]
|[[Miles Davis]] and Bob Dorough
|Celebrates the sight of ones beloved - Isaiah 43:4
|NA
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iYY2FQHFwE ''Okie From Muskogee'']
|[[Merle Haggard]]
|Anti-drug and anti-hippie; a song about praising the traditional American values in Mid-America. Was written in response to the Vietnam War protests and counter-culture movement.
|1 (Billboard Hot Country)
|Classic
|-
|''People Get Ready''
|Curtis Mayfield and the Impressions
|An all-time classic song about the glory of the [[Lord]].
|3
|Classic/Spiritual
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6XZDb045xU ''Red White & Blue (Love It or Leave)'']
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|"It was all based around this somewhat Utopian view of the world. The idea was that music would lift man up to a higher plane, and that world leaders, if they were able |to sit down on some big grassy knoll where the sun was shining and hear music..." Tom Johnston of LS
|Twenty-seven
|Classic/Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2lRcxlYx40''Renegade'']
|[[Steppenwolf]]
|[[John Kay]]'s childhood escape from Communist [[East Germany]].
|NA
|Classic/Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FOUqQt3Kg0''Respect'']
|Aretha Franklin
|This song is about respecting woman and their choices to be equal members in society.
|1
|Classic/Soul
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBohsCG8emk ''Simple Man'']
|[[Charlie Daniels]]
|A song about how drugs and poor politics are a result of people putting their Bibles down. Also a strongly pro death penalty song.
|Twelve
|Classic/Country/Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/RCqxq6xqoXI ''Sin City'']
|The Flying Burrito Brothers
|Attacks modern decadence and predicts divine punishment for sin.
|NA
|Classic/Country
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPPlGFh6OpQ ''Spirit In The Sky'']
|Norman Greenbaum
|A religious rock song written in 1969.
|3
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwBirf4BWew ''Stand By Your Man'']
|[[Tammy Wynette]]
|Don't expect [[feminists]] to like that one! Or [[Hillary Clinton]]!
|1 (Hot Country Singles)
|Classic/Country
|-
|''Star Spangled Banner''
|Francis Scott Key
|The American national anthem.
|NA
|Classic/Traditional
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8sUMv5sbW8 ''Star Spangled Banner'']
|Madison Rising
|The American national anthem, as performed by rock band Madison Rising, who put out a challenge to the American public to renew its intimacy with and understanding of the anthem and its patriotic message. [http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/you-havent-heard-this-star-spangled-banner/]
|NA
|Classic/Traditional/Rock
|-
|''Starting All Over Again''
|[[Petula Clark]]
|Keep moving onward, even in the most difficult of times.
|NA
|Classic/Traditional
|-
|''Stayin' Alive''
|[[The Bee Gees]]
|Pro-people and pro-staying alive, and this: "we can try to understand/the [[New York Times]]' effect on man."
|1
|Classic/Pop
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgrQST6VlnQ "Stay With Me"]
|[[Frank Sinatra]]
|Beautiful song of Christian faith.
|NA
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKdAVYKYZfo''Storm the Embassy'']
|The Stray Cats
|Another conservative song about the Iran hostage crisis. "Fifteen man taken captive in a hostile foreign land/Scorchin' sun beaming down onto miles and miles of sand..."
|NA
|Classic/Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCXiuqJ1E6g ''Supper's Ready'']
|[[Genesis (band)|Genesis]]
|''There's an angel standing in the sun, and he's crying with a loud voice, "This is the supper of the mighty one", Lord of Lords, King of Kings, Has returned to lead his |children home, To take them to the new Jerusalem.''
|NA
|Classic/Rock
|-
|''Sympathy for the Devil''
|The Rolling Stones
|Reminds humanity that evil is present in the world and needs to be fought.
|NA
|Classic/Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukUL_I14GPw''Take Me Home, Country Roads'']
|John Denver
|Celebrates Southern country landscape and traditions.
|2
|Classic/Folk
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Maz9ddxEQnM ''Taxman'']
|[[The Beatles]]
|George Harrison said, "Taxman was when I first realized that even though we had started earning money, we were actually giving most of it away in taxes."
|NA
|Classic/Rock
|-
|[http://youtube.com/p6q9nBusrq8 ''That Smell'']
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|A very strong anti-drug use song by America's most well-known Southern rock band.
|NA
|Classic/Country/Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeWZhuzFMM8 ''The Ascent of Stan'']
|[[Ben Folds]]
|Tells the story of a former "textbook hippie man" who realizes that he has become everything that he was protesting against.
|NA
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=6547 ''The Devil Went Down To Georgia'']
|[[Charlie Daniels]]
|A deeper message here, as Daniels explains.
|3
|Classic/Country
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHAFmFsb9XM&feature=related ''The Fightin' Side of Me'']
|Merle Haggard
|A song about patriotism and standing up for [[America]].
|1 (Hot Country Singles)
|Classic/Country
|-
|[http://youtu.be/fHvf20Y6eoM ''Turn, Turn, Turn'']
|The Byrds
|An almost word-for-word direct quotation from the [[Bible]], specifically [[Ecclesiastes]], with the addition of the refrain "Turn, Turn, Turn".
|1
|Classic/Folk
|-
|[http://youtu.be/C68J1tJM6vU ''Unborn Child'']
|Seals and Crofts
|This pro-life song was a hit single in 1974, but for some reason gets left off the Seals and Crofts greatest hits albums.
|sixty-six
|Classic/Folk
|-
|''Union Sundown''
|Bob Dylan
|The title says it all.
|NA
|Classic/Folk
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvkUXKyl5wY "Waiting List"]
|[[Dr. Octagon]]
|A powerful song about socialized medicine and rationing
|NA
|Hip-hop
|-
|''Way Out Here''
|Josh Thompson
|"Our house is all protected by the good Lord and a gun", and "We wont take a dime if we aint earned it, when it comes to weight, brother we pull our own". It is pro gun |ownership, the Lord, and hard work. Also preaches the morals and ethics that are known from small towns.
|Fifteen (US Country)
|Classic/Country
|-
|''We Must Take America Back''
|Steve Vaus
|Became an underground country music hit in 1992 after RCA dropped him and took the album out of print due to the political lyrics.
|NA
|Classic/Country
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mjWhMn-VnU ''The Well Below the Valley'']
|Traditional. Covered by Christy Moore
|Song loosely based on the story of [[Jesus]] and the woman at the well. Lyrics about old-fashioned family relationships and traditional attitudes to women. Promotes all children's right to life.
|NA
|Traditional/Folk
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nElc2vMU-b0 ''When You Love A Woman'']
|Journey
|True love from the heart
|Twelve
|Classic/Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yw5RkzbHb-w ''You Can't Hurry Love (You Just Have to Wait)'']
|The Supremes
|Abstinence for rock fans. Also performed by Phil Collins.
|1
|Classic
|-
|[http://youtu.be/lnk8SKD9zcA''You Light Up My Life'']
|Debby Boone
|One of the biggest hits ever, but [[liberals]] omit that this song is about [[Jesus]].
|1
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2UE5g72s0o ''Yours Is No Disgrace'']
|[[Yes]]
|Written to, and about, the troops headed for Vietnam.
|NA
|Classic/Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJfJPxLntZU ''Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition'']
|Written by Frank Loesser; made famous by Kay Kyser and His Orchestra
|A patriotic song written and published as sheet music in 1942; Kay Kyser's recording came out in 1943. This rousing tune is about a chaplain (called a "sky pilot" in the song) who is with some men on a warship in the heat of a battle. One of the soldiers asks the chaplain to pray for the men shooting at the enemy aircraft. In response, the chaplain puts down his Bible, mans one of the gun turrets on the ship, and begins firing at the planes himself, and tells the soldiers, "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition, and we'll all stay free!" Beyond the obvious pro-Christian and pro-American messages, it also tells us that sometimes, the Lord calls on us to put down the Bible and pick up our guns to defend the American way.
|1
|Patriotic/Jazz, Classic
|-
!Songs "Rock"
!Artist
!Comments
!Billboard Rank
!Category
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qjSmODTQsk ''A Dead Man's Words'']
|Queensrÿche
|No Man Left Behind. "The word we hear is there's one man down and he's alive. They ask for volunteers. I raise my hand high. I'm sure he'd do the same for me. It's three days through the desert heat to save one man's life and I don't even know his name."
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVsZap7WBm8 ''All In'']
|Lifehouse
|Describes a relationship with God as being full of commitment and without reservations.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TefSlVqENRM ''At 30,000 Ft.'']
|Queensrÿche
|Pro-soldier, pro-Iraqi/Afghanistan action. "Flaming oil blackens the sky. I don't know why...their hate is the reason for the Hell that I make."
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/bHpw6CzprNY ''Bad Rap (Who You Tryin' To Kid, Kid?)'']
|Steve Taylor
|Takes aim at LA, NYC and SF hipsters, the Village Voice, abortion, and "the left-wing band with their heads in the sand".
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.robertchristgau.com/get_artist.php?name=sex+pistols''Bodies'']
|The Sex Pistols
|Profane but graphically anti-abortion.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|''Critical Acclaim''
|Avenged Sevenfold
|Pro-America and pro-Military.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVOEoo1oXBs ''Declaration Day'']
|Iced Earth
|A song about the Revolutionary War.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRNrzgDHmQE ''Devil is a Loser'']
|Lordi
|About how actions have consequences, mixed with contempt for the devil and Satanists.
|NA
|Rock/Metal
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjJ9v__NyR0 ''Disparity by Design'']
|Rise Against
|Refers to the 'over-reaching arm' of the government, and considers whether welfare is a 'handout undeserved'. Also refers to the American ideal of 'pulling yourself up by your bootstraps'.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.lyricsfreak.com/p/pearl+jam/dissident_20106414.html ''Dissident'']
|Pearl Jam
|About a woman who engages in [[liberal values]] by being impregnated out of wedlock and having an abortion, but immediately regrets doing so.
|3
|Rock
|-
|[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIHuF8WvdFk ''Don't Tread On Me'']
|Metallica
|Tune about Gadsden flag
|N/A
|Metal
|-
|[http://youtu.be/K5N2WJ1szHE ''Father of Mine'']
|Everclear
|A reminder of the importance of good parenting. Everclear singer Art Alexakis wrote much of his material from his own perspective of a troubled childhood. At the end of |the song, Alexakis promises to be a better father than his own had been.
|4
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/zapGC2PrWiU ''Fair Exchange"]
|[[Kansas (band)|Kansas]]
|Warnings about totalitarian governments who want to take away your freedom in the name of utopia. Also much of their early 1980s material, which has Christian lyrics.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYRZt7xcwpY&feature=youtu.be "Freedom is Colorblind"]
|JoeDanMedia
|A song about how the left uses race to polarize the country. It is a conservative song that tries to unite the country.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hZsG1ikgK8 ''Hundred Mile Stare'']
|Queensrÿche
|Pro-soldier, freedom. "What ever happened to conviction and faith? People trip from side to side; don't know which way or what side to take. Always known the truth. It's really black and white. I've got no fear of judgment when it's time to fight."
|NA
|Rock
|-
|''Iraq No Phobia''
|Pro-Pain
|It is a pro-American, pro-military heavy metal song about the first [[Gulf War]]: ''"Mohammed's no match for the great Uncle Sam."''
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b71clnfgyts ''No Son of Mine'']
|Genesis
|
|Twelve
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzEhnBdOTAM "ONE TEA PARTY"]
|[[Toot Sweet]]
|This song is a metaphoric call to energize, motivate and unite the movement that we are all passionate about... the time is now to stand together, united, "AS ONE".
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/wDrRVlm5HOw "Prayer for America"]
|JoeDanMedia
|A short history lesson put to music regarding our schools and how the Bible was taught there in previous years.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|''Welcome to the Family''
|Avenged Sevenfold
|A song about death row, although not anti-death penalty.
|8
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/wq160PIYjHo "No Rules for Radicals"]
|JoeDanMedia
|This song highlights "rules" Saul Alinsky wrote about in his progressive-liberal book, 'Rules for Radicals'.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|''Real American''
|Rick Derringer
|Patriotic anthem, known as [[Hulk Hogan]]'s pre-match song.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/FAvQSkK8Z8U ''Red Barchetta'']
|[[Rush]]
|Tells the story of a future with excessive regulation, where even driving is illegal.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcT3sIBRv_I ''Sliver'']
|Queensrÿche
|Pro-soldier, bravery. "It's time to sack up and let go of your mothers. Take your gun, it's the cross that's carried by your brothers."
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=096LhjGNNCk ''Something For Nothing'']
|Rush
|"You can't get something for nothing, you can't have freedom for free."
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sticXkHxZC4 ''I've Seen Footage'']
|Death Grips
|Profane. Criticizes the glorification of violence by the mainstream media.
|NA
|Hip Hop
|-
|[http://youtu.be/cnijc9wNpV4 ''Sparks of the Tempest'']
|[[Kansas (band)|Kansas]]
|Warnings about totalitarian governments who want to take away your freedom in the name of utopia. Also much of their early 1980s material, which has Christian lyrics.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|''Stranger in Blue Suede Shoes''
|Kevin Ayers
|Defends the right of businessmen to choose their customers: "we don't serve strangers in blue suede shoes."
|NA
|Rock
|-
|''The Big Money''
|Rush
|Pro-[[capitalism]]
|forty-five
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY_6b4-N9Uo ''Ticket to Ride'']
|[[The Beatles]]
|Lyrics describe anti-feminist attitude
|1
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQYpF2pCkLI ''My Body'']
|Young the Giant
|''"My body tells me no / But I won't quit / Cause I want more"'' — Powerful chorus describes how the singer defies his body's physical desire to stop working and continue working hard because he wants to reap the rewards he has earned from his hard work. It describes conservative traits (persevering with hard work) and capitalistic ideals (wanting the rewards you worked for; working past your limit because you have proper incentive).
|65
|Alternative
|-
!Songs "Spiritual"
!Artist
!Comments
!Billboard Rank
!Category
|-
|[http://youtu.be/iq10bz3PxyY ''Christmas Shoes'']
|NewSong
|A Christmas song by a Christian band.
|NA
|Spiritual
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoaH0I9UwLI ''Your Love Is Extravagant'']
|Casting Crowns
|
|NA
|Spiritual
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnnhYE1DhC4 ''What If His People Prayed'']
|Casting Crowns
|
|NA
|Spiritual
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA_H6C8iLPA ''Liberalism is a Mental Disorder'']
|The Infidel (Gregory Van Leer Jr.) with an opening from [[Michael Savage]]
|Clearly attacks [[liberal values]].
|NA
|Rap
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h1oRP7FfBw ''Sunny Afternoon'']
|The Kinks
|About a rich man trying to enjoy the simple things in life because the nanny-state has nearly bankrupted him.
|Fourteen
|Rock
|-
|''2+2=5 (The Lukewarm)''
|Radiohead
|A song chastising people for accepting the mainstream medias version of events and not paying attention.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|''No Children''
|The Mountain Goats
|A song about a marriage falling apart because the couple has no children to hold the family together.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuUmLIPSasI ''God Loves My Country'']
|Balthrop, Alabama
|A song that declares that God loves America most of all.
|NA
|Folk
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zZE0SrkyNE&ob=av2n ''Where'd You Go'']
|Fort Minor
|Shows the hardship of divorce, liberal values, and the possible future of the families of our service men who could be forced to serve in Libya.
|NA
|Rap
|-
|''Patriotism''
|Company Flow
|While containing bad language it endorses the US as a super-power.
|NA
|Rap
|-
|''Tribute''
|Tenacious D
|Comedy single, but it's also a very popular song about overcoming Satan and alludes to many other Christian themes such as heaven and hell.
|4
|Rock/folk
|-
|''For Martha''
|The Smashing Pumpkins
|Being torn between the anguish of losing a lost one and the joy of knowing you will one day reunite them with in heaven
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDIGzzeQjaE ''Dethharmonic'']
|Dethklok
|Anti-tax
|NA
|Rock
|-
|''Get Over It''
|The Eagles
|Written by Don Henley (who is a liberal) about his frustration of people blaming others for their own problems and believing the world owes them a favor ''"the big bad |world doesn't owe you a thing,"''
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR6oYX1D-0w "I Need A Dollar"]
|Aloe Blacc
|"Please Mr.Bossman I need this job more than you can know" - an excellent paean to the plights of unemployment
|NA
|Pop/Soul
|-
|[http://youtu.be/RlOQBGjkm78 "Extra Extra"]
|[[Toots Sweet]]
|Toots does a great job at making the clips entertaining as well as informative.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yq8zn15EPE "Somebody Must Be Prayin' For Me]
|[[Tim McGraw]]
|Song about prayer and how it is a necessary part of everyday life.
|NA
|Spiritual/Country
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNTUADEhC8Q"The List"]
|The Right Brothers
|A song that melodically lists liberal activists.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/8uxAT6dzKSM "We the People"]
|[[Toots Sweet]]
|A song about the Constitution and how the current administration has been abusing the beloved document we are trying to live by.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/AA1aHrfxgEg "Shut up and Teach"]
|The Right Brothers
|Liberal indoctrination runs rampant in our schools. Song expresses the desire to stick to a non-partisan curriculum.
| NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/ROdsgYyheM4 "On Fire"]
|Switchfoot
|This song is about keeping the faith, in people and in our religion.
|NA
|Spiritual
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pldyz9VS2yY ''Under God'']
|[[Pat Boone]]
|
|NA
|Spiritual
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EBiei21-C8 ''King Without a Crown'']
|Matisyahu
|A Hasidic Jew raps about God as the source of happiness and salvation from the things of this world: "If you're drowning in the waters and you can't stay afloat ask |Hashem for mercy and He'll throw you a rope."
|7 (Hot Modern Rock Tracks)
|Spiritual
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl6yilkU1LI ''Fast Car'']
|Tracy Chapman
|Self-help, free market, division of labor, and a criticism of alcohol. "I know things will get better/You'll find work and I'll get promoted/We'll move out of the |shelter/Buy a bigger house and live in the suburbs"
|6
|Folk
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDK9QqIzhwk ''Livin' on a Prayer'']
|Bon Jovi
|Organized labor is harmful to the welfare of workers, who turn to prayer.
|1
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/o-z2D9lo9-8 ''Bush Was Right'']
|The Right Brothers
|Celebrating the Bush Administration's success and policies.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDSK98Y2FNg "Stop Global Whining"]
|The Right Brothers
|Anti-Global Warming hoax song.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqXAW2snGMI ''Capitalism'']
|Oingo Boingo
|There's nothing wrong with free enterprise.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dHthaNNnds Keep On Loving You]
|REO Speedwagon
|Love overcomes infidelity "When I said that I love you I meant That I love you forever."
|1
|Pop
|-
|[http://youtu.be/oHg5SJYRHA0 ''Sweet Home Alabama'']
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|A response to hippie culture. Defends Southerners from stereotyped attacks by [[liberal]], Canadian rocker Neil Young. "Well, I hope Neil Young will remember/A Southern |man don't need him around anyhow."
|8
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.songmeanings.net/songs/view/3530822107858733660/ ''What's The Use Of Wond'rin?'']
|Amanda Palmer
|Celebrates the command: "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord." -Ephesians 5:22
|NA
|Spiritual
|-
|[http://youtu.be/Ke-r2K0ymWc ''Lightning Crashes'']
|Live
|The joy and significance of childbirth.
|1
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJprEyXMrIk''Takin' Care of Business'']
|Bachman-Turner Overdrive
|The work ethic and promoting self-employment.
|Twelve
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-s5r2sp''Cat's In The Cradle'']
|Harry Chapin
|The importance of traditional families and responsible fatherhood.
|1
|Folk
|-
|[http://youtu.be/bCFWyLwcR6E ''Thank You My Lord'']
|[[Petula Clark]]
|The title says it all.
|NA
|Spiritual
|-
|[http://youtu.be/7NJMTmz7pkg ''Brick'']
|Ben Folds Five
|Shows the regret involved in abortion.
|6 (Modern Rock Tracks)
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/Dw6qmYX1ny4 ''Alive'']
|P.O.D.
|About being thankful for the gift of life.
|2 (US Alternative)
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_iNdbPvrYk ''Jesus Christ'']
|Brand New
|The singer turns to God for advice and assurance.
|thirty (Hot Modern Rock Tracks
|Spiritual
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lydBPm2KRaU ''Jesus, Take The Wheel'']
|[[Carrie Underwood]]
|A gospel-themed hit from the American Idol winner.
|1 (US Country)
|Country
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPBwXKgDTdE ''Mine'']
|[[Taylor Swift]]
|Talks about how her parents stooped to [[liberal values]] and got divorced, and how she doesn't want that to happen with the guy she meets, dates, and marries.
|1 (US Adult Contemporary)
|Pop/Country
|-
| I Won't Back down
| Tom Petty
| Talks about not backing down from a fight. Can be compared to not losing the Iraq War.
|N/A
| Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v7xNSgBkum7o "Pray"]
|[[MC Hammer]]
|Working hard and giving thanks.
|2
|Rap/Pop
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4OI0GUCI_A ''Obama Nation''] and its sequel [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFfoZaOJ5xo ''Obama Nation Part 3'']
|Lowkey
|A song sharply critical of [[Liberal]] president Barack Obama and his policies. Also criticises those that blindly follow him due to his race: 'It's the substance within, not the colour of your skin'
|N/A
|Rap
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wrsZog8qXg ''Such Great Heights'']
|The Postal Service
|Creationist/Biblical lyrics: ''"And I have to speculate that God himself did make us into corresponding shapes like puzzle pieces from the clay."''
|?
|Indie
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZZG4Pw-M58 ''The Dumber They Come'']
|Eddie Cantor
|A song about how [[Professor values|liberal college education]] destroys romance and femininity.
|?
|Vaudeville
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-MRrFWs--g ''Return to Oz'']
|Scissor Sisters
|A song about the connection between [[Homosexuality and Illegal Drug Use|homosexuality and illegal drug use]],<ref>http://dancemusic.about.com/od/artistshomepages/a/ScisSisIntBD.htm</ref> a subject that the [[lamestream media]] prefers not to talk about.
|?
|Glam Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM7H0ooV_o8 ''Brimful of Asha'']
|Cornershop
|A song which mocks big government: " We don't care about no Government warning/'Bout their promotion of the simple life/And the dams they're building"
|?
|Alternative Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qcMjKxt-dE ''53rd & 3rd'']
|The Ramones
|A song denouncing sodomy.
|?
|Punk
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HUGeA2lur4 ''Beat On the Brat'']
|The Ramones
|A song acknowledging the fact that sometimes [[corporal punishment]] is necessary in order to discipline children.
|?
|Punk
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT9PVYE30jo ''Mann Gegen Mann'']
|Rammstein
|A song describing homosexuality exactly as it is - a loveless lifestyle in which one's fellow human beings are no more than mere sexual objects.<ref>An English translation of its lyrics can be seen [http://herzeleid.com/en/lyrics/rosenrot/mann_gegen_mann here].</ref>
|?
|Industrial
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHUsIU161w4 ''Feuer Frei'']
|Rammstein
|An anti-pacifist song which acknowledges that there's some merit in war.
|?
|Industrial
|}

Please add your best conservative picks.

== Debatable Whether Conservative ==

The top five in a poll of the greatest songs in the 20th century, according to the Recording Industry Association of America and the [[NEA]]:

*''Over the Rainbow'' (Judy Garland)
*''White Christmas'' (Bing Crosby)
*''Respect'' (Aretha Franklin)
*''American Pie'' (Don McLean)

Also questionable:

*''Hammer to Fall'' (Queen) - talks about being hopeful for the Soviet Union falling
*''Rocky Raccoon'' (Beatles) - has multiple references to Gideon's Bible
*''Been to Hell'' (Hollywood Undead)-Despite the large amount of swearing, it talks about the destructive nature of Hollywood, including how Hollywood and the quest for fame can cause someone to lose their faith. It also criticizes Hollywood values.
*''Only the Good Die Young'' (Billy Joel)-a boy tries to convince a Catholic girl to have sex with him rather than practice [[abstinence]]. Although it contains a lot of anti-religious dialogue (from the boy's perspective), in the end the girl holds true to her values, and nothing happens between them.
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5aMMRes2u4 ''Still the One''] by Orleans - a very good song about marital fidelity. However, one of the singers, [[John Hall]], later became a Democratic Congressman from New York and sued Republican presidential candidate [[John McCain]] over the use of the song in his campaign.

== References ==

<references/>

== See also ==

*[http://smartgirlpolitics.ning.com/group/support-conservative-entertainment Smart Girl Politics]

*[http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/lmnorton/2011/06/07/bigdawg-spotlight-on-the-in-word-the-antidote-to-liberal-arts-political-correctness Breitbart antidote to political correctness]

*[http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/lmnorton/2011/05/23/bigdawg-spotlight-on-urban-funk-rocker-toots-sweet-a-conservative-sound-in-a-liberal-town/ Urban funk rocker and a conservative sound]
{{Conservatism}}
[[Category:Essays]]
[[category:Music]]
[[Category:Essays about Conservatism]]

Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs

2013-06-24T01:30:24Z

NKeaton: Undo revision 1057811 by Markman (talk) The lyrics at this links are also pornographic. This is an outrage. Stop adding pornography.

Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs

2013-06-24T01:16:09Z

NKeaton: Undo revision 1057809 by Markman (talk) Removing gay pornography that Markman put right back in the article.

Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs

2013-06-24T01:12:03Z

NKeaton: No. That's not what it's about and we don't punish children with baseball bats. Oh my goodness.

Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs

2013-06-24T01:10:39Z

NKeaton: Markman is now adding gay pornography to a site children look at. Someone do something about this guy.

There are many brilliant—and popular—conservative songs. Here is our growing list (click the box next to "Billboard Rank" to list the most popular first):

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Songs "Classic"
!Artist
!Comments
!Billboard Rank
!Category
|-
|''Living In America''
|[[James Brown]]
|Song that espouses the virtues of, and pride in, living in the United States. Appears in the movie "Rocky IV" and on the film's soundtrack.
|NA
|Classic/R&B/Funk
I-
|-"Sister Christian"
INight Ranger
IThis song advices the drummers sister to remain a virgin till she finds 'mr right'
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sEqzEgDZ0g "Ain't I Right"]
|[[Marty Robbins]]
|Song against Communism and socialism.
|NA
|Classic/Folk
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iT88jBAoVIM ''Amazing Grace'']
|[[John Newton]]
|A Christian hymn published in 1779.
|NA
|Classic/Spiritual
|-
|Amen
|Kid Rock
|Talks about "Stop living off handouts and favors". Written and performed by a republican.
|N/A
|Country/Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3S7mlRYL-8 America]
|Neil Diamond
|Freedom, Liberty, Patriotism
|8
|Classic/Pop
|-
|''America USA''
|Joey Sudyka
|Not very well known, perhaps, but a good patriotic song.
|NA
|Classic/Pop
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErPywgiMb4k ''Angry Young Man'']
|[[Billy Joel]]
|The doctrinaire leftist radical with "his fist in the air and his head in the sand" comes in for biting criticism.
|NA
|Classic/Pop
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4eonyfRet8&feature=related ''Back in the U.S.A.'']
|[[Chuck Berry]]
|A patriotic song about missing life in the U.S.A.
|Sixteen
|Classic/Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y5GDvN9_OE ''Ballad of the Green Berets'']
|Sergeant Barry Sadler
|Pro-American and pro-military.
|1
|Classic/Traditional
|-
|[http://youtu.be/r5Q8Xa0bPy8''Battle Hymn of the Republic'']
|[[Lee Greenwood]]
|"As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free."
|NA
|Classic/Traditional
|-
|''Bus Stop''
|The Hollies
|Pro-[[chivalry]], pro-romance and pro-marriage: "Someday my name and hers are going to be the same."
|5
|Classic
|-
|[http://youtu.be/cMfrLFirGWc ''Chapel of Love'']
|Dixie Cups
|Marriage in a church
|1
|Classic/Pop
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIF4U_QFSxQ ''Chores'']
|Animal Collective
|"Now I've got these chores / and I'm not gonna hurt no-one" -- Hard work is praised and violence is discouraged. A scary song for [[liberals]]!
|NA
|Classic/Traditional
|-
|''Country Trash''
|Johnny Cash
|In a comedic way, the song praises the small town conservative virtues of the people looked down upon by big city liberals as "Country trash"
|NA
|Classic/Country
|-
|[http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Crying-in-the-Chapel-lyrics-Elvis-Presley/E547D833F0BBFADF48256874002B3358 ''Crying In The Chapel'']
|[[Elvis Presley]]
|Pro-marriage
|1
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruNrdmjcNTc&ob=av2n''Courtesy of the Red, White & Blue (The Angry American)'']
|[[Toby Keith]]
|A patriotic response to the Sept. 11 attacks
|1 (Hot Country Songs)
|Classic/Country
|-
|''D-I-V-O-R-C-E''
|[[Tammy Wynette]]
|This sad song was a huge hit in 1968.
|1
|Classic/Country
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38oeBgvbMYA ''Don't Let 'Em Take Your Gun'']
|Grand Funk Railroad
|A father gives his son some sage advice.
|NA
|Classic/Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/v9BtLRWbkmA ''Don't Stop (Thinking About Tomorrow)'']
|Fleetwood Mac
|Used by Bill Clinton as his campaign theme song in 1992, but liberals often try to appeal to conservative themes for elections.
|3
|Classic/Rock
|-
|''Do You Hear the People Sing''
|Claude-Michel Schönberg
|Standing up to government in the name of freedom, from the musical ''Les Miserables''
|NA
|Classic
|-
|[http://youtu.be/5Jxnt-QY-j4 ''Game of Love'']
|Wayne Fontana and the Mindbenders
|"The purpose of a man is to love a woman, and the purpose of a woman is to love a man... It started long ago in the Garden of Eden when Adam said to Eve 'Baby, you're for me.'"
|1
|Classic/Pop
|-
|''Get a Job''
|The Silhouettes
|Self-explanatory; a rebuke to lazy [[liberals]] who want to sit around and wait for government handouts.
|1
|Classic
|-
|[http://youtu.be/4ZEE8utquP8 ''Get it Right the First Time'']
|Louisiana's LeRoux
|Wealthy Georgia politician is placed in high office and turns out to be a puppet with no ideas of his own. Released in 1980 when Jimmy Carter was up for re-election.
|NA
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzU2iJ9qfXg ''Gimme Back My Bullets'']
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|The name says it all.
|NA
|Classic/Rock
|-
|''Glory Hallelujah''
|Frank Turner
|Rejects those who say there is no God, insisting that never was the case
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-z5hD38Bs8Y''God Bless America'']
|Irving Berlin
|American patriotic, classic song.
|NA
|Classic/Traditional
|-
|''God and Guns''
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|A powerful new song that elaborates on the song title.
|NA
|Classic/Country
|-
|[http://www.scoutsongs.com/lyrics/proudtobeamerican.html ''God Bless the USA'']
|Lee Greenwood
|
|7 (Hot Country)
|Classic/Country
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP5EfwBWgg0&feature=related ''Go Down Moses'']
|[[Louis Armstrong]]
|
|NA
|Classic/Spiritual
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IStlBOX9F4o ''God's Gonna Cut You Down'']
|
|"Go tell that long tongue liar, go and tell that midnight rider, tell the rambler, the gambler, the back biter, tell 'em that God's gonna cut 'em down"
|NA
|Classic/Traditional
|-
|[http://www.cowboylyrics.com/lyrics/jones-george/gods-gonna-get-cha-for-that-6638.html ''God's Gonna Get 'Cha For That'']
|Tammy Wynette & George Jones
|You cannot escape God's gaze, no matter who you are
|Twenty-five
|Classic
|-
|''God Save the Queen''
|
|Despite being frighteningly atheistic, the British have enough sense to keep this God-inclusive song as their national anthem. The anthem rightly attributes the success and good fortune of the nation and its monarch to God.
|NA
|national anthem
|-
|[http://youtu.be/EgkBx8csEws ''Goodbye, Yellow Brick Road'']
|[[Elton John]]
|The same message as the [[Prodigal Son]]: look objectively at our own lives, and realize that "I should have listened to my old man."
|2
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/serve.html ''Gotta Serve Somebody'']
|[[Bob Dylan]]
|"It may be the devil or it may be the Lord."
|Twenty-four
|Classic/Folk
|-
|[http://www.ixlyrics.com/CLIVE-DUNN/GRANDAD.html ''Grandad'']
|Clive Dunn
|UK Number 1 hit, in praise of senior citizens and their values
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZVPv9B-ZlM ''Government Cheese'']
|The Rainmakers
|Humorous spoof of welfare.
|NA
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6yLQRF-cEU&ob=av2nHave You Forgotten?]
|Darryl Worley
|Patriotic response to [[September 11, 2001 attacks]]<ref>http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=15568</ref>
|1 (US Country)
|Classic/Country
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1KtScrqtbc "He Ain't Heavy, He's My Brother"]
|Hollies
|Repeats the slogan of Boys Town, a Christian charity for youngsters founded by Father Edward J. Flanagan in Omaha<ref>http://www.boystown.org/about/father-edward-|j-|flanagan</ref>
|NA
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0heL2Czeraw ''I Am America'']
|Krista Branch
|American [[Tea Party Movement]] Song
|NA
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16u0wwCfoJ4 ''I Fought the Law (and the Law Won)'']
|The Crickets
|Its title says it all. The version by ''The Clash'' has a particularly good tempo.
|9 (Bobby Fuller Four version)
|Classic
|-
|[http://youtu.be/OtZ5YsvREi4 ''In America'']
|The [[Charlie Daniels]] Band
|Patriotism makes a comeback in response to the Iran hostage crisis and Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
|Eleven
|Classic/Country
|-
|''I Saw The Light''
|Hank Williams
|Redemption of sin through faith.
|NA
|Classic/Country
|-
|''It's America''
|Rodney Atkins
|Celebrates the American spirit and all the good things about the United States.
|1 (US Country)
|Classic/Country
|-
|[http://www.justsomelyrics.com/767663/McCarthy-Keep-an-Open-Mind-or-Else-Lyrics ''Keep an Open Mind or Else'']
|McCarthy
|About the conservative value of keeping an [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|open mind]].
|NA
|Classic/Pop
|-
|''Last Kiss''
|Wayne Cochran and the C.C. Riders
|"Oh where oh where can my baby be; The Lord took her away from me; She's gone to heaven so I got to be good; So I can see my baby when."
|2 (J. Frank Wilson version)
|Classic
|-
|[http://youtu.be/BvPugOWeZiA ''Let It Be'']
|[[The Beatles]]
|Very popular in Russia under the Soviets
|1
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-1_d6bbM1I ''My Love'']
|[[Petula Clark]]
|A Christian love in secular form.
|1
|Classic
|-
|[http://youtu.be/kD5M_i6JceU ''Neighborhood Bully'']
|[[Bob Dylan]]
|Israel's right to exist and defend itself.
|NA
|Classic/Folk
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kZ0pA9REyU ''No Opportunity Necessary, No Experience Needed'']
|Richie Havens (Covered by Yes)
|"...I know your cross is heavier With every step Every step But I know a man who'd walk miles for you..."
|NA
|Classic/Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdZTKvNXxPA "Nothing Like You"]
|[[Miles Davis]] and Bob Dorough
|Celebrates the sight of ones beloved - Isaiah 43:4
|NA
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iYY2FQHFwE ''Okie From Muskogee'']
|[[Merle Haggard]]
|Anti-drug and anti-hippie; a song about praising the traditional American values in Mid-America. Was written in response to the Vietnam War protests and counter-culture movement.
|1 (Billboard Hot Country)
|Classic
|-
|''People Get Ready''
|Curtis Mayfield and the Impressions
|An all-time classic song about the glory of the [[Lord]].
|3
|Classic/Spiritual
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6XZDb045xU ''Red White & Blue (Love It or Leave)'']
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|"It was all based around this somewhat Utopian view of the world. The idea was that music would lift man up to a higher plane, and that world leaders, if they were able |to sit down on some big grassy knoll where the sun was shining and hear music..." Tom Johnston of LS
|Twenty-seven
|Classic/Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2lRcxlYx40''Renegade'']
|[[Steppenwolf]]
|[[John Kay]]'s childhood escape from Communist [[East Germany]].
|NA
|Classic/Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FOUqQt3Kg0''Respect'']
|Aretha Franklin
|This song is about respecting woman and their choices to be equal members in society.
|1
|Classic/Soul
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBohsCG8emk ''Simple Man'']
|[[Charlie Daniels]]
|A song about how drugs and poor politics are a result of people putting their Bibles down. Also a strongly pro death penalty song.
|Twelve
|Classic/Country/Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/RCqxq6xqoXI ''Sin City'']
|The Flying Burrito Brothers
|Attacks modern decadence and predicts divine punishment for sin.
|NA
|Classic/Country
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPPlGFh6OpQ ''Spirit In The Sky'']
|Norman Greenbaum
|A religious rock song written in 1969.
|3
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwBirf4BWew ''Stand By Your Man'']
|[[Tammy Wynette]]
|Don't expect [[feminists]] to like that one! Or [[Hillary Clinton]]!
|1 (Hot Country Singles)
|Classic/Country
|-
|''Star Spangled Banner''
|Francis Scott Key
|The American national anthem.
|NA
|Classic/Traditional
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8sUMv5sbW8 ''Star Spangled Banner'']
|Madison Rising
|The American national anthem, as performed by rock band Madison Rising, who put out a challenge to the American public to renew its intimacy with and understanding of the anthem and its patriotic message. [http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/you-havent-heard-this-star-spangled-banner/]
|NA
|Classic/Traditional/Rock
|-
|''Starting All Over Again''
|[[Petula Clark]]
|Keep moving onward, even in the most difficult of times.
|NA
|Classic/Traditional
|-
|''Stayin' Alive''
|[[The Bee Gees]]
|Pro-people and pro-staying alive, and this: "we can try to understand/the [[New York Times]]' effect on man."
|1
|Classic/Pop
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgrQST6VlnQ "Stay With Me"]
|[[Frank Sinatra]]
|Beautiful song of Christian faith.
|NA
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKdAVYKYZfo''Storm the Embassy'']
|The Stray Cats
|Another conservative song about the Iran hostage crisis. "Fifteen man taken captive in a hostile foreign land/Scorchin' sun beaming down onto miles and miles of sand..."
|NA
|Classic/Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCXiuqJ1E6g ''Supper's Ready'']
|[[Genesis (band)|Genesis]]
|''There's an angel standing in the sun, and he's crying with a loud voice, "This is the supper of the mighty one", Lord of Lords, King of Kings, Has returned to lead his |children home, To take them to the new Jerusalem.''
|NA
|Classic/Rock
|-
|''Sympathy for the Devil''
|The Rolling Stones
|Reminds humanity that evil is present in the world and needs to be fought.
|NA
|Classic/Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukUL_I14GPw''Take Me Home, Country Roads'']
|John Denver
|Celebrates Southern country landscape and traditions.
|2
|Classic/Folk
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Maz9ddxEQnM ''Taxman'']
|[[The Beatles]]
|George Harrison said, "Taxman was when I first realized that even though we had started earning money, we were actually giving most of it away in taxes."
|NA
|Classic/Rock
|-
|[http://youtube.com/p6q9nBusrq8 ''That Smell'']
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|A very strong anti-drug use song by America's most well-known Southern rock band.
|NA
|Classic/Country/Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeWZhuzFMM8 ''The Ascent of Stan'']
|[[Ben Folds]]
|Tells the story of a former "textbook hippie man" who realizes that he has become everything that he was protesting against.
|NA
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=6547 ''The Devil Went Down To Georgia'']
|[[Charlie Daniels]]
|A deeper message here, as Daniels explains.
|3
|Classic/Country
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHAFmFsb9XM&feature=related ''The Fightin' Side of Me'']
|Merle Haggard
|A song about patriotism and standing up for [[America]].
|1 (Hot Country Singles)
|Classic/Country
|-
|[http://youtu.be/fHvf20Y6eoM ''Turn, Turn, Turn'']
|The Byrds
|An almost word-for-word direct quotation from the [[Bible]], specifically [[Ecclesiastes]], with the addition of the refrain "Turn, Turn, Turn".
|1
|Classic/Folk
|-
|[http://youtu.be/C68J1tJM6vU ''Unborn Child'']
|Seals and Crofts
|This pro-life song was a hit single in 1974, but for some reason gets left off the Seals and Crofts greatest hits albums.
|sixty-six
|Classic/Folk
|-
|''Union Sundown''
|Bob Dylan
|The title says it all.
|NA
|Classic/Folk
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvkUXKyl5wY "Waiting List"]
|[[Dr. Octagon]]
|A powerful song about socialized medicine and rationing
|NA
|Hip-hop
|-
|''Way Out Here''
|Josh Thompson
|"Our house is all protected by the good Lord and a gun", and "We wont take a dime if we aint earned it, when it comes to weight, brother we pull our own". It is pro gun |ownership, the Lord, and hard work. Also preaches the morals and ethics that are known from small towns.
|Fifteen (US Country)
|Classic/Country
|-
|''We Must Take America Back''
|Steve Vaus
|Became an underground country music hit in 1992 after RCA dropped him and took the album out of print due to the political lyrics.
|NA
|Classic/Country
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mjWhMn-VnU ''The Well Below the Valley'']
|Traditional. Covered by Christy Moore
|Song loosely based on the story of [[Jesus]] and the woman at the well. Lyrics about old-fashioned family relationships and traditional attitudes to women. Promotes all children's right to life.
|NA
|Traditional/Folk
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nElc2vMU-b0 ''When You Love A Woman'']
|Journey
|True love from the heart
|Twelve
|Classic/Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yw5RkzbHb-w ''You Can't Hurry Love (You Just Have to Wait)'']
|The Supremes
|Abstinence for rock fans. Also performed by Phil Collins.
|1
|Classic
|-
|[http://youtu.be/lnk8SKD9zcA''You Light Up My Life'']
|Debby Boone
|One of the biggest hits ever, but [[liberals]] omit that this song is about [[Jesus]].
|1
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2UE5g72s0o ''Yours Is No Disgrace'']
|[[Yes]]
|Written to, and about, the troops headed for Vietnam.
|NA
|Classic/Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJfJPxLntZU ''Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition'']
|Written by Frank Loesser; made famous by Kay Kyser and His Orchestra
|A patriotic song written and published as sheet music in 1942; Kay Kyser's recording came out in 1943. This rousing tune is about a chaplain (called a "sky pilot" in the song) who is with some men on a warship in the heat of a battle. One of the soldiers asks the chaplain to pray for the men shooting at the enemy aircraft. In response, the chaplain puts down his Bible, mans one of the gun turrets on the ship, and begins firing at the planes himself, and tells the soldiers, "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition, and we'll all stay free!" Beyond the obvious pro-Christian and pro-American messages, it also tells us that sometimes, the Lord calls on us to put down the Bible and pick up our guns to defend the American way.
|1
|Patriotic/Jazz, Classic
|-
!Songs "Rock"
!Artist
!Comments
!Billboard Rank
!Category
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qjSmODTQsk ''A Dead Man's Words'']
|Queensrÿche
|No Man Left Behind. "The word we hear is there's one man down and he's alive. They ask for volunteers. I raise my hand high. I'm sure he'd do the same for me. It's three days through the desert heat to save one man's life and I don't even know his name."
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVsZap7WBm8 ''All In'']
|Lifehouse
|Describes a relationship with God as being full of commitment and without reservations.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TefSlVqENRM ''At 30,000 Ft.'']
|Queensrÿche
|Pro-soldier, pro-Iraqi/Afghanistan action. "Flaming oil blackens the sky. I don't know why...their hate is the reason for the Hell that I make."
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/bHpw6CzprNY ''Bad Rap (Who You Tryin' To Kid, Kid?)'']
|Steve Taylor
|Takes aim at LA, NYC and SF hipsters, the Village Voice, abortion, and "the left-wing band with their heads in the sand".
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.robertchristgau.com/get_artist.php?name=sex+pistols''Bodies'']
|The Sex Pistols
|Profane but graphically anti-abortion.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|''Critical Acclaim''
|Avenged Sevenfold
|Pro-America and pro-Military.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVOEoo1oXBs ''Declaration Day'']
|Iced Earth
|A song about the Revolutionary War.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRNrzgDHmQE ''Devil is a Loser'']
|Lordi
|About how actions have consequences, mixed with contempt for the devil and Satanists.
|NA
|Rock/Metal
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjJ9v__NyR0 ''Disparity by Design'']
|Rise Against
|Refers to the 'over-reaching arm' of the government, and considers whether welfare is a 'handout undeserved'. Also refers to the American ideal of 'pulling yourself up by your bootstraps'.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.lyricsfreak.com/p/pearl+jam/dissident_20106414.html ''Dissident'']
|Pearl Jam
|About a woman who engages in [[liberal values]] by being impregnated out of wedlock and having an abortion, but immediately regrets doing so.
|3
|Rock
|-
|[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIHuF8WvdFk ''Don't Tread On Me'']
|Metallica
|Tune about Gadsden flag
|N/A
|Metal
|-
|[http://youtu.be/K5N2WJ1szHE ''Father of Mine'']
|Everclear
|A reminder of the importance of good parenting. Everclear singer Art Alexakis wrote much of his material from his own perspective of a troubled childhood. At the end of |the song, Alexakis promises to be a better father than his own had been.
|4
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/zapGC2PrWiU ''Fair Exchange"]
|[[Kansas (band)|Kansas]]
|Warnings about totalitarian governments who want to take away your freedom in the name of utopia. Also much of their early 1980s material, which has Christian lyrics.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYRZt7xcwpY&feature=youtu.be "Freedom is Colorblind"]
|JoeDanMedia
|A song about how the left uses race to polarize the country. It is a conservative song that tries to unite the country.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hZsG1ikgK8 ''Hundred Mile Stare'']
|Queensrÿche
|Pro-soldier, freedom. "What ever happened to conviction and faith? People trip from side to side; don't know which way or what side to take. Always known the truth. It's really black and white. I've got no fear of judgment when it's time to fight."
|NA
|Rock
|-
|''Iraq No Phobia''
|Pro-Pain
|It is a pro-American, pro-military heavy metal song about the first [[Gulf War]]: ''"Mohammed's no match for the great Uncle Sam."''
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b71clnfgyts ''No Son of Mine'']
|Genesis
|
|Twelve
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzEhnBdOTAM "ONE TEA PARTY"]
|[[Toot Sweet]]
|This song is a metaphoric call to energize, motivate and unite the movement that we are all passionate about... the time is now to stand together, united, "AS ONE".
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/wDrRVlm5HOw "Prayer for America"]
|JoeDanMedia
|A short history lesson put to music regarding our schools and how the Bible was taught there in previous years.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|''Welcome to the Family''
|Avenged Sevenfold
|A song about death row, although not anti-death penalty.
|8
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/wq160PIYjHo "No Rules for Radicals"]
|JoeDanMedia
|This song highlights "rules" Saul Alinsky wrote about in his progressive-liberal book, 'Rules for Radicals'.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|''Real American''
|Rick Derringer
|Patriotic anthem, known as [[Hulk Hogan]]'s pre-match song.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/FAvQSkK8Z8U ''Red Barchetta'']
|[[Rush]]
|Tells the story of a future with excessive regulation, where even driving is illegal.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcT3sIBRv_I ''Sliver'']
|Queensrÿche
|Pro-soldier, bravery. "It's time to sack up and let go of your mothers. Take your gun, it's the cross that's carried by your brothers."
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=096LhjGNNCk ''Something For Nothing'']
|Rush
|"You can't get something for nothing, you can't have freedom for free."
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sticXkHxZC4 ''I've Seen Footage'']
|Death Grips
|Profane. Criticizes the glorification of violence by the mainstream media.
|NA
|Hip Hop
|-
|[http://youtu.be/cnijc9wNpV4 ''Sparks of the Tempest'']
|[[Kansas (band)|Kansas]]
|Warnings about totalitarian governments who want to take away your freedom in the name of utopia. Also much of their early 1980s material, which has Christian lyrics.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|''Stranger in Blue Suede Shoes''
|Kevin Ayers
|Defends the right of businessmen to choose their customers: "we don't serve strangers in blue suede shoes."
|NA
|Rock
|-
|''The Big Money''
|Rush
|Pro-[[capitalism]]
|forty-five
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY_6b4-N9Uo ''Ticket to Ride'']
|[[The Beatles]]
|Lyrics describe anti-feminist attitude
|1
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQYpF2pCkLI ''My Body'']
|Young the Giant
|''"My body tells me no / But I won't quit / Cause I want more"'' — Powerful chorus describes how the singer defies his body's physical desire to stop working and continue working hard because he wants to reap the rewards he has earned from his hard work. It describes conservative traits (persevering with hard work) and capitalistic ideals (wanting the rewards you worked for; working past your limit because you have proper incentive).
|65
|Alternative
|-
!Songs "Spiritual"
!Artist
!Comments
!Billboard Rank
!Category
|-
|[http://youtu.be/iq10bz3PxyY ''Christmas Shoes'']
|NewSong
|A Christmas song by a Christian band.
|NA
|Spiritual
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoaH0I9UwLI ''Your Love Is Extravagant'']
|Casting Crowns
|
|NA
|Spiritual
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnnhYE1DhC4 ''What If His People Prayed'']
|Casting Crowns
|
|NA
|Spiritual
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA_H6C8iLPA ''Liberalism is a Mental Disorder'']
|The Infidel (Gregory Van Leer Jr.) with an opening from [[Michael Savage]]
|Clearly attacks [[liberal values]].
|NA
|Rap
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h1oRP7FfBw ''Sunny Afternoon'']
|The Kinks
|About a rich man trying to enjoy the simple things in life because the nanny-state has nearly bankrupted him.
|Fourteen
|Rock
|-
|''2+2=5 (The Lukewarm)''
|Radiohead
|A song chastising people for accepting the mainstream medias version of events and not paying attention.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|''No Children''
|The Mountain Goats
|A song about a marriage falling apart because the couple has no children to hold the family together.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuUmLIPSasI ''God Loves My Country'']
|Balthrop, Alabama
|A song that declares that God loves America most of all.
|NA
|Folk
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zZE0SrkyNE&ob=av2n ''Where'd You Go'']
|Fort Minor
|Shows the hardship of divorce, liberal values, and the possible future of the families of our service men who could be forced to serve in Libya.
|NA
|Rap
|-
|''Patriotism''
|Company Flow
|While containing bad language it endorses the US as a super-power.
|NA
|Rap
|-
|''Tribute''
|Tenacious D
|Comedy single, but it's also a very popular song about overcoming Satan and alludes to many other Christian themes such as heaven and hell.
|4
|Rock/folk
|-
|''For Martha''
|The Smashing Pumpkins
|Being torn between the anguish of losing a lost one and the joy of knowing you will one day reunite them with in heaven
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDIGzzeQjaE ''Dethharmonic'']
|Dethklok
|Anti-tax
|NA
|Rock
|-
|''Get Over It''
|The Eagles
|Written by Don Henley (who is a liberal) about his frustration of people blaming others for their own problems and believing the world owes them a favor ''"the big bad |world doesn't owe you a thing,"''
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR6oYX1D-0w "I Need A Dollar"]
|Aloe Blacc
|"Please Mr.Bossman I need this job more than you can know" - an excellent paean to the plights of unemployment
|NA
|Pop/Soul
|-
|[http://youtu.be/RlOQBGjkm78 "Extra Extra"]
|[[Toots Sweet]]
|Toots does a great job at making the clips entertaining as well as informative.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yq8zn15EPE "Somebody Must Be Prayin' For Me]
|[[Tim McGraw]]
|Song about prayer and how it is a necessary part of everyday life.
|NA
|Spiritual/Country
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNTUADEhC8Q"The List"]
|The Right Brothers
|A song that melodically lists liberal activists.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/8uxAT6dzKSM "We the People"]
|[[Toots Sweet]]
|A song about the Constitution and how the current administration has been abusing the beloved document we are trying to live by.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/AA1aHrfxgEg "Shut up and Teach"]
|The Right Brothers
|Liberal indoctrination runs rampant in our schools. Song expresses the desire to stick to a non-partisan curriculum.
| NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/ROdsgYyheM4 "On Fire"]
|Switchfoot
|This song is about keeping the faith, in people and in our religion.
|NA
|Spiritual
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pldyz9VS2yY ''Under God'']
|[[Pat Boone]]
|
|NA
|Spiritual
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EBiei21-C8 ''King Without a Crown'']
|Matisyahu
|A Hasidic Jew raps about God as the source of happiness and salvation from the things of this world: "If you're drowning in the waters and you can't stay afloat ask |Hashem for mercy and He'll throw you a rope."
|7 (Hot Modern Rock Tracks)
|Spiritual
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl6yilkU1LI ''Fast Car'']
|Tracy Chapman
|Self-help, free market, division of labor, and a criticism of alcohol. "I know things will get better/You'll find work and I'll get promoted/We'll move out of the |shelter/Buy a bigger house and live in the suburbs"
|6
|Folk
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDK9QqIzhwk ''Livin' on a Prayer'']
|Bon Jovi
|Organized labor is harmful to the welfare of workers, who turn to prayer.
|1
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/o-z2D9lo9-8 ''Bush Was Right'']
|The Right Brothers
|Celebrating the Bush Administration's success and policies.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDSK98Y2FNg "Stop Global Whining"]
|The Right Brothers
|Anti-Global Warming hoax song.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqXAW2snGMI ''Capitalism'']
|Oingo Boingo
|There's nothing wrong with free enterprise.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dHthaNNnds Keep On Loving You]
|REO Speedwagon
|Love overcomes infidelity "When I said that I love you I meant That I love you forever."
|1
|Pop
|-
|[http://youtu.be/oHg5SJYRHA0 ''Sweet Home Alabama'']
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|A response to hippie culture. Defends Southerners from stereotyped attacks by [[liberal]], Canadian rocker Neil Young. "Well, I hope Neil Young will remember/A Southern |man don't need him around anyhow."
|8
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.songmeanings.net/songs/view/3530822107858733660/ ''What's The Use Of Wond'rin?'']
|Amanda Palmer
|Celebrates the command: "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord." -Ephesians 5:22
|NA
|Spiritual
|-
|[http://youtu.be/Ke-r2K0ymWc ''Lightning Crashes'']
|Live
|The joy and significance of childbirth.
|1
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJprEyXMrIk''Takin' Care of Business'']
|Bachman-Turner Overdrive
|The work ethic and promoting self-employment.
|Twelve
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-s5r2sp''Cat's In The Cradle'']
|Harry Chapin
|The importance of traditional families and responsible fatherhood.
|1
|Folk
|-
|[http://youtu.be/bCFWyLwcR6E ''Thank You My Lord'']
|[[Petula Clark]]
|The title says it all.
|NA
|Spiritual
|-
|[http://youtu.be/7NJMTmz7pkg ''Brick'']
|Ben Folds Five
|Shows the regret involved in abortion.
|6 (Modern Rock Tracks)
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/Dw6qmYX1ny4 ''Alive'']
|P.O.D.
|About being thankful for the gift of life.
|2 (US Alternative)
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_iNdbPvrYk ''Jesus Christ'']
|Brand New
|The singer turns to God for advice and assurance.
|thirty (Hot Modern Rock Tracks
|Spiritual
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lydBPm2KRaU ''Jesus, Take The Wheel'']
|[[Carrie Underwood]]
|A gospel-themed hit from the American Idol winner.
|1 (US Country)
|Country
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPBwXKgDTdE ''Mine'']
|[[Taylor Swift]]
|Talks about how her parents stooped to [[liberal values]] and got divorced, and how she doesn't want that to happen with the guy she meets, dates, and marries.
|1 (US Adult Contemporary)
|Pop/Country
|-
| I Won't Back down
| Tom Petty
| Talks about not backing down from a fight. Can be compared to not losing the Iraq War.
|N/A
| Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v7xNSgBkum7o "Pray"]
|[[MC Hammer]]
|Working hard and giving thanks.
|2
|Rap/Pop
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4OI0GUCI_A ''Obama Nation''] and its sequel [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFfoZaOJ5xo ''Obama Nation Part 3'']
|Lowkey
|A song sharply critical of [[Liberal]] president Barack Obama and his policies. Also criticises those that blindly follow him due to his race: 'It's the substance within, not the colour of your skin'
|N/A
|Rap
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wrsZog8qXg ''Such Great Heights'']
|The Postal Service
|Creationist/Biblical lyrics: ''"And I have to speculate that God himself did make us into corresponding shapes like puzzle pieces from the clay."''
|?
|Indie
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZZG4Pw-M58 ''The Dumber They Come'']
|Eddie Cantor
|A song about how [[Professor values|liberal college education]] destroys romance and femininity.
|?
|Vaudeville
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-MRrFWs--g ''Return to Oz'']
|Scissor Sisters
|A song about the connection between [[Homosexuality and Illegal Drug Use|homosexuality and illegal drug use]],<ref>http://dancemusic.about.com/od/artistshomepages/a/ScisSisIntBD.htm</ref> a subject that the [[lamestream media]] prefers not to talk about.
|?
|Glam Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM7H0ooV_o8 ''Brimful of Asha'']
|Cornershop
|A song which mocks big government: " We don't care about no Government warning/'Bout their promotion of the simple life/And the dams they're building"
|?
|Alternative Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qcMjKxt-dE ''53rd & 3rd'']
|The Ramones
|A song denouncing sodomy.
|?
|Punk
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HUGeA2lur4 ''Beat On the Brat'']
|The Ramones
|A song acknowledging the fact that sometimes [[corporal punishment]] is necessary in order to discipline children.
|?
|Punk
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHUsIU161w4 ''Feuer Frei'']
|Rammstein
|An anti-pacifist song which acknowledges that there's some merit in war.
|?
|Industrial
|}

Please add your best conservative picks.

== Debatable Whether Conservative ==

The top five in a poll of the greatest songs in the 20th century, according to the Recording Industry Association of America and the [[NEA]]:

*''Over the Rainbow'' (Judy Garland)
*''White Christmas'' (Bing Crosby)
*''Respect'' (Aretha Franklin)
*''American Pie'' (Don McLean)

Also questionable:

*''Hammer to Fall'' (Queen) - talks about being hopeful for the Soviet Union falling
*''Rocky Raccoon'' (Beatles) - has multiple references to Gideon's Bible
*''Been to Hell'' (Hollywood Undead)-Despite the large amount of swearing, it talks about the destructive nature of Hollywood, including how Hollywood and the quest for fame can cause someone to lose their faith. It also criticizes Hollywood values.
*''Only the Good Die Young'' (Billy Joel)-a boy tries to convince a Catholic girl to have sex with him rather than practice [[abstinence]]. Although it contains a lot of anti-religious dialogue (from the boy's perspective), in the end the girl holds true to her values, and nothing happens between them.
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5aMMRes2u4 ''Still the One''] by Orleans - a very good song about marital fidelity. However, one of the singers, [[John Hall]], later became a Democratic Congressman from New York and sued Republican presidential candidate [[John McCain]] over the use of the song in his campaign.

== References ==

<references/>

== See also ==

*[http://smartgirlpolitics.ning.com/group/support-conservative-entertainment Smart Girl Politics]

*[http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/lmnorton/2011/06/07/bigdawg-spotlight-on-the-in-word-the-antidote-to-liberal-arts-political-correctness Breitbart antidote to political correctness]

*[http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/lmnorton/2011/05/23/bigdawg-spotlight-on-urban-funk-rocker-toots-sweet-a-conservative-sound-in-a-liberal-town/ Urban funk rocker and a conservative sound]
{{Conservatism}}
[[Category:Essays]]
[[category:Music]]
[[Category:Essays about Conservatism]]

Talk:Roman Catholic Church

2013-06-16T23:01:02Z

NKeaton: /* Evolution */

==Pope John Paul II image placement==

Perhaps it's just on my particular web browser, but the image of Pope John Paul II is located right next to the section on the abuse controversy. This appears to try to link him to the scandal in a way that I'm sure is unintended. Could it be relocated?[[User:HectorJ|HectorJ]] 19:08, 28 March 2010 (EDT)

:It could be viewed as a subliminal message, and I remember the BBC reporting on a leaked letter by the adjacent Pope John XXIII describing the process and calling for excommunication of victims who went public. Let's move them both. -[[User:Danq|danq]] 23:46, 28 March 2010 (EDT)

==Evolutionism and creationism==
In the "Evolutionism and creationism" section, I can't quite be certain, but if memory serves correctly offences that warrant excommunication are limited to preaching of abortion, ordaining a female into the priesthood, and engaging in schismatic actions. Perhaps someone should look into this. [[User:Pano|Pano]] 00:34, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

==Child abuse scandal==
There should be a full section on the child abuse scandal, if not a full article. At the moment there is just one sentence on it. And it wasn't just in the 90's and 2000's, it's been happening for decades all over the world, and the church tried to cover it as well. I don't think the current sentence on the child abuse scandal addresses the severity and scale of the issue. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jHqndf9Kx4 watch this, it will give you an idea of how serious this issue is and why it should not be ignored. [[User:Danielspence]] 14:47, 17 October 2011 (EDT)
:Since this article should be about what the Catholic Church is about, the history of the church would have brief sentences and paragraphs; the child abuse scandal should have a minor sentence here as well. But, main articles on various subjects apply - both good and bad (see Pope [[Formosus]]) - and the child abuse scandal is one of them. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:27, 17 October 2011 (EDT)

::The child abuse/homosexuality scandal does not define what the Church is about. It is a rather horrifying situation and a scourge to Christ's bride. Child abuse rates among the general population happen in greater numbers than Church offenders. There have been 2000 years of the Church surviving various other scandalous attacks. I think expansion beyond a couple sentences is wrong. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 01:37, 18 October 2011 (EDT)
:::If you don't want to fully acknowledge it on this article then a new article should be created about the scandal. Conservapedia has various other articles on much more trivial scandals such as the scandal regarding wikipedia contributor "Essjay". I'm not saying that the wikipedia scandal wasn't a notable one, but the Catholic child abuse scandal was a much more fiery controversy. [[Danielspence]] 14:38, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

== Sex scandal, Da Vinci Code reference, See Also section ==

The note on sex scandals seems to be repeatedly changed to imply that this is the case, was true of at least 200 years, or (most recent edit) always was the case about the Catholic Church. I have changed it to: "The aftermath of a series of sexual abuse scandals. In the early 2000s, it was found that bishops were privately settling cases of molestation of minors by priests, occurring primarily between the 1940s and 1980s." -[[User:Danq|danq]] 19:39, 5 November 2011 (EDT)

:There seems to be one obscure saint who founded an obscure and controversial religious order at the "See Also" which I believe is a derogatory Dan Brown/Da Vinci Code reference. It keeps being put back. Why? -[[User:Danq|danq]] 21:48, 6 November 2011 (EST)

::Just updated "See Also" JPII to Benedict XVI. Putting every Saint, Blessed, Servant of God, and Pope under the heading "See Also" is not only irrelevant to "Roman Catholic Church" but is highly impractical, especially obscure figures like the Opus Dei founder I removed before. Sorry if I got mean before, but people kept changing the proven-true events to a stereotype and conspiracy theory, and the Opus Dei reference was obviously a troll-job. -[[User:Danq|danq]] 22:16, 7 November 2011 (EST)

== Evolution ==

The Catholic Church's take on evolution is more complex than what's written here. It does not officially endorse theistic evolution: no Pope has, so far, spoken ''ex cathedra'' on the issue, neither in favor neither contrarily and the Church's catechism does not mention evolution or Creationism. So Catholics are basically left free of deciding for themselves.

Unofficially, the Church wholly accepts the scientific version of the Earth's forming, which it has substantially helped discovering: geology and sismology are not called "Jesuit sciences" for nothing. The Big Bang theory was also formulated by Fr. Lemaitre, a French priest. Also, the Catholic Church explicitly teaches that the Bible is meant to be read allegorically, and furthermore that theology and science are distinct and compatible - science studies the universe, theology what's beyond it.
So I think that we should mention that Young Earth creationism or any non-scientific theory about the formation of the Earth and the universe aren't generally accepted by the Roman Catholic Church.

Life's genesis is a bit more touchy. Popes Pius XII, Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI have all personally endorsed evolution; study of it has been allowed, starting with the encyclical ''Humani Generis'' in 1950. The Catholic Catechism n.302 says: "Creation has its own goodness and proper perfection, but it did not spring forth complete from the hands of the Creator. The universe was created "in a state of journeying" (in statu viae) toward an ultimate perfection yet to be attained, to which God has destined it." This allows for the universe to evolve... and, implicitly, life.

Mostly, Church theologians generally focus on spiritual subjects, accepting that life evolved gradually and how Darwin described it. I quote an article from the ''Osservatore Romano'', the official newspaper of the Pope, which is unfortunately in Italian: [http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/77264 it's the one marked with 1.] The author calls Darwin's theory "happy intuition" and strongly attacks Intelligent Design, after having summarised and endorsed evolution: "The decision of the Pennsylvania judge, therefore, is correct. Intelligent Design does not belong to science and the pretense that it should be taught alongside Darwinism is not justified. Confusion between religious and scientific points of views is only created. It is not even requested in a religious view of the forming of the universe [...]". It also attacks Darwinist scientists who pass from scientific theory to "ideology" and concludes: "... we can say that we're not men for case or necessity; human history has a superior design".
So it's mostly a spiritual issue about the creation of soul and the Original Sin.

With your permission, I would like to complete this article. Thanks. --[[User:Swordsman|Swordsman]] 15:48, 10 June 2013 (EDT)

:Please do edit the content entry, but the Catholic Church has expressly forbidden Catholics from teaching anything contrary to one Adam and one Eve, which means that the theory of modern evolution is bunkum according to the Church. Indeed, the [[Passion of Christ]] makes no sense without Adam's Original Sin, and Jesus himself confirmed that the [[Great Flood]] occurred.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:46, 15 June 2013 (EDT)
:::"... contrary to one Adam and One even ..." That idea is not in ''Humani Generis'' and is not the Church's teaching. We are shown what we already knew: we are special creations with miraculous souls created by God. The mention of Adam in ''Humani Generis'' addresses the anathema of polygenism, which is really just a denial of God. It's not Catholic creationism.
:::"... which means that the theory of modern evolution is bunkum according to the Church." You are sticking to something you made up. It is even more wrong this time around. You and I have already had this discussion, but your talk page was deleted and recreated, so it has disappeared. Since Humani Generis and John Paul II's teaching, the Church has been openly hostile to intelligent design creationism. Moreover, there has never been anything like a modern Pope, College of Cardinals, Canon Law, section of the Catechism, or any other modern source embracing young earth creationism. In reality, the Pontifical College openly embraces theistic evolution and visiting academics are invited to counsel the Pope and College on matters of science as the First Vatican Counsel exhorts. Pope Benedict wrote often enough of accepting Christian theistic evolution that we know what his position was for sure. Pope Francis has a degree in some scientific field, so it is extremely unlikely that he will embrace this anti-scientific young earth creationism. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 13:41, 15 June 2013 (EDT)
Mr. Schlafly, would you please look at the history of your talk page and see if you can find our discussion? I would like to see the citations I made back then so I don't have to do the same research again to expand the simplistic statements about the Church's position on science in this article. I would be grateful. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 13:44, 15 June 2013 (EDT)
:::I agree and I was going to say what Nate brillantly said. I can only add one thing: with "theistic evolution," the Church doesn't mean that God made particular interventions to make hominids evolve into humans. That, it's argued, would be proof of an unskilled God - a priest, a very good one, once said to me: "Think of a clock. It can run late, lose time and so we need the clockmaker to come and fix it from time to time. This is because the clock is unperfect, as it's made by imperfect men; now, think of the universe, and life, as a clock: would God be omnipotent if he needed to come over to push things as he wants them? Wouldn't an omnipotent God have foreseen everything from the very start (save for free will, which is a gift to us), even this fly buzzing around us? Yes: this is a truly almight God." In a sense God "designed" humans, but not directly or abruptly: evolution happened following the biological and physical rules of the universe that He creates.
:::This is a theological theory known as "continuous creation" and has been openly embraced by every Pope since ''Humani Generis'' (likely also by Francis), and it's heavily influenced by Leibniz. You can find a beautiful exposition of it on the web, by Fr. George Coyne, SJ, a Jesuit astronomer: [http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18503 here].
:::What the Church does not accept is polygeny, the belief that humans come from different strains. And guess what - we indeed all come from Africa and from a single common genetic ancestor (mitocondrial Eve). The Original Sin is a subject of debate: likely there were no snakes, apples and fig leaves involved, as [http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm CCC 390] affirms that Genesis is written in a "figurative language." Even St. Augustin said that "nihil ad intelligendum secretius" than the Original Sin (nothing is more obscure than the nature of it) and, boy, he was smart. It can be about the knowledge (intended as the capability of distinguishing) of good and evil. --[[User:Swordsman|Swordsman]] 16:57, 15 June 2013 (EDT)

'''RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE''': from the [[Humani Generis]], "For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that ... Adam represents a certain number of first parents." Yet that is precisely what the modern theory of evolution pretends. Also, [[Jesus]] acknowledged and referred to the [[Great Flood]], which evolution denies.

At some point, all intelligent people are faced with a choice: question what [[liberals]] taught us in school and be open to what Christ and logic dictate, or forever be a prisoner to what liberals teach. I urge you to choose the former.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:12, 15 June 2013 (EDT)
:You are not reading the encyclical correctly. That is very specifically referring to the corollary problem in polygenism of describing Adam as figuratively representing the whole evolution of mankind - in other words, denying that Adam existed in favor of claiming multiple different kinds of "men". But we know Adam existed because without him there would be no original sin. We are taught that God created the souls of men and redeemed us through Jesus Christ. God, as the omnipotent creator of the universe, also created the means by which man would appear so that he could be blessed with a soul. Please re-read at least the sections around your quote so you can see for yourself that Pope Pius is not saying what you claim he is. I don't care whether "evolution denies" the flood if I even understand what that means. I don't think it happened and I'm not alone among the majority serious students of Catholic theology. You are incorrect if you are claiming that Jesus Christ described the flood as an actual event - He's obviously referring to Noah and his family's salvation figuratively - as new "Adams" to foretell Christ's redemption of all mankind. I urge you to reexamine what you're calling logic here. It's not based on Church teaching or Catholic scholarship. Believe what you want but please don't make the insulting claim that Catholics must believe what you say or they're liberal or illogical - I don't agree with you and I've spent my entire adult life studying with some of the most "conservative" lay and ordered Catholic scholars there are. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 18:11, 15 June 2013 (EDT)
::Nate, the Roman Catholic Church does not have great confidence in evolutionism. If they did, they would put all their chips on the table and speak ex-cathedra on this issue. :) And Protestants such as myself remember the [[Galileo Galilei]] incident. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:23, 15 June 2013 (EDT)
:::You apparently know zilch about Papal infallibility if you keep repeating this. It's not about "putting chips on the table" because it's not about your kind of vainglorious boasting. It's about narrowly directing the entire body of faithful on matters of critical Church doctrine and there are stepwise considerations to make. Pope Benedict wouldn't even do it. I'd be happy to help you learn something new but somehow I suspect you are still filled with hate and pride. :) [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 18:30, 15 June 2013 (EDT)
Nate, Roman Catholics are still free to be young earth creationist and still hold to Roman Catholicism since no Pope has spoken ex-cathedra on evolutionism. Andy Schafly and [[Since33AD]] are both Catholic creationist. Correct me if I am wrong, but to my knowledge, neither has been ex-communicated nor has the Roman Catholic Church threatened ex-communication! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:34, 15 June 2013 (EDT)
:Indeed. As far as I gather Sam Brownback is a creationist (although I'm not sure if young earth or old earth) and he hasn't been excommunicated or anything. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 19:21, 15 June 2013 (EDT)
::Nate, "stepwise considerations to make" is just another way of saying that the Roman Catholic Church does not have full confidence in evolutionism and have not spoken ex-cathedra on this matter. You are not fully confident in evolutionism. If you were, you would have challenged the creationist university biology student [[VivaYehshua]] by now. And [[Kenneth Miller]] has yet to respond to GregG's inquiry about the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions] for evolutionists. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:24, 15 June 2013 (EDT)

The [[Humani Generis]] is clear, [[Jesus]] was clear, and the logic is clear. There is no logical objection to one Adam, or to the [[Great Flood]]. But once one denies one Adam or the Great Flood, then numerous logical problems arise in explaining what Jesus said and did. Why choose illogic over logic? Well, one reason is because liberals push anti-Jesus theories, and evolution is one of them, and perhaps some would rather be accepted by liberals than ridiculed by them. I choose logic any day and urge others to do likewise. Logic never fails.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:15, 15 June 2013 (EDT)
:You are entitled to believe falsehoods if you wish. The words in Humani Generis are printed right there in black and white. People should read them. It is improper to ascribe illogic, being "liberal" or whatever other insults you come up with to people who have justified principled disagreements with you like I have. This has nothing to do with politics. There is no anti-Jesus theory that could appeal to me. I do not care who ridicules me. I care about what's true and justifiable. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 22:33, 15 June 2013 (EDT)

::Nate, you can believe whatever you like, but the logic is with one Adam committing original sin, one Flood cleansing the world of debauchery, and the Passion to redeem the original sin. If there was more than one Adam, then original sin becomes implausible, and the Passion makes no sense. It is very difficult or impossible to make logical sense of both the modern theory of evolution and the [[Passion of Christ]]. And, as a result, most people who promote the theory of evolution reject the divinity and resurrection of Jesus.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:12, 15 June 2013 (EDT)
Nate, put all your theistic evolution chips on the table. Debate the creationist university biology student [[VivaYehshua]]. Unless of course, you think he would badly beat you in a debate on the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions] for evolutionists. We both know that he would win such a debate hands down. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:59, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
:I've said this over and over, yet you seem to be willfully misrepresenting my position. Let's put this simply. I'm nearly 50 years old. I've been studying theology a long time. I am not an expert by any means but I also don't care about evolution. I care about theology and in particular about the correct representation of Catholic theology and dogma on Conservapedia. Biblical hermeneutics as it relates to Genesis is very interesting. I would like to learn more and showing you to be an ill-informed fool is a great chance to do that. I have no interest in debating an obscure "creationist university biology student" who is a stranger to this discussion. I've repeatedly challenged ''you'' to debate me on the theological basis for ''your'' beliefs because ''you'' are the one who frequently insults me and Greg and shows a very weak grasp of Biblical hermeneutics, but you always tremble like a timorous chicken in your intellectual bunnyhole and demand people debate someone else. Are those the words you use to speak to "obscure internet posers" when you use your ESP to look into their hearts to judge them? That's just silly. There's no sensible excuse for it if you're going to participate in these discussions. Either you put your chips on the table and justify your theological position or you show yourself to be a rank coward with your vain boasting, taunts, and demands that we go talk to someone else about your nonsense. If you want to say I'm not justifying that claim, let's debate it. We are instructed to be defenders of our faith. Do you have the courage and conviction to put some skin in the game? [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 09:48, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

::Nate, I welcome any theological insights you may have. If you deny one Adam, then what was original sin? If you think Jesus was speaking only in figurative terms about the [[Great Flood]], then are other miracles in Jesus's teachings and actions also merely figurative in your view?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:02, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
:::Thanks for the questions. I do not deny one Adam. To do so would be anathema by Church law. No, I do not believe one can say that Jesus' miracles are merely figurative, as you say. I am talking about the interpretation of specific verses, not all Gospel accounts of Christ's miracles which I cannot deny as they are described and as I've experienced personally in having Christ in my own life. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 11:45, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
::::Historical evidence points out to a major regional disaster from which the Flood may have been constructed; surely there was no Ark. Anyway, it's its symbolical meaning that matters. Jesus spoke to be understood from his contemporaries, making parables and allegories that were easy to understand by then-Hebrews. Think about the parable of the ten virgins: it is about a forgotten Eastern tradition which seems unusual to us today, but yet delivers a never-ending message.
::::Miracles are witnessed by the Gospels, descripted in the prose; the Great Flood is in a dialogue by Jesus.
::::What a Catholic cannot deny is the unique fault of Adam for the Original Sin, in other words that it was Adam's sin to condemn the whole human species. Not that Adam popped out ''ex nihilo''... I repeat: the question is spiritual, not biological. --[[User:Swordsman|Swordsman]] 12:59, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

:::::In response to Nate, the modern theory of evolution does deny one Adam. As a result, most students who are taught and believe the theory of evolution will begin to doubt the purpose of the Passion and the divinity of Christ. Perhaps you're an unusual exception to that rule, but if you accept that there was one Adam, then you reject the modern theory of evolution.

:::::In response to Swordsman, apparently you do reject one Adam, which makes [[original sin]] and the Passion almost impossible to explain in a coherent manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:10, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
::::::Anyway, I regret this discussion went downhill. Let's pick it up another time. I wish I could find my research for that article. Happy Father's Day! [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 19:01, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

NateK, you wrote: "Let's put this simply. I'm nearly 50 years old. I've been studying theology a long time." I realize that you said that you are not an expert, but one of the surest signs of someone erring due to pride is them bragging on how long and hard that they have been studying something. This coupled with you saying you are a proud Irish Catholic with a family line stretching back into Catholicism and family in high places in the Roman Catholic Church is a ripe recipe for error. I had a business owner boss who commented on someone bragging about how long they had been in our industry and how good they were. My boss said something to the effect of: "Has he been in the industry 20 years or one year 20 times?" People have been known to repeat the same errors over and over.

Second, we both know that you are violently shoehorning Darwinism into the biblical text and that you are supposedly "seeing" something that the early Church fathers and Jews for thousands of years "missed". It is like your myriads of "missing links" in the fossil record. Nate, "It is important to note that no major Hebrew scholar says that Genesis is poetry. This is because Genesis has all the grammatical marks of being a historical narrative."[http://creation.com/genesis-poetry-father-hermeutics] Your creation compromises are not at all compelling as can be seen [http://creation.com/is-genesis-poetry-figurative-a-theological-argument-polemic-and-thus-not-history HERE] and [http://creation.com/creation-compromises-questions-and-answers HERE]

So why are you and theistic evolutionists committing fundamental Bible exegesis errors. It is due to valuing scientific consensus in the secular world over the Biblical text. And the history of the scientific consensus argument when weighed against the accuracy and insight/foresight of the biblical text has a very checkered past. See: [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/10/scientific-consensus-and-evolutionary.html Jesus vs. the scientific consensus].

Lastly, creation scientists have a history of consistently winning creation vs. evolution debates dealing with the science and winning those debates hands down. See: [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]]. Now evolutionists are very reluctant to debate creationists on the science. Your unwillingness to debate [[VivaYehshua]] is not surprising, but it is very telling. There must be some reason why are unwilling to debate the grassroots champion of the grassroots [[Question evolution! campaign]] who is studying biology at the university level. Is it because you are afraid of badly losing? I think it is. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:13, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
::NateK, one other thing. To my knowledge, it has always been the liberal Roman Catholics that I have locked horns with at CP and never the conservative ones. That is because the scientific consensus and evolutionism is such a "golden calf"/"sacred cow" to liberals and to [[liberal Christianity]]. And one of the ironies is that many liberal Catholics rarely read the Bible nor do the liberal Catholic hierarchy in the Western World stress Bible reading as can be seen by this statistic taken from a Roman Catholic website: "Far more disturbing was the poll result that showed that 44 percent of Catholics “rarely or never” read the Bible, while this is true of only 7 percent of Evangelicals and 13 percent of non-Evangelical Protestants. The level of religious vitality must be very low in a Christian church in which 44 percent of the membership almost never bothers to read the Bible."[http://www.crisismagazine.com/2009/why-catholics-dont-read-the-bible]

::Furthermore, the fruits of evolution loving liberal Christianity are quite sour as can be seen at: [[Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity]]. Bill Donahue of the Catholic League recognizes that many liberal Roman Catholics in the hierarchy of the church in the Western World has yielded bad fruit as can be seen [http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_and_pederasty#Roman_Catholic_Church.2C_Homosexuality_and_pederasty HERE]. Of course, this is not surprising. When you value pseudoscience and the scientific consensus over Scripture, the results are going to be bad. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:43, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

:You're really not getting it and I think people can readily tell that by how far away you get from the real points at hand when you launch into these irrelevant screeds. We're talking about theology and Biblical hermeneutics. It's time to step up to the plate, my good man. Instead of talking about other people's exegesis, I've repeatedly challenged ''you'' to debate your own with me. Each time you raise some nonsense that I've told you I don't care about, and continue publicly debasing yourself by showing such cowardice in crowing about an anonymous college kid on a chat site. Assigning him to fight the fights you stirred up with your pride and hatred of those who disagree with you is pathetic. I want to the debate the person who knows very little of what he talks about and vaingloriously accuses me of the worst sin. Let's do this. Then perhaps you'll think twice before you continue personally insulting people just because they disagree with you. That's just awful behavior. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 13:50, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
::Conservative, I think we already made very clear that obsessively proposing to debate a creationist blogger is completely out-of-place in this discussion which is about the Catholic church's theological views over evolution, so that we may improve this article. We're not biologists, we would not be suitable foes for any kind of regular debate (that are made between experts, not amateurs). So please: enough.
::Catholics actually believe that an "Adam" somewhere, sometime existed; that he was the first "man"; that he was the first human to receive a soul by God and that he, and he alone, committed the Original Sin that spread to all mankind after him. This is what we (and I) believe. This is the nucleus of the Genesis, with everything around it being allegory and poetry - from the snake to the fig leaves. Circumstances are not defined by official dogma: we do not know where and when Adam lived, if he was really named "Adam", what the Original Sin was about, what happened next... but again, the question isn't biological or scientifical. It's spiritual. --[[User:Swordsman|Swordsman]] 13:57, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
::::Swordsman, you said the issue is "spiritual". Jesus said, "You shall know them by their fruits." If evolution loving [[Liberal Christianity]] is so spiritual, then why do they commit adultery more often and theologically conservative Christians? See: [[Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity]]. If evolution loving liberal Catholics and the evolution loving liberal Roman Catholic hierarchy are so spiritual, then why do so many Catholics fail to read the Bible compared to evangelical Christians?[http://www.crisismagazine.com/2009/why-catholics-dont-read-the-bible] If the Western Roman Catholic hierarchy is so spiritual, then why did Bill Donahue of the Catholic League say the Roman Catholic Church pederasty problem was the result of homosexual priests and cite statistics supporting his point? [http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_and_pederasty#Roman_Catholic_Church.2C_Homosexuality_and_pederasty] Anytime you want to stop pretending that liberal Catholics and liberal Protestants (theologically liberal) are godly, that would be fine with me. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:33, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
For God's sake, this is the most appalling and uncoherent ''nonsequitur'' I have ever read. Are you sure to be okay? We are talking about the Catholic Church's view on evolution, not your rubbish. Catholics fail to read the Bible because, banally, there's no Bible-reading culture among common believers. We trust the Church to teach it. There's no "pederasty" problem: it's outright pedophilia (and Jesus said those who made scandal to children should be drowned with a millstone, symbolically), which is a psychiatric criminal disorder; whether it has a source in repressed homosexuality in the clergy could be a subject of discussion but it's not absolutely the point of this topic! --[[User:Swordsman|Swordsman]] 14:46, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
:Swordsman, I see that your sword is quite dull. Liberals always fails to deliver the goods and that is why you cannot defend the fruits of theological liberalism when stacked up beside the fruits of theological conservatism. You retreat to less objective rhetoric and prefer to sweep the fruits under the rug. Nevertheless, Jesus said, "You shall know them by their fruits".

:The fruits of economic liberalism and its mountains of debt will lay liberalism in all its forms low and the institutions that support it so I am not worrying about something as weak as liberalism or theological liberalism. Liberal Christianity will continue to shrink in the world while theologically conservative Christianity continues to prosper.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/05/why-are-years-2012-and-2020-key-years.html]

:The historicity of the Bible and conservative Protestantism has evidence supporting it.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/09/evidence-for-christianity-websites-and.html] Evolution loving, liberal Catholicism on the other hand is a den of iniquity supported by nothing but hot air and blowhards who run away from their fruits and the evidence supporting biblical Christianity. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:13, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

::I came here to discuss about the Catholic Church and evolution, to improve this article; we were having a productive discussion with Andrew and Nate until you came over and spawned your... this is supposed to be family-friendly, right?... your rants about the universal woes of "liberalism" (what Americans call liberalism at least). Which has absolutely ZERO pertinence to what we are discussing here, besides pounding the discussion into ridicule for those who read. Your hatred of Catholicism quite sums up your character; I'm tolerant and I will not get dragged into religion wars - just, I always wondered which one of the 41,000/30,000/10,000 protestant churches is right, since they all say they're "the one" that is right?
::By the way, I'm a ''liberale'' in Italy. Before you explode, go seeing what "liberalism" actually is in Europe.
::I will not answer to any other comment which does not return to the main point of discussion: facts about the Catholic Church and evolution. Over. --[[User:Swordsman|Swordsman]] 15:25, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
:::Darwinism loving, Italian, theologically liberal Catholicism has a bleak future.[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2008/02/demographic-winter.html] France has a history of Catholicism. No doubt what is happening in France will happen to Italy as well.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/08/scholars-say-evangelicalism-is-fast.html] Morals degeneration has been linked belief in evolution via a [http://creation.com/morals-decline-linked-to-belief-in-evolution university study] and Italy/France are starting to pay a heavy price on the economic front due to their deep indebtedness and other drags on their economy. On the other hand, "Either way, not a single Protestant or Germanic EU country has so far needed a bailout."[http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100116846/yet-another-catholic-country-needs-a-bailout-from-the-protestant-north/] See also: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/oct/31/economics-religion-research Protestant work ethic and European countries] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:49, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
::::That's a parody. That's all a parody. I'm on candid camera. You can't be serious - or sane. --[[User:Swordsman|Swordsman]] 15:52, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
:::::When you have to rely on armchair internet psychobabbling and cannot address the fruits of your religion, then something is seriously amiss. Nevertheless, Jesus said, "You shall know them by their fruits." and liberal Catholics are not "spiritual" to use a term that you used above and were unsuccessful in defending. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:58, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
::::::You destroyed an interessant discussion over the Catholic Church and evolution with your delusions and obsessions. That's all I'm going to say, Ken. I will not communicate with you anymore unless you revert to the topic at hand. Goodbye. --[[User:Swordsman|Swordsman]] 16:02, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
Swordsman, you may find comfort in your psychobabbling, but it cannot alter the fact that theological liberalism is imploding and has bad fruit using objective measurements nor does it have any evidence supporting it (the [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/09/evidence-for-christianity-websites-and.html evidence] is on the side of biblical Christianity). Keep retreating to the subjective world of psychobabbling, but you are not fooling anybody - not even yourself. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:34, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
::Really, if that is the case, show me some peer-reviewed papers, from a trustworthy and reputable source! [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 16:35, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
:::Addendum - that isn't from QE.blogspot.com.
Brendon, when you have to rely on the [[genetic fallacy]] and ignore articles which cite relevant data, then you have lost the argument once again. Secondly, I did use other sources in my discussion above (including the liberal'' Guardian''). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:46, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

Talk:Roman Catholic Church

2013-06-16T17:50:38Z

NKeaton: /* Evolution */

==Pope John Paul II image placement==

Perhaps it's just on my particular web browser, but the image of Pope John Paul II is located right next to the section on the abuse controversy. This appears to try to link him to the scandal in a way that I'm sure is unintended. Could it be relocated?[[User:HectorJ|HectorJ]] 19:08, 28 March 2010 (EDT)

:It could be viewed as a subliminal message, and I remember the BBC reporting on a leaked letter by the adjacent Pope John XXIII describing the process and calling for excommunication of victims who went public. Let's move them both. -[[User:Danq|danq]] 23:46, 28 March 2010 (EDT)

==Evolutionism and creationism==
In the "Evolutionism and creationism" section, I can't quite be certain, but if memory serves correctly offences that warrant excommunication are limited to preaching of abortion, ordaining a female into the priesthood, and engaging in schismatic actions. Perhaps someone should look into this. [[User:Pano|Pano]] 00:34, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

==Child abuse scandal==
There should be a full section on the child abuse scandal, if not a full article. At the moment there is just one sentence on it. And it wasn't just in the 90's and 2000's, it's been happening for decades all over the world, and the church tried to cover it as well. I don't think the current sentence on the child abuse scandal addresses the severity and scale of the issue. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jHqndf9Kx4 watch this, it will give you an idea of how serious this issue is and why it should not be ignored. [[User:Danielspence]] 14:47, 17 October 2011 (EDT)
:Since this article should be about what the Catholic Church is about, the history of the church would have brief sentences and paragraphs; the child abuse scandal should have a minor sentence here as well. But, main articles on various subjects apply - both good and bad (see Pope [[Formosus]]) - and the child abuse scandal is one of them. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:27, 17 October 2011 (EDT)

::The child abuse/homosexuality scandal does not define what the Church is about. It is a rather horrifying situation and a scourge to Christ's bride. Child abuse rates among the general population happen in greater numbers than Church offenders. There have been 2000 years of the Church surviving various other scandalous attacks. I think expansion beyond a couple sentences is wrong. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 01:37, 18 October 2011 (EDT)
:::If you don't want to fully acknowledge it on this article then a new article should be created about the scandal. Conservapedia has various other articles on much more trivial scandals such as the scandal regarding wikipedia contributor "Essjay". I'm not saying that the wikipedia scandal wasn't a notable one, but the Catholic child abuse scandal was a much more fiery controversy. [[Danielspence]] 14:38, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

== Sex scandal, Da Vinci Code reference, See Also section ==

The note on sex scandals seems to be repeatedly changed to imply that this is the case, was true of at least 200 years, or (most recent edit) always was the case about the Catholic Church. I have changed it to: "The aftermath of a series of sexual abuse scandals. In the early 2000s, it was found that bishops were privately settling cases of molestation of minors by priests, occurring primarily between the 1940s and 1980s." -[[User:Danq|danq]] 19:39, 5 November 2011 (EDT)

:There seems to be one obscure saint who founded an obscure and controversial religious order at the "See Also" which I believe is a derogatory Dan Brown/Da Vinci Code reference. It keeps being put back. Why? -[[User:Danq|danq]] 21:48, 6 November 2011 (EST)

::Just updated "See Also" JPII to Benedict XVI. Putting every Saint, Blessed, Servant of God, and Pope under the heading "See Also" is not only irrelevant to "Roman Catholic Church" but is highly impractical, especially obscure figures like the Opus Dei founder I removed before. Sorry if I got mean before, but people kept changing the proven-true events to a stereotype and conspiracy theory, and the Opus Dei reference was obviously a troll-job. -[[User:Danq|danq]] 22:16, 7 November 2011 (EST)

== Evolution ==

The Catholic Church's take on evolution is more complex than what's written here. It does not officially endorse theistic evolution: no Pope has, so far, spoken ''ex cathedra'' on the issue, neither in favor neither contrarily and the Church's catechism does not mention evolution or Creationism. So Catholics are basically left free of deciding for themselves.

Unofficially, the Church wholly accepts the scientific version of the Earth's forming, which it has substantially helped discovering: geology and sismology are not called "Jesuit sciences" for nothing. The Big Bang theory was also formulated by Fr. Lemaitre, a French priest. Also, the Catholic Church explicitly teaches that the Bible is meant to be read allegorically, and furthermore that theology and science are distinct and compatible - science studies the universe, theology what's beyond it.
So I think that we should mention that Young Earth creationism or any non-scientific theory about the formation of the Earth and the universe aren't generally accepted by the Roman Catholic Church.

Life's genesis is a bit more touchy. Popes Pius XII, Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI have all personally endorsed evolution; study of it has been allowed, starting with the encyclical ''Humani Generis'' in 1950. The Catholic Catechism n.302 says: "Creation has its own goodness and proper perfection, but it did not spring forth complete from the hands of the Creator. The universe was created "in a state of journeying" (in statu viae) toward an ultimate perfection yet to be attained, to which God has destined it." This allows for the universe to evolve... and, implicitly, life.

Mostly, Church theologians generally focus on spiritual subjects, accepting that life evolved gradually and how Darwin described it. I quote an article from the ''Osservatore Romano'', the official newspaper of the Pope, which is unfortunately in Italian: [http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/77264 it's the one marked with 1.] The author calls Darwin's theory "happy intuition" and strongly attacks Intelligent Design, after having summarised and endorsed evolution: "The decision of the Pennsylvania judge, therefore, is correct. Intelligent Design does not belong to science and the pretense that it should be taught alongside Darwinism is not justified. Confusion between religious and scientific points of views is only created. It is not even requested in a religious view of the forming of the universe [...]". It also attacks Darwinist scientists who pass from scientific theory to "ideology" and concludes: "... we can say that we're not men for case or necessity; human history has a superior design".
So it's mostly a spiritual issue about the creation of soul and the Original Sin.

With your permission, I would like to complete this article. Thanks. --[[User:Swordsman|Swordsman]] 15:48, 10 June 2013 (EDT)

:Please do edit the content entry, but the Catholic Church has expressly forbidden Catholics from teaching anything contrary to one Adam and one Eve, which means that the theory of modern evolution is bunkum according to the Church. Indeed, the [[Passion of Christ]] makes no sense without Adam's Original Sin, and Jesus himself confirmed that the [[Great Flood]] occurred.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:46, 15 June 2013 (EDT)
:::"... contrary to one Adam and One even ..." That idea is not in ''Humani Generis'' and is not the Church's teaching. We are shown what we already knew: we are special creations with miraculous souls created by God. The mention of Adam in ''Humani Generis'' addresses the anathema of polygenism, which is really just a denial of God. It's not Catholic creationism.
:::"... which means that the theory of modern evolution is bunkum according to the Church." You are sticking to something you made up. It is even more wrong this time around. You and I have already had this discussion, but your talk page was deleted and recreated, so it has disappeared. Since Humani Generis and John Paul II's teaching, the Church has been openly hostile to intelligent design creationism. Moreover, there has never been anything like a modern Pope, College of Cardinals, Canon Law, section of the Catechism, or any other modern source embracing young earth creationism. In reality, the Pontifical College openly embraces theistic evolution and visiting academics are invited to counsel the Pope and College on matters of science as the First Vatican Counsel exhorts. Pope Benedict wrote often enough of accepting Christian theistic evolution that we know what his position was for sure. Pope Francis has a degree in some scientific field, so it is extremely unlikely that he will embrace this anti-scientific young earth creationism. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 13:41, 15 June 2013 (EDT)
Mr. Schlafly, would you please look at the history of your talk page and see if you can find our discussion? I would like to see the citations I made back then so I don't have to do the same research again to expand the simplistic statements about the Church's position on science in this article. I would be grateful. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 13:44, 15 June 2013 (EDT)
:::I agree and I was going to say what Nate brillantly said. I can only add one thing: with "theistic evolution," the Church doesn't mean that God made particular interventions to make hominids evolve into humans. That, it's argued, would be proof of an unskilled God - a priest, a very good one, once said to me: "Think of a clock. It can run late, lose time and so we need the clockmaker to come and fix it from time to time. This is because the clock is unperfect, as it's made by imperfect men; now, think of the universe, and life, as a clock: would God be omnipotent if he needed to come over to push things as he wants them? Wouldn't an omnipotent God have foreseen everything from the very start (save for free will, which is a gift to us), even this fly buzzing around us? Yes: this is a truly almight God." In a sense God "designed" humans, but not directly or abruptly: evolution happened following the biological and physical rules of the universe that He creates.
:::This is a theological theory known as "continuous creation" and has been openly embraced by every Pope since ''Humani Generis'' (likely also by Francis), and it's heavily influenced by Leibniz. You can find a beautiful exposition of it on the web, by Fr. George Coyne, SJ, a Jesuit astronomer: [http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18503 here].
:::What the Church does not accept is polygeny, the belief that humans come from different strains. And guess what - we indeed all come from Africa and from a single common genetic ancestor (mitocondrial Eve). The Original Sin is a subject of debate: likely there were no snakes, apples and fig leaves involved, as [http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm CCC 390] affirms that Genesis is written in a "figurative language." Even St. Augustin said that "nihil ad intelligendum secretius" than the Original Sin (nothing is more obscure than the nature of it) and, boy, he was smart. It can be about the knowledge (intended as the capability of distinguishing) of good and evil. --[[User:Swordsman|Swordsman]] 16:57, 15 June 2013 (EDT)

'''RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE''': from the [[Humani Generis]], "For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that ... Adam represents a certain number of first parents." Yet that is precisely what the modern theory of evolution pretends. Also, [[Jesus]] acknowledged and referred to the [[Great Flood]], which evolution denies.

At some point, all intelligent people are faced with a choice: question what [[liberals]] taught us in school and be open to what Christ and logic dictate, or forever be a prisoner to what liberals teach. I urge you to choose the former.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:12, 15 June 2013 (EDT)
:You are not reading the encyclical correctly. That is very specifically referring to the corollary problem in polygenism of describing Adam as figuratively representing the whole evolution of mankind - in other words, denying that Adam existed in favor of claiming multiple different kinds of "men". But we know Adam existed because without him there would be no original sin. We are taught that God created the souls of men and redeemed us through Jesus Christ. God, as the omnipotent creator of the universe, also created the means by which man would appear so that he could be blessed with a soul. Please re-read at least the sections around your quote so you can see for yourself that Pope Pius is not saying what you claim he is. I don't care whether "evolution denies" the flood if I even understand what that means. I don't think it happened and I'm not alone among the majority serious students of Catholic theology. You are incorrect if you are claiming that Jesus Christ described the flood as an actual event - He's obviously referring to Noah and his family's salvation figuratively - as new "Adams" to foretell Christ's redemption of all mankind. I urge you to reexamine what you're calling logic here. It's not based on Church teaching or Catholic scholarship. Believe what you want but please don't make the insulting claim that Catholics must believe what you say or they're liberal or illogical - I don't agree with you and I've spent my entire adult life studying with some of the most "conservative" lay and ordered Catholic scholars there are. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 18:11, 15 June 2013 (EDT)
::Nate, the Roman Catholic Church does not have great confidence in evolutionism. If they did, they would put all their chips on the table and speak ex-cathedra on this issue. :) And Protestants such as myself remember the [[Galileo Galilei]] incident. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:23, 15 June 2013 (EDT)
:::You apparently know zilch about Papal infallibility if you keep repeating this. It's not about "putting chips on the table" because it's not about your kind of vainglorious boasting. It's about narrowly directing the entire body of faithful on matters of critical Church doctrine and there are stepwise considerations to make. Pope Benedict wouldn't even do it. I'd be happy to help you learn something new but somehow I suspect you are still filled with hate and pride. :) [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 18:30, 15 June 2013 (EDT)
Nate, Roman Catholics are still free to be young earth creationist and still hold to Roman Catholicism since no Pope has spoken ex-cathedra on evolutionism. Andy Schafly and [[Since33AD]] are both Catholic creationist. Correct me if I am wrong, but to my knowledge, neither has been ex-communicated nor has the Roman Catholic Church threatened ex-communication! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:34, 15 June 2013 (EDT)
:Indeed. As far as I gather Sam Brownback is a creationist (although I'm not sure if young earth or old earth) and he hasn't been excommunicated or anything. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 19:21, 15 June 2013 (EDT)
::Nate, "stepwise considerations to make" is just another way of saying that the Roman Catholic Church does not have full confidence in evolutionism and have not spoken ex-cathedra on this matter. You are not fully confident in evolutionism. If you were, you would have challenged the creationist university biology student [[VivaYehshua]] by now. And [[Kenneth Miller]] has yet to respond to GregG's inquiry about the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions] for evolutionists. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:24, 15 June 2013 (EDT)

The [[Humani Generis]] is clear, [[Jesus]] was clear, and the logic is clear. There is no logical objection to one Adam, or to the [[Great Flood]]. But once one denies one Adam or the Great Flood, then numerous logical problems arise in explaining what Jesus said and did. Why choose illogic over logic? Well, one reason is because liberals push anti-Jesus theories, and evolution is one of them, and perhaps some would rather be accepted by liberals than ridiculed by them. I choose logic any day and urge others to do likewise. Logic never fails.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:15, 15 June 2013 (EDT)
:You are entitled to believe falsehoods if you wish. The words in Humani Generis are printed right there in black and white. People should read them. It is improper to ascribe illogic, being "liberal" or whatever other insults you come up with to people who have justified principled disagreements with you like I have. This has nothing to do with politics. There is no anti-Jesus theory that could appeal to me. I do not care who ridicules me. I care about what's true and justifiable. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 22:33, 15 June 2013 (EDT)

::Nate, you can believe whatever you like, but the logic is with one Adam committing original sin, one Flood cleansing the world of debauchery, and the Passion to redeem the original sin. If there was more than one Adam, then original sin becomes implausible, and the Passion makes no sense. It is very difficult or impossible to make logical sense of both the modern theory of evolution and the [[Passion of Christ]]. And, as a result, most people who promote the theory of evolution reject the divinity and resurrection of Jesus.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:12, 15 June 2013 (EDT)
Nate, put all your theistic evolution chips on the table. Debate the creationist university biology student [[VivaYehshua]]. Unless of course, you think he would badly beat you in a debate on the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions] for evolutionists. We both know that he would win such a debate hands down. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:59, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
:I've said this over and over, yet you seem to be willfully misrepresenting my position. Let's put this simply. I'm nearly 50 years old. I've been studying theology a long time. I am not an expert by any means but I also don't care about evolution. I care about theology and in particular about the correct representation of Catholic theology and dogma on Conservapedia. Biblical hermeneutics as it relates to Genesis is very interesting. I would like to learn more and showing you to be an ill-informed fool is a great chance to do that. I have no interest in debating an obscure "creationist university biology student" who is a stranger to this discussion. I've repeatedly challenged ''you'' to debate me on the theological basis for ''your'' beliefs because ''you'' are the one who frequently insults me and Greg and shows a very weak grasp of Biblical hermeneutics, but you always tremble like a timorous chicken in your intellectual bunnyhole and demand people debate someone else. Are those the words you use to speak to "obscure internet posers" when you use your ESP to look into their hearts to judge them? That's just silly. There's no sensible excuse for it if you're going to participate in these discussions. Either you put your chips on the table and justify your theological position or you show yourself to be a rank coward with your vain boasting, taunts, and demands that we go talk to someone else about your nonsense. If you want to say I'm not justifying that claim, let's debate it. We are instructed to be defenders of our faith. Do you have the courage and conviction to put some skin in the game? [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 09:48, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

::Nate, I welcome any theological insights you may have. If you deny one Adam, then what was original sin? If you think Jesus was speaking only in figurative terms about the [[Great Flood]], then are other miracles in Jesus's teachings and actions also merely figurative in your view?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:02, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
:::Thanks for the questions. I do not deny one Adam. To do so would be anathema by Church law. No, I do not believe one can say that Jesus' miracles are merely figurative, as you say. I am talking about the interpretation of specific verses, not all Gospel accounts of Christ's miracles which I cannot deny as they are described and as I've experienced personally in having Christ in my own life. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 11:45, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
::::Historical evidence points out to a major regional disaster from which the Flood may have been constructed; surely there was no Ark. Anyway, it's its symbolical meaning that matters. Jesus spoke to be understood from his contemporaries, making parables and allegories that were easy to understand by then-Hebrews. Think about the parable of the ten virgins: it is about a forgotten Eastern tradition which seems unusual to us today, but yet delivers a never-ending message.
::::Miracles are witnessed by the Gospels, descripted in the prose; the Great Flood is in a dialogue by Jesus.
::::What a Catholic cannot deny is the unique fault of Adam for the Original Sin, in other words that it was Adam's sin to condemn the whole human species. Not that Adam popped out ''ex nihilo''... I repeat: the question is spiritual, not biological. --[[User:Swordsman|Swordsman]] 12:59, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

:::::In response to Nate, the modern theory of evolution does deny one Adam. As a result, most students who are taught and believe the theory of evolution will begin to doubt the purpose of the Passion and the divinity of Christ. Perhaps you're an unusual exception to that rule, but if you accept that there was one Adam, then you reject the modern theory of evolution.

:::::In response to Swordsman, apparently you do reject one Adam, which makes [[original sin]] and the Passion almost impossible to explain in a coherent manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:10, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
NateK, you wrote: "Let's put this simply. I'm nearly 50 years old. I've been studying theology a long time." I realize that you said that you are not an expert, but one of the surest signs of someone erring due to pride is them bragging on how long and hard that they have been studying something. This coupled with you saying you are a proud Irish Catholic with a family line stretching back into Catholicism and family in high places in the Roman Catholic Church is a ripe recipe for error. I had a business owner boss who commented on someone bragging about how long they had been in our industry and how good they were. My boss said something to the effect of: "Has he been in the industry 20 years or one year 20 times?" People have been known to repeat the same errors over and over.

Second, we both know that you are violently shoehorning Darwinism into the biblical text and that you are supposedly "seeing" something that the early Church fathers and Jews for thousands of years "missed". It is like your myriads of "missing links". Nate, "It is important to note that no major Hebrew scholar says that Genesis is poetry. This is because Genesis has all the grammatical marks of being a historical narrative."[http://creation.com/genesis-poetry-father-hermeutics] Your creation compromises are not at all compelling as can be seen [http://creation.com/is-genesis-poetry-figurative-a-theological-argument-polemic-and-thus-not-history HERE] and [http://creation.com/creation-compromises-questions-and-answers HERE]

So why are you and theistic evolutionists committing fundamental Bible exegesis errors. It is due to valuing scientific consensus in the secular world over the Biblical text. And the history of the scientific consensus argument when weighed against the accuracy and insight/foresight of the biblical text has a very checkered past. See: [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/10/scientific-consensus-and-evolutionary.html Jesus vs. the scientific consensus].

Lastly, creation scientists have a history of consistently winning creation vs. evolution debates dealing with the science and winning those debates hands down. See: [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]]. Now evolutionists are very reluctant to debate creationists on the science. Your unwillingness to debate [[VivaYehshua]] is not surprising, but it is very telling. There must be some reason why are unwilling to debate the grassroots champion of the grassroots [[Question evolution! campaign]] who is studying biology at the university level. Is it because you are afraid of badly losing? I think it is. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:13, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
::NateK, one other thing. To my knowledge, it has always been the liberal Roman Catholics that I have locked horns with at CP and never the conservative ones. That is because the scientific consensus and evolutionism is such a "golden calf"/"sacred cow" to liberals and to [[liberal Christianity]]. And one of the ironies is that many liberal Catholics rarely read the Bible nor do the liberal Catholic hierarchy in the Western World stress Bible reading as can be seen by this statistic taken from a Roman Catholic website: "Far more disturbing was the poll result that showed that 44 percent of Catholics “rarely or never” read the Bible, while this is true of only 7 percent of Evangelicals and 13 percent of non-Evangelical Protestants. The level of religious vitality must be very low in a Christian church in which 44 percent of the membership almost never bothers to read the Bible."[http://www.crisismagazine.com/2009/why-catholics-dont-read-the-bible]

::Furthermore, the fruits of evolution loving liberal Christianity are quite sour as can be seen at: [[Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity]]. Bill Donahue of the Catholic League recognizes that many liberal Roman Catholics in the hierarchy of the church in the Western World has yielded bad fruit as can be seen [http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_and_pederasty#Roman_Catholic_Church.2C_Homosexuality_and_pederasty HERE]. Of course, this is not surprising. When you value pseudoscience and the scientific consensus over Scripture, the results are going to be bad. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:43, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

:You're really not getting it and I think people can readily tell that by how far away you get from the real points at hand when you launch into these irrelevant screeds. We're talking about theology and Biblical hermeneutics. It's time to step up to the plate, my good man. Instead of talking about other people's exegesis, I've repeatedly challenged ''you'' to debate your own with me. Each time you raise some nonsense that I've told you I don't care about, and continue publicly debasing yourself by showing such cowardice in crowing about an anonymous college kid on a chat site. Assigning him to fight the fights you stirred up with your pride and hatred of those who disagree with you is pathetic. I want to the debate the person who knows very little of what he talks about and vaingloriously accuses me of the worst sin. Let's do this. Then perhaps you'll think twice before you continue personally insulting people just because they disagree with you. That's just awful behavior. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 13:50, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

Talk:Roman Catholic Church

2013-06-16T15:45:03Z

NKeaton: /* Evolution */

Talk:Roman Catholic Church

2013-06-16T13:48:42Z

NKeaton: /* Evolution */

Talk:Roman Catholic Church

2013-06-16T02:33:11Z

NKeaton: /* Evolution */

Talk:Roman Catholic Church

2013-06-15T22:30:13Z

NKeaton: /* Evolution */

Talk:Roman Catholic Church

2013-06-15T22:11:50Z

NKeaton: /* Evolution */

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2013-06-15T20:55:31Z

NKeaton: Removing trolling

<center>''This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.''</center>
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
[[Conservapedia:Community Portal/archive1|Archive 1]]

I've put together a blog that applies tenets of the Christian faith to everyday life and our responsibility as citizens. I add a new article every few days and I would love it if you guys could start following and get people to read this. Remember James 2:17- "faith without works is dead." We have to start teaching those who come after us. Here is the link- I don't know how to get this in the News Feed on the main page.

I am an active military officer in my 20s and a combat veteran. It serves me best to keep my identity to myself for now. Below is the link.

http://www.defendingamericanvalues.blogspot.com

== Insults ==

On Dec 16, 2011, I wrote an email to aschlafly@aol.com and conservapedia@zoho.com. No one bothered to answer me, though I asked repeatedly. So, that seems to be an insufficient way of communication, therefore I repeat the text of my email here:

''Hi,

''I use this way of communication as I want to stay away from public mud-slinging. But I expect that something is done about the tone at Conservapedia. Please have a look at this comment by User:Conservative, directed to me:

''http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AMain_Page&action=historysubmit&diff=945748&oldid=945729

''Excerpt: '''I know you are a so called "liberal Christianity" adherent. Face it liberal Christianity is an immoral, heretical and wimpified version of Christianity that tries to turn God into some kind of permissive Santa Clause. The only thing "liberal Christianity" loves more than extramarital sex and pro-abortion policies is [[gay bathhouses]]!'''

''I once stated that I'm a member of a mainstream Protestant Church (in fact, the Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck) But I'm not liberal, pro-abortion, pro-sodomy or pro-adultery!

''It seems to be impossible to get into a productive discussion with User:Conservative: Bullying, intimidating,and outright insulting the target-audience of Conservapedia is nearly always the consequence...

This has been worse enough. But today I read [[Talk:Essay: Militant atheism and short man's syndrome]], where User:Conservative asks: '''''By the way, is your "liberal Christianity" "pastor" a lesbian or sodomite?''''' I fail to see any humor in it and I would expect that such accusations aren't made in a conservative environment.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:11, 1 January 2012 (EST)

Aschlafly, would you please stop to ''trim'' my contributions? Ignoring a problem generally doesn't lead to a satisfactory conclusion! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:02, 2 January 2012 (EST)

::AugustO, I am perfectly willing to apologize if necessary. Let me ask you a few questions for clarification. Is the Protestant denomination you belong to pro-evolution? Does the Protestant denomination you belong to ordain women as pastors? Does the Protestant denomination you belong to marry homosexuals? Is the Protestant denomination you belong to shrinking in membership? While I don't agree with this blog's entire contents, I have a feeling the Protestant denomination you belong to is [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on this slope] and has a [http://creation.com/truth-decay significant case of "truth decay".] If you could provide additional clarification, it would be appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:39, 2 January 2012 (EST)

:*The EKKW is one of the more conservative ''Landeskirchen'' of the EKD.
:*Generally in Germany you don't shop for a church - a relict of ''cuius regio eius religio''. So under the tent of a ''Landeskirche'' you will find various, often struggling opinions.
:*'''All such questions should have been asked before you made your insulting remarks.''' You insulted my faith and my church without bothering to make the most basic inquiries.
:*I'm not the first one to be treated this way - [[User:MaxFletcher]] was insulted similarly.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:20, 2 January 2012 (EST)
AugustO, I have found that liberals are often evasive and don't want to be called liberals. I will ask for further clarification: Do most of the churches in your Protestant denomination you belong to take a pro-evolution stance? Do most of the churches in your Protestant denomination that you belong to ordain women as pastors? Do most of the churches in your Protestant denomination you belong to marry homosexuals? Is the Protestant denomination you belong to shrinking in membership?

I did do some cursory investigation into your denomination's stances (unfortunately the sources in English were very scarce and I could only find Wikipedia as a source) and it appears as if your denomination is generally pro-homosexual marriage, ordains women and the denomination you belong to is shrinking in size (But again, I only have one source and I don't take that source as the gospel truth). Given the cultural landscape of Europe, this does not surprise me if it is true.

Lastly, are you pro-evolution, are you for or against the ordination of women, are you for or against homosexuals being able to marry? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:05, 2 January 2012 (EST)

:Funny, I found that conservatives are often straightforward and don't want to be called liberals neither. As for the rest of your comment: it may be that the EKD is less to your liking. But I'm fairly sure that almost all of our brothers and sisters in the various ''Landeskirchen'' would repelled by your statement that the only thing they love more than extramarital sex and pro-abortion policies is [[gay bathhouses]]. What percentage of Christian in the world do you try to alienate?
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:51, 2 January 2012 (EST)
::::You didn't answer my simple questions regarding your views on evolution, ordination of women, an whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry (I should have said by a church) and if your denomination is declining in membership. I conclude therefore that you are not a conservative and you are liberal and that denomination is generally liberal also and declining in membership. There are consequences to rejecting biblical authority and some of them are: an increase in sex outside of a marriage (specifically marriage between a man and a women which is a legitimate marriage), an increase in abortions and a church that is spiritually dying and declining in membership. Generally speaking, churches/individuals that start the process of rejecting biblical authority drift more and more away from biblical authority and become more and more liberal and licentious. While I may have being wrong about the degree of licentiousness within your denomination and if so I apologize, but it does appear as if it is on the decline spiritually, morally and in membership. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:23, 2 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Addendum: The Book of Revelation declares: “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: 'These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation. I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.'" Based on your replies, I regrettably have to say that you and many if not all of the churches in your denomination are not hot but are very lukewarm and you and those churches have been spit out. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:54, 2 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::Personal attacks are unbecoming and unproductive. I would suggest you stop, User:Conservative. You have passed the line from satire to the crude and tawdry--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 22:40, 2 January 2012 (EST)
::Camille, you certainly made quite an allegation there. If you are confident your allegation can withstand scrutiny, I suggest you take it up with the owner of the website. We both know your allegation will be ignored/trimmed though, don't we? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:08, 2 January 2012 (EST)

*User:Conservative, you have made up your mind about my belief, and no simple statement of mine will change this. But that doesn't matter: ''I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.''
*Your ability to condemn your Christian brothers and sisters ('''''I regrettably have to say that you and many if not all of the churches in your denomination are not hot but are very lukewarm and you and those churches have been spit out. '''''), while admitting that you have not much information ('''''I did do some cursory investigation ''''') is truly amazing!
*A statement like '''The only thing "liberal Christianity" loves more than extramarital sex and pro-abortion policies is [[gay bathhouses]]!''' is just wrong, insulting, and should be rejected by ''all'' Christians. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:26, 3 January 2012 (EST)

August, I asked you a few simple questions about biblical beliefs and received no reply as to your positions on these matters. For example, I asked if it is right for a church to marry two homosexuals and you gave no reply. You have given me no reason to believe that you are a bona fide Christian. Jesus warned about wolves in sheep's clothing so I see no reason to believe that every person who professes to be Christian is truly a Christian. There are plenty of cases in history of false/heretical people and sects proclaiming to be Christian when they have radically different beliefs than orthodox forms of Christianity.

For example, consider this: "In 1984, David Jenkins, Anglican Bishop of Durham, described Christ’s resurrection as “a conjuring trick with bones” (“English Bishop Calls Christ’s Resurrection Conjuring Trick,” AP, St. Louis Post Dispatch, Oct. 28, 1984). Jenkins also said, “The Christian is not bound up with freak biology or corpses getting up and walking around” and “You don’t have to believe in the virgin birth.” (On July 9, 1984, three days after Jenkins was consecrated bishop, lightning struck his cathedral and caused extensive damage. A spokesman for the fire brigade said that though the roof was fully wired with lightning rods, none of them worked that morning; the smoke detectors in the ceiling did not go off, even though they were tested only a month before; and there was no thunder accompanying the lightning. EP News Service, Dec. 21, 1984)."[http://www.wayoflife.org/files/4fa466c4c219ef7377db25265f553ab7-183.html]

If you were more forthcoming, I might shed my skepticism, but instead you have given me no option but to still retain it. That's your choice. But you have to accept responsibility for the consequences of that choice. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:29, 3 January 2012 (EST)
:::: Lieber AugustO hoffe es macht dir nichts aus, wenn ich ihm seine Fragen beantworte (leider nur über Online-Recherche). Falls doch, so entschuldige ich mich und bitte dich meinen Eintrag zu streichen.
::::@ user:conservative: Since I speak German I checked out the website of the EKKW. This is what I found: Women can be ordained. Homosexuals can '''not''' be married. Unfortunately the membership of the EKKW is slightly declining. As for evolution: I could not find any information. As far as I can say, evolution vs. creationism is not that big of a deal in Europe, or at least the German speaking parts. I for one have never seen a discussion about it on TV or in a newspaper. Hope this helped to clarify your questions, so you can go back to the actual argument, which was that AugustO felt insulted by your remarks.
::::AugustO denk doch auch an Lk. 6.29: ''Dem, der dich auf die eine Wange schlägt, halt auch die andere hin, und dem, der dir den Mantel wegnimmt, lass auch das Hemd.'' Herzlich --[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 08:25, 3 January 2012 (EST)

@VPropp: Thanks for your contribution! Sorry if I created the impression that I was after a personal apology by User:Conservative. That is somewhat meaningless for me. It is the language I just don't want to encounter in a '''family-friendly encyclopediay'''. I would like User:Conservative to stop spouting invectives without (or even) with reason.

Recently I discussed with friends whether it would be a good idea to steer candidates for conformation to Conservapedia, to help them to improve there knowledge of English (and the little they know already on Greek). We agreed that this wouldn't be a good idea:
*they are more likely to stumble upon articles on homosexuality etc. on Conservapedia than on Wikipedia
*there is a high probability that they get insulted after a short period of editing
*frankly, the ''Popular articles at Conservapedia '' aren't written that well - and I can detect this though I'm not a native speaker!
*finally: what should I answer a catechumen if he asks me whether our pastor is a lesbian or sodomite? Or what he loves most, extramarital sex, pro-abortion policies or gay bathhouses?
It is deeply disturbing that User:Conservative can be sure that all such concerns will be ''ignored/trimmed''. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:41, 3 January 2012 (EST)

: Sorry if I misunderstood you AugustO. I can see your point, why you would not want candidates for confirmation working on Conservapedia. But I have to interject a few things: 1. I think a far bigger problem, language wise are not the active users here, but the vandals, who very often post disgusting things in a disgusting language. 2. Conservapedia is, in my opinion, still far more family friendly than Wikipedia. I strongly discourage you from bringing your confirmation candidates to Wikipedia. In my experience, one of the first things teenagers will look up are the articles on reproductive organs. On Wikipedia those articles are accompanied by, at the very least, borderline pornographic images. There is also a lot of extremely vile language on the talkpages, which is usually not reverted, unlike (with as you pointed out, a few exceptions) on Conservapedia.
: If you want to improve their English language skills, there are other playfull methods to do so. For instance: watching English movies, discussing song lyrics, writing essays in English, which you or another member of your congregation could proof read. You can give all of those suggestions a strong Chritian focus rather easily. --[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 11:03, 3 January 2012 (EST)
:::Despite his refusal to answer my simple questions, it is obvious that August belongs to a so called "liberal Christianity" denomination and that they are [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on the slope] and a denomination in moral, spiritual, and numerical decline. It is also equally obvious to anyone who has read Conservapedia's [[Christian apologetics]], [[evolution]], [[homosexuality]] and [[liberal]] articles that liberal theology is errant. I see no point in wrangling with someone who takes issue with what I am saying, but is unwilling to answer a few simple questions which are a starting point to a fruitful discussion. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:46, 3 January 2012 (EST)
:: Dear user:conservative, I'm hesitant to call the EKKW a "liberal Christianity" denomination. Since I just gathered some infos from their website and you just read a very short article on Wikipedia, I think we should hear AugustO out, since he's the one that frequents this chruch and is thus more qualified to make statements about its principles. I'm also not quite sure I agree with the blog post you provided about liberal Christianity denomination being "on the slope". While I can see how ordaining homosexuals can bring sexual depravity to a church, I don't see how this is connected with women being ordained. Unfortunately I have also to add that ''my'' [[catholic church|church]] has had some history of sexual depravity. Regretfully I have to say, that among those depravities was just the one that was mentioned in the blog post. Is my church now on the slope. Is my church liberal? I don't think we should judge whole churches based on the errors of a few of its sheep and shepards. I also am a bit disappointed that you refuse to discuss the issue any further with AugustO Sincerely --[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 19:12, 3 January 2012 (EST)

The EKKW is perhaps the most conservative church within the EKD. But that doesn't matter - even if I lived a couple of kilometers to the west in an enclave of the EKIR, I should be save from being accused from being a "liberal Christian". Fact is that Protestant churches in Europe generally work in a different way than in the U.S.: you have little choice which church to go to, but this is balanced by a greater spectrum within the membership of a church. And therefore, there often aren't official positions of a church, and rivaling views can be seen within a church (though the idea of "special creation" and especially the idea of a "Young Earth" is a minority position - held by only few people in Europe.)

As I said: this all is irrelevant. I shouldn't read a statement like '''The only thing "liberal Christianity" loves more than extramarital sex and pro-abortion policies is [[gay bathhouses]]''' in a family-friendly encyclopedia, and I find the various interrogations into my faith - and whether my '''"liberal Christianity" "pastor" '''[is]''' a lesbian or sodomite''' insulting.

I'm not looking for an apology, I'd like the management of this site (this means [[User:Aschlafly]]) to step in and prevent such language. Unfortunately that won't happen - as [[User:Conservative]] has observed so smugly.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:10, 4 January 2012 (EST)
:::August, the EKKW is in spiritual decline and losing members, while Bible believing churches are vibrant and prospering in the world. Maybe you will find someone interested in talking about you and your dying denomination, but it is not going to be me given your stubbornness and unwillingness to have a fruitful conversation. I tried to help you discover the root cause of the problem that you and your church suffer from via some simple questions, but you didn't want to cooperate. When a church or individual starts getting slack about biblical authority and clear teachings within the Bible, church history shows they very often decline and enter into moral decline. The EKKW and EKD is [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on the slope]. I did say that if I overestimated the amount of moral decline at this juncture, my apologies. However, you didn't want to accept my apology. But nonetheless, they are [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on the slope] and in need of repentance. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:24, 4 January 2012 (EST)
:::::By the way, I seem to recall that you are the one who picked a fight with me. Then you get mad when I point out the shortcomings of your belief system in return. I wouldn't be surprised if you poke sleeping dogs with sticks in your neighborhood and then complain when you get bitten. I would suggest throwing your stick in the bushes if you can dish it out, but you get angry when criticism is directed towards your errant beliefs which you obviously cannot defend. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:47, 4 January 2012 (EST)

:*''August, the EKKW is in spiritual decline and losing members, while Bible believing churches are vibrant and prospering in the world. '' Show me some examples ''Bible believing churches'' in Germany - I would be surprised if their vibrancy and prosperity reaches the degree of my church though she is in ''spiritual decline''. I assume that your ''Bible believing churches'' are as energetic as the ''Question Evolution campaign!''.
:*''Maybe you will find someone interested in talking about you and your dying denomination, but it is not going to be me given your stubbornness and unwillingness to have a fruitful conversation.'' It was you who asked about my denomination, so I assumed that you have some interest in it.
:*''I tried to help you discover the root cause of the problem that you and your church suffer from via some simple questions, but you didn't want to cooperate.'' Sorry, but I don't trust your remote diagnosis.
:*''When a church or individual starts getting slack about biblical authority and clear teachings within the Bible, church history shows they very often decline and enter into moral decline.'' Another hidden attack against my church - and me...
:*''The EKKW and EKD is [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on the slope].'' You obviously aren't well informed. That's generally not a problem, as long as you don't offer advice.
:*''I did say that if I overestimated the amount of moral decline at this juncture, my apologies. However, you didn't want to accept my apology.'' Of course, I would accept an apology. I just don't expect one. And I'm right: this isn't an apology, it's just another insult.
:*''But nonetheless, they are [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on the slope] and in need of repentance. '' Again, you gave no reason for having confidence in your remote diagnosis.
:*''By the way, I seem to recall that you are the one who picked a fight with me. '' I didn't pick a fight with you, I criticized one of your statements: see [[Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/106#Conundrum|here]]
:*''Then you get mad when I point out the shortcomings of your belief system in return.'' I got ''mad'' because you aren't able to stay on the subject. Try to differ between the ''debate'' and the ''debaters'' - a good argument should be valid without judging the person who makes it.
:*''I wouldn't be surprised if you poke sleeping dogs with sticks in your neighborhood and then complain when you get bitten.'' Sorry, not my sport.
:*''I would suggest throwing your stick in the bushes if you can dish it out, but you get angry when criticism is directed towards your errant beliefs which you obviously cannot defend. '' *LOL*

:So, let's summarize: my church and I are in moral decline, I adhere to errant beliefs, and my pastor has to be a lesbian or a sodomite. And the whole reason for this conclusion: I don't share your beliefs on ''Young Earth Creationism'' and you have read something on wikipedia about the EKKW.

:Don't you see that this is quite ridiculous? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:23, 4 January 2012 (EST)

::I'm intrigued by all this about "liberal" Christianity versus "Bible-believing" churches. User:Conservative, which denominations do you consider to be "liberal"? What about the Church of England, for example? Are you saying that these aren't true Christians? How many "true" Christians would you estimate that there are worldwide? Which do you consider more pressing: evangelising to "liberal" Christians, or to atheists?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:05, 4 January 2012 (EST)
:::::CPalmer, there are a lot of denominations and I don't pretend to know all of their doctrinal beliefs nor do I want to take the time to do the requisite research. Plus, there are a lot of non-denomination churches and churches which are split between conservatives and liberals. For example, as far as the Anglicans it is well known there is a struggle going on between Bible believing Anglicans and liberal Anglicans and the flash point in recent times has been the homosexuality issue. Third, it is well known that moderate/liberal churches are losing members in the West and conservative, Bible believing churches are seeing growth. There have been numerous books/articles about this matter and this has been happening for decades. As far as evangelizing, a general principle is that Jesus said to preach to those who had ears to hear and to move on and shake the dust off your feet for heavily resistant populations. But that is a general principle, an atheist who just hit rock bottom might be open so you have to be Spirit led. I think prevention is far more effective when it comes to something like atheism as atheists tend to be very resistant to the gospel. On the other hand, if very tough economic times hit I think the atheist population could see big declines. Men do tend to arrogant when wealthy and tend to be more humble when experiencing economic problems. Next, I don't care to speculate on the amount of bona fide Christians in the world as I am not done a significant amount of research in terms of the current Christian population. I am encouraged though as Bible believing churches have seen significant growth worldwide and they appear to be the fastest growing faith in the world. Here is what I do know: 1) The Apostle Paul said to examine yourself and see if you are a member of the faith. 2) In the Book of Revelation a church body was warned that they were lukewarm and were about to be spit out of Christ's mouth. In addition, the Bible says God rewards those who diligently seek Him. However, information on Christianity is publicly available and church bodies do issue statements of faith, so if you are very interested in this matter, I am sure you can find out estimates of the amount of Bible believing Christians in the world. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:01, 4 January 2012 (EST)
:::Just as I suspected! It appears the reason why August0 fired the first shot in this small series of exchanges is that he is upset about the [[Question evolution! campaign]]. I can see why since once it hits Germany, God willing, it will no doubt further accelerate his declining denomination's membership should they decide to be recalcitrant and continue to flout biblical authority. Given Germany's population relative to the European population, it wouldn't be surprised if the members of this young social movement have plans concerning Germany. Since evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer the questions, it would certainly be interesting to watch creationist throw spanners into the machinery of German evolutionary indoctrination. Spanner is a word for wrench with Germanic roots. :) Oh, look [http://questionevolutionde.blogspot.com/ HERE], it seems as though Question Evolution! Germany preparations have started! :) I wonder when Germany will see waves of biblical creation material sweep across their land! :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:38, 4 January 2012 (EST)

I don't know what gave you the impression that the reason I ''fired the first shot in this small series of exchanges is that he is upset about the [[Question evolution! campaign]]'' - I criticized two sentences in which you described how to debate atheists, namely:
*''Bring down the banhammer early and often at Christian/creationist forums and wikis when it comes to these types of atheists/evolutionists. It's fun and entertaining! Mr. Militant, Rude and Ignorant Atheist/Evolutionists, don't get sassy with me! Bam! You're out of here! '' and
*''Never read more than a few words or sentences of inane and socially challenged atheist/evolutionist comments before deleting them''
I think that these ideas don't help to have a ''fruitful dialog''. AFAIK, you elaborated these ideas at first without mentioning ''Question Evolution!'', though you published them on the blog of the campaign.

My position to the campaign: I'll judge it by its fruits. And as you stated [[Talk:Question_evolution!_campaign#Who_is_this_campaign_aimed_to_.3F|here]], this gives me ample time... At the moment, I'm reminded of the ''Hornberger Schiessen''.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 20:07, 4 January 2012 (EST)
::::Did I publish "them"? Secondly, where in the New Testament does it say to have dialogues with rude and militant people? Didn't Jesus talk about not casting pearls before swine and shaking the dust off your feet? Am I missing something? Lastly, I am still not impressed with the fruits of your declining denomination and I have noticed your silence on the issue of marrying homosexuals in the church and other matters. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:53, 4 January 2012 (EST)
::::::AugustO, some Flickr user by the username "atheism" has a rather [http://www.flickr.com/photos/evolution_atheism/3360230417/ unique picture] relative to criticizing Darwinism. User: Atheism also has pictures taken in Germany in his/her photostream as can be seen [http://www.flickr.com/photos/evolution_atheism/3676931503/in/photostream HERE] and [http://www.flickr.com/photos/evolution_atheism/3666454904/in/photostream HERE]. Do you think the creationist "User: Atheism" has been to Germany? Do you think User: Atheism knows fellow creationists in Germany? There may be some Bible believing churches in Germany. If so, I would guess there is a good chance they are growing. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:27, 4 January 2012 (EST)

:*'' Am I missing something? '' Yes, the point: whether you were convinced by my arguments is secondary, the statement ''August0 fired the first shot in this small series of exchanges is that he is upset about the [[Question evolution! campaign]]'' is just not true.
:*''Do you think the creationist "User: Atheism" has been to Germany?'' And to Greece, the Netherlands and France. Looks like a guided tour - the probability that he could engage some people living there in a discussion on creationism is fairly small.
:*''If so, I would guess there is a good chance they are growing.'' One of the main problems with your arguments - you take your ''guesses'' as something to bolster your ''convictions''!
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:16, 5 January 2012 (EST)
:::It does appear as if you didn't take a poke at me and merely criticized my approach. I do stand by my approach as far as dealing with militant atheists who are rude though. Second, because I had limited information about your church in Germany at the time of my initial comments, I do think I should have had a more measured response at the time and I assumed too much. Given that my atheism, evolution and homosexuality articles have factual content which is upsetting to liberals, I do get my share of attacks, but I needn't have a hair trigger in terms of letting someone have it with both barrels which is what happened in your case. However, given that it appears as if your denomination appears to flout what the Bible says about homosexuality and other issues and is losing membership, it does appear as if it is in need of repentance. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:40, 5 January 2012 (EST)

*''It does appear as if you didn't take a poke at me and merely criticized my approach.'' Indeed.
*''I do stand by my approach as far as dealing with militant atheists who are rude though.'' Your prerogative. But it won't strengthen your position, doesn't help to evolve debating skills, and can be often seem to be overly defensive. BTW, how to you deal with rude Christians?
*''Second, because I had limited information about your church in Germany at the time of my initial comments, I do think I should have had a more measured response at the time and I assumed too much.'' Yes, you should have had a more measured response - but not only because of your lack of knowledge! Before writing sentences like '''The only thing "liberal Christianity" loves more than extramarital sex and pro-abortion policies is [[gay bathhouses]]!''' you should ask yourself whether this is something you want to read in a family-friendly environment.
*''Given that my atheism, evolution and homosexuality articles have factual content which is upsetting to liberals, I do get my share of attacks, but I needn't have a hair trigger in terms of letting someone have it with both barrels which is what happened in your case.'' Especially under attack you should try to show the superiority of your position by levelheaded responses.
*''However, given that it appears as if your denomination appears to flout what the Bible says about homosexuality and other issues and is losing membership, it does appear as if it is in need of repentance.'' A ''non sequitur''. Yes, not all is well in the EKD, and even not in the EKKW. And I'm generally willing to discuss the problems, though I don't see any benefit in doing so with you: it would put to much strain on you to make yourself acquainted with the situation so that you can provide fruitful advice. Generalities and tautologies are easy to come by.

As a conclusion from my experiences: when asking about the religious beliefs of somebody, you should be as polite as possible, as this is a sensitive area. And even if you think that your interlocutor isn't honest about his beliefs, you shouldn't insult him - as you may alienate those readers who share his ''pretended'' belief.

Not spouting vitriol against anyone who doesn't share your beliefs completely doesn't make you lukewarm.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:53, 6 January 2012 (EST)
::AugustO, as far as the issue of dealing with a difficult people: our recent discussion, other events and material I read recently, has caused me to rethink matters and make some beneficial changes.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:58, 8 January 2012 (EST)

::::Conservative, you seem a bit obsessed with gay bathhouses, gay marriage, and homosexuality in general...is there something that you would like to share with the class? --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 09:26, 9 January 2012 (EST)

== Deletion of debate aboute 15 questions ==

User:Conservative deleted [[Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists.]] and stated as the reason for this action ‎''if you want to keep deleting my posts to this debate page fine - bye page!''

This comment strikes me as a little juvenile, especially for an administrator (''I'll take my ball and go home''), therefore I created [[Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists]]. The debate is important, as the '''15 questions''' are featured all over Conservapedia and not showing the attempts to answer them could lead to accusations of censorship.

To avoid further tit-for-tat, I try to get a moderated debate.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:17, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::::It is interesting that he justified deleting it based on the fact that his repeated comments (calling me a "shyster") were deleted. It seems that these are the 15 questions that no biologist ("evolutionist" is a rather empty neologism) is '''allowed''' to answer...--[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 21:28, 12 January 2012 (EST)

== 90/10 block of Rudrick Boucher ==

[[User:RudrickBoucher]] was blocked for '''two years''' for breaking the [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3ARudrickBoucher 90/10 rule]. As he is a first-time offender this seems to be an extraordinary long ban - and therefore smacks of ideological censorship.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:15, 14 January 2012 (EST)

:I do find the 90/10 rule a bit of a strange one. Considering how so many articles here are protected, in many cases for no apparent reason it seems, and how the [[Conservapedia:Editing etiquette]] encourages a cautious approach to editing with an emphasis on discussing changes first, the best contributor could be someone who actually violates the 90/10 rule, because they are careful to ensure there is agreement about the change they want to make or simply that they can't edit the article due to protection. Then of course there are the debate pages which are clearly venues for people to talk about issues. The ratio of talk page to article edits alone is a very poor measure of the value of a contributor. It does seem one rule that can easily be abused. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] 08:14, 14 January 2012 (EST)

==Page protect requests==
What is the point of getting a page protect request granted from the site owner so editors can work collaboratively on a sub page, only to have the site owners action undone and opening of a key article to vandals and revert wars? Does the unlocking sysop's action encourage collaborative editing by good faith users, forcing them to waste their time that could be used contributing content, rather than revert warring with trolls? What recourse do good faith editors have for sysop actions from sysops that are incommunicado? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:05, 28 January 2012 (EST)

== We should be nicer ==

After seeing all the ranting and harsh words to Liberals, Democrats, and Conservative users that are trying to fix something that's wrong (that category includes me), I want to share 2 Bible passages:

1 John 3:11-15 NIV
11 For this is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another. 12 Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother’s were righteous. 13 Do not be surprised, my brothers and sisters, if the world hates you. 14 We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love each other. Anyone who does not love remains in death. 15 Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him.

Proverbs 15:1
1 A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.

-[[User:JonnyAmerican|JonnyAmerican]] 10:23, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

== Libertarians ==

I noticed that the rules of conservapedia state the libertarian views are considered "conservative". Presumably, this would apply to economic issues only as their views on social issues are typically quite liberal. I don't have a problem with this, seeing as I am a libertarian myself and have essentially agreed to disagree on the social stuff and focus on the economic stuff. But, since we allow libertarians, who are fiscally conservative/socially liberal, would we allow groups like Peronists, who are fiscally liberal/socially conservative? I forget the link where I saw libertarians specifically mentioned as allowed, but I'll try to find it. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 09:33, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

==Mediawiki features==
Wondering if these features are implemented here:
*<nowiki><categorytree></nowiki>
*page transclusion, e.g.:
:{{Wikiproject:Ex-gay movement/Members}}
Thanks, [[User:LJoseph|LJoseph]] 00:44, 12 May 2012 (EDT)

== Requesting well-written response ==

Having recently found the wikipedia page [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Religiosity_and_intelligence Religiosity and intelligence], I found myself in the strange situation of not knowing where to look for another perspective. Clearly they misinterpret the results of the few studies cited, but it would be very interesting to see if any studies provide different results or at least discuss the accuracy of the cited studies. It would be great to see an article [[Religiosity and intelligence]] on Conservapedia to provide a rebuttal to the other wiki. -- [[User:Jehoshaphat|Jehoshaphat]] 00:20, 9 August 2012 (EDT)
:Clearly there is a link. Newton was a devout Christian and look what he achieved!! Whether the link is causative or merely correlative is hard to say. On the one hand God is likely to look with favour on his adherents, but on the other it may be that intelligent people are just more likely to believe in God. I am not aware of any biblical references that will help you with your research, but others may be able to assist. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 07:14, 9 August 2012 (EDT)
:::see: [[Atheism and intelligence]]. I hope that helps. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:37, 7 September 2012 (EDT)

== Proposed update to Mediawiki 1.18.x ==

This is a redux of User:Conservative's suggestion to update Mediawiki to version 1.18.x (where x is any release version that is stable). His rational for this is to allow support for Extension:Wikilog (a wiki blogging device), and to update the php script used to create titles (so AT&T shows up instead of AT%20T in search, etc).

==Pros==
*I agree, as it will also allow for the installation of various extensions, that I find are incredibly useful on a wiki community, such as [http://www.uesp.net/wiki/User:Nx/vandalbrake VandalBrake] (a extension that slows down vandals significantly, but still lets them lodge complaints, etc [The original link is apparently blacklisted: rhymes with nationalpikcy]), the WIGO extension, by Nx again, and even core reversion deletion. The update itself is a simple, clicking proccess that ASchafly could spend a matter of minutes configuring.[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 00:10, 25 September 2012 (EDT)
==Cons==

==Vote==
This is not open for voting yet 

== question ==

I'm pretty sure that on wikipedia there is the ability to see the number of page views, does this website allow you to do anything similar? [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 08:59, 4 October 2012 (EDT)
:Yes. Please look at the very bottom of each page in the white "margin". Also please look at [[Special:PopularPages]], which gives a sorted list. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 09:05, 4 October 2012 (EDT)
==Editor retention==
Do we have any statistics on editor retention? I know that the [[Special:Statistics]] page says that 719 people have edited in the past 91 days, but I suspect that this includes spammers and sockpuppets who are promptly blocked. What is the current size of our editor corps? What can we do to retain more editors or to recognize and reward editors for their service?

Wikipedia has a "Wikimania" conference. Has CP considered a face-to-face event to encourage comraderie among our volunteers? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 11:58, 16 November 2012 (EST)
==Main Page proposal==
Currently only two editors control most of the content for the main page. Rather than promote the great content of Conservapedia, the main page promotes off-wiki content. Obvious suggestions, such as noting the passing of Senator [[Daniel Inouye]], do not receive serious consideration. [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/119#Main_Page_Right Other proposals have been ignored.] I have just proposed on [[Talk:Main Page]] that we establish a three person committee to filter and edit main page items. If there is a disagreement about an item, they can vote to decide the issue. Because this would be a lot of day-to-day work, I propose that people would serve on the committee for 9 months, with staggared terms. So, every calendar quarter, the membership of the Committee would be different. People would volunteer and Andy would select among the volunteers. Nobody would be selected to serve a second time until all volunteers had a chance to serve once. I would welcome the thoughts of others on this plan. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 09:15, 18 December 2012 (EST)
: Please leave your comments [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page#Formal_Proposal_to_Establish_a_Main_Page_Committee here.] Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 14:14, 20 December 2012 (EST)

== Conservative Hypocrisy (Please read FULLY before judging/deleting/blocking ==
I know I'm new here and that my opinions have already run counter to a few of the more senior users here; however I'd like to reiterate how much I respect the work you're doing and my desire to help make this site a respected alternative to wikipedia. Now, onto the point of this post.
One of the biggest and most frequent complaints I've seen on this site in my time here, first just as a read and now as an editor, seems to have been the lack of a [[Conservative Hypocrisy]] page. Now, I know that this has been a very unpopular topic, but I also think it's a large enough issue to require addressing if we want to be taken seriously by the center/undecided population in the political, social and religious aspects of society. The true conservatives already agree with what is being presented on this site and will no matter what, we need to gain acceptance from those who are not already on our side in order to expand.
Now, does gaining that acceptance mean we have to weaken our stances or compromise our beliefs? Not in the least. I merely suggest that it means we need to be honest and open about all of the truth, not just the parts we like.
So, if anyone is still reading with an open mind at this point, here my suggestion for a [[Conservative Hypocrisy]] page. We already have pages on [[RINO]]s, [[PLINO]]s and [[XINO]]s as well as personal biography pages on public figures who claim to be conservative while demonstrating the complete opposite through their actions. Like it or not, these are all examples (to my understanding of the definition of the word hypocrisy) of [[Conservative Hypocrisy]].
As far as I can tell, I'm going about making this suggestion in the right way and in the right place, but I'll be the first to admit that I'm no expert on wiki-etiquette, so please feel free to move it to the proper place and let me know if I've made a mistake. Thank you for your time and I hope to hear some feedback in the near future, [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 11:19, 7 April 2013 (EDT)
::I find it very hard to believe that no one has any opinion on this so I'm assuming it just got missed... I'll give it 24 more hours and if there's still no objection or comment I'm going to start working on drafting a [[Conservative Hypocrisy]] page according to the outline I described above. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 23:18, 8 April 2013 (EDT)
:::You can write a page concerning the abandonment of conservative principles by some, but the answer is no for a "conservative hypocrisy" page. This was attempted by trolls and thugs several years ago when they tried to force their way on the site, and it won't be allowed now. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:02, 9 April 2013 (EDT)
::I think you missed my point while actually making my point for me at the same time... I haven't been here long, yet I've already seen the trolls and thugs repeatedly bring it up and attempt vandalization through the fact that the page doesn't exist. If we make the page, present the facts and admit while that conservatives as a whole are not perfect, we are still much better than the alternatives, we take that power away from them. Please reread my initial post, take some time to contemplate 1 John 1:10 and/or Romans 3:23 and then if you still believe we should not publicly admit the shortcomings of some of our conservative brothers and sisters in order to make this site a more accepted and viable alternative to wikipedia, then I'll drop the subject. Thanks, [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 00:54, 9 April 2013 (EDT)
:::The answer is still no. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:11, 9 April 2013 (EDT)
::Thank you for being open minded enough to give my suggestion a full 17 minutes and 5 words worth of your time. As promised, I won't bring it up again. Sincerely, [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 10:02, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

== Moving / renaming pages ==

Please could someone explain how to rename pages on CP so as to preserve the editing history. I know it can be done on WP but I guess it isn't done the same way on CP. (I know it can be done on WP because I couldn't figure out how to do it on CP, so I looked up how to do it on WP, then I saw that their method doesn't apply to CP - a button is missing or something.) I want to do this because I've been studying British History at school and I want to change the names of pages about their Prime Ministers to those that people would recognise, e.g. Marquess of Rockingham instead of Charles Wentworth-Watson, Duke of Portland instead of William Cavendish-Bentinck, etc. This would make CP easier to use for studying British History. Thanks to anyone who can help me here. [[User:StaceyT|StaceyT]] 17:06, 13 April 2013 (EDT)
:Is any sysop monitoring this page? If so, please could you answer my question. [[User:StaceyT|StaceyT]] 20:35, 10 May 2013 (EDT)

==over 12 hours of not being able to edit==
I posted this problem last week elsewhere and never received a response, just as I received no response from the email I sent when it happened the week before that... So I guess I'll try it here. From 10am to 1030pm (Eastern Time) I was unable to edit any page on this site, including my own user and user:talk pages. It occurred suddenly while I was removing dead end pages and according to my "block records" I have never been blocked, yet this is at least the 4th time it has happened. Can someone please explain this to me? Thanks, [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 22:56, 22 April 2013 (EDT)

== Public notice to evolutionists - 6/1/2013 ==

The Sherman tank(s), also known as [[User: Conservative]] :), is/are not going to be bogged down in the talk page [http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/articles/hedgerowbreakout.aspx hedgerows] fighting pointless, low priority battles with insincere, evolutionist posers who are too afraid to debate the creationist [[VivaYehshua]] (the biology major at a university) on the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions] for evolutionists. See: [[VivaYehshua]].

I/we hear the pings of your sniper fire in the recent changes log of CP, but your rifle fire is having no effect! I/we are not bogged down!

Do not get you hopes up that I/we will be checking the Community Portal frequently or at all. I/we reserve the right to read the Community Portal or post in the Community Portal whenever I/we are so inclined. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:58, 1 June 2013 (EDT)
:News from a Question evolution campaign blog: On June 3, 2013, VivaYehshua said he was pleased that evolutionist were afraid to debate him via a debate offer that has repeatedly been given to evolutionists.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2013/06/evolutionists-failed-to-overturn.html]
::VivaYehshua's ability to make evolutionists quake in their boots (especially Fergus Mason) is becoming more widely known.[http://templestream.xanga.com/771564827/top-problems-with-evolutionary-teaching-today/] :)[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:00, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

== QuestyCaptcha ==
I noticed that in the RC, there's been a large amount of spammers. Perhaps implementing QuestyCaptcha, a system that uses questions that Mr. Schlafly chooses, could stem the onslaught. It works excellently at my wiki. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 21:10, 1 June 2013 (EDT)

== VivaYehshua vs. Fergus Mason. VivaYehshua won hands down and effortlessly ==

Mr. Mason, anytime you want your head back, just agree to debate VivaYehshua and actually carry through with the debate this time. Unless of course, you are still a quivering bowl of jelly! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:23, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
::Mr DeMy*er, any time you want a book published ask me to write it for you, instead of some cretard loser. $2,000 plus tax and your "15 Questions" book will be done by the end of the month.--[[User:MFerguson|MFerguson]] 13:56, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
: Haha, all the evolutionists I have ever met are like this, they run away from fights at every chance. [[User:RowanO|RowanO]] 11:12, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
::Rowan, I turned up for the debate and instantly got banned by another moderator. Ken tends to forget that little detail.--[[User:MFerguson|MFerguson]] 13:58, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
It has been agreed that debating this person is not a reason for being blocked, I think your hatred is a valid reason for a block, you are a coward and a bully. I am seriously considering reporting user:Conservative to UK immigration and having him declared "Persona non Grata" in the UK--[[User:Patmac|Patmac]] 11:22, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
::Patmac, you are an endless source of amusement! How many people do you think go by the name of [[User: Conservative]] on their passports when entering the UK. :) Second, Fergus Mason agreed to debate VivaYehshua. Now all he has to do to remove his stain of intellectual weakness, cowardice and dishonor is carry through on his promise and debate VivaYehshua. Unless of course, Fergus is afraid of being soundly thrashed in a debate and having the debate widely distributed. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:15, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
:::Patmac, are you going to get Scotland Yard on this case or are you going to report [[User: Conservative]] to Interpol for high crimes and misdemeanors instead? You are acting like a yappy, little dog that is all bark and no bite. Patmac, liberalism is rapidly heading towards financial bankruptcy in the West and will collapse under its own weight. It happened in the Soviet Union and it will happen to Western nations which ignore the lessons of Greece and what is starting to be played out in California. Empty threats by members of teetering ideologies are not impressive in the least. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:00, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
::::Unsurprisingly patmac has been blocked user:c so he will not be able to respond. It's a shame really, I would have loved to hear the British Home Secretary's reply to any communication from him. I reckon I would have heard her laughing here where I live in the UK 40 miles from London, in fact I suspect you would have heard the laughing all the way over in the US. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 13:40, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
:::::Patmac, I looked up and suddenly saw your signature turn red. I didn't ask Karajou to declare you "Persona non Grata". He did this on his own accord. I do find it to be a case of poetic justice though considering your empty threat to get me/us banned from the UK. For all you know, I/we could be in the UK right now eating fish and chips and washing it down with Mackeson Stout! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:49, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

Nice try, Ken. I see you forgot to mention that Viva (who isn't a christian, by the way) is still banned from Shock's pathetic chatroom. That makes your "debate challenge" a farce, rendered all the more farcical by your cowardly refusal to debate me yourself. Here's me, willing to take time off from writing my latest book to debate you, and you're too gutless. You must really enjoy the company of those bunnies.--[[User:MFerguson|MFerguson]] 13:54, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
::::::User:C, considering the current debacle surrounding Patmac, I would suggest avoiding mention of him for the time being (especially given your highly provocative relationship with him)[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 14:01, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
Fergus, you don't know what you are talking about and I/we also don't believe you are being sincere.

First, trinitarian Messianic Jews like VivaYehshua, recognize that Jesus was God and the Savior of mankind. Also, in most forms of Messianic Judaism salvation is by God's grace (I am assuming many of them also believe that true faith will have works).

Second, in the past you claimed that VivaYehshua did not like the 15 questions for evolutionists. I/we talked to VivaYehshua and he does like the 15 questions for evolutionists. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kZvzbhWK0c HERE] is a video of Shockofgod and VivaYehshua on the Question Evolution Campaign which includes the 15 questions for evolutionists. So why should I believe your claim that Viva has been banned from the Shockofgod's chatroom? I/we don't believe this. VivaYehshua is now attending a university for biology and he is working too. I/we think he is merely busier and in the chatroom less. Shockofgod is still reachable through (twitter, YouTube channel, blog) and so there is no reason why you can't get in contact with VivaYehshua and/or Shockofgod.

Fergus, just admit it. You agreed to debate VivaYehshua and then you cowardly backed down! I/we wouldn't even consider debating a cowardly and obscure evolutionist such as yourself until you keep your promise to debate VivaYehshua. First socks Fergus and then shoes! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:10, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
::By the way Patmac, I/we know why you became so enraged and had your childish, little "I'll get you banned from the UK" temper tantrum. That cat that gets hit by the shoe yelps the loudest! You know that what I/we said about [[evolution|Darwinism]] and [[liberal Christianity]] are true. See: [[Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity]] and [[Liberal Christianity and irrationalism]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:31, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

:Mackeson Stout!!? C'mon Cons; try and refer to what you know, not what you've had to search for. (And while I am at it - what has [[Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity]] got to do with the subject being discussed? Oh! I see. It's a bit of triumphalism creeping in - taunting the person who can't answer back - is that a Conservative trait or a conservative trait. To my knowledge it is not a Christian trait. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:33, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

[[User:Conservative]] I thought you did not have any time in the next couple of years to engage in - or even read for that matter - conversations such as this. This is very much like the type of discussion you would find on a talk page, is it not? Are you going back on your promise, are you not as busy as you thought you would be or have your commitments been lessened? [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 23:55, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
::Wilcox, tied up the Fergus Mason loose end today. May be checking recent changes less frequently. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:31, 4 June 2013 (EDT)
:::AlanE, the underlying issue is I offered valid criticism of so called [[liberal Christianity]] via facts/studies and the best Patmac could do is say "I am offended", "you are hateful", etc. etc. I am offended, etc. etc. is not a rational defense that regates facts/reality. It is a petulant display of immaturity. It is lame - just like his I will get you barred out of the UK lameness. I am offended is #5 of [[liberal style]]. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:17, 4 June 2013 (EDT)

== Creationists GROWING. Atheists flagging ==

[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2013/06/atheist-wiki-lacks-internet-machismo.html Creationist group's influence GROWING. Atheist wiki flagging]

==It might be helpful==
not to oversight everything, derpy :) [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 16:13, 9 June 2013 (EDT)
:Helpful to whom? :) I heard that Karajou is going to take a minute or two to learn how to use the oversight tool today. :) It looks like his archnemisises Fergus and Ace will soon have their drivel be put in Davey Jones' locker from now on. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:29, 9 June 2013 (EDT)
[[File:Señor-Dawkins-in-his-intellectual-bunnyhole.jpg|thumb|Here's an picture that's here for some reason.]]
::Helpful to everyone here at the project who has enough machismo to stand behind their edits and actions rather than duck into a bunny hole when challenged. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 16:59, 9 June 2013 (EDT)
:::Brendon, a mighty wave of Karajou oversighting is coming to Fergus's and Ace's prattle! "For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill." - [[Sun Tzu]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:55, 9 June 2013 (EDT)
::::I didn't mean you, you silly derp! I meant that oversighting edits caused by reversions of spammers and trolls clouds judgement for future administrative decisions. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 19:03, 9 June 2013 (EDT)
[[File:Submarine.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|Karajou will soon be able to torpedo the prattle of Fergus and Ace without warning via oversighting and send it to Davey Jones' locker where it will never be seen again by mortal men.]]

Talk:Roman Catholic Church

2013-06-15T17:44:45Z

NKeaton: /* Evolution */

Talk:Roman Catholic Church

2013-06-15T17:41:19Z

NKeaton: /* Evolution */

John Elway

2013-06-14T16:06:57Z

NKeaton: Undo revision 1056556 by QLee (talk) Your opinion is not fact.

'''John Elway''' (born June 28, 1960 in Port Angeles, [[Washington]]) is a former [[AFC|American football conference]] quarterback in the [[National Football League]] (NFL) for the [[Denver Broncos]] from 1983 through 1998. He holds many college and some professional records, was inducted to the [[Pro Football Hall of Fame]] in Canton, [[Ohio]], and is one of two quarterbacks to have started in five [[Super Bowl]]s, [[Tom Brady]] being the other . He entered the NFL in 1983, when he was drafted with the first overall pick of the NFL Draft by the Baltimore Colts. After refusing to play or sign a contract with the Colts and indicating that might try to play professional baseball instead, he was traded to the [[Denver Broncos]].<ref>http://football.about.com/cs/legends/p/johnelway.htm</ref>

After losing in his first three Super Bowl appearances, Elway came back strong to win his last two in back to back years (1997 & 1998) and then retired.

Elway is now an executive with the Denver Broncos organization.

==References==
<references/>
==External Links==
*[http://www.johnelway.com/ John Elway.com]
*[http://www.profootballhof.com/hof/member.jsp?PLAYER_ID=64 Hall of Fame Bio]
*[http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/ElwaJo00.htm NFL Stats]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Elway, John}}

[[category: NFL Players]]

John Elway

2013-06-14T13:56:40Z

NKeaton: Undo revision 1056248 by QLee (talk)

National Football League

2013-06-14T13:54:19Z

NKeaton: Undo revision 1056548 by QLee (talk)

[[Image:2006 Pro Bowl.jpg|thumb|350px|NFL quarterback [[Peyton Manning]] of the [[Indianapolis Colts]] attempts a pass at the 2007 [[Pro Bowl]].]]
The '''National Football League''' (NFL), is composed of 32 professional [[American Football|football]] teams from the [[United States]]. Teams play sixteen regular season games. Each team also receives a "bye" week in which it doesn't play, resulting in a 17-week regular season. Twelve teams qualify for the playoffs, which culminates in the NFL's championship game, the [[Super Bowl]].

== History ==
The origins of the NFL go back to a single game of soccer played between Rutgers and Princeton on November 6, 1869. The game used modified London Football Association rules that began the distinction between (American) soccer and rugby. The NFL was originally formed in 1920 as the American Professional Football Association but in 1922 it officially adopted the name of the National Football League as it is today. In 1960, [[Kansas City]] businessman [[Lamar Hunt]] founded the [[American Football League]] (AFL) to be a competitor to the NFL. By 1970, the two leagues merged with the original NFL teams becoming the [[National Football Conference]] and the AFL teams becoming the [[American Football Conference]].

==List of Teams==
{|cellspacing="0" border="1" cellpadding="4"
|+<big>NFL Teams by Conference</big>
!colspan="4"|AFC
!colspan="4"|NFC
|-
!East Division !! North Division !! South Division !! West Division!!East Division !! North Division !! South Division !! West Division

|-
|
*[[Buffalo Bills]]
*[[Miami Dolphins]]
*[[New England Patriots]]
*[[New York Jets]]
|
*[[Baltimore Ravens]]
*[[Cincinnati Bengals]]
*[[Cleveland Browns]]
*[[Pittsburgh Steelers]]
|
*[[Houston Texans]]
*[[Indianapolis Colts]]
*[[Jacksonville Jaguars]]
*[[Tennessee Titans]]
|
*[[Denver Broncos]]
*[[Kansas City Chiefs]]
*[[Oakland Raiders]]
*[[San Diego Chargers]]
|
*[[Dallas Cowboys]]
*[[New York Giants]]
*[[Philadelphia Eagles]]
*[[Washington Redskins]]
|
*[[Chicago Bears]]
*[[Detroit Lions]]
*[[Green Bay Packers]]
*[[Minnesota Vikings]]
|
*[[Atlanta Falcons]]
*[[Carolina Panthers]]
*[[New Orleans Saints]]
*[[Tampa Bay Buccaneers]]
|
*[[Arizona Cardinals]]
*[[St. Louis Rams]]
*[[San Francisco 49ers]]
*[[Seattle Seahawks]]
|}

== See also ==
*[[Vince Lombardi]]

== External links ==
*[http://www.nfl.com/ Official Site of the National Football League]
*[http://www.nfl.com/history NFL History]

[[Category:National Football League]]
[[Category:Sports leagues]]

Talk:Antioch program

2013-03-03T16:11:22Z

NKeaton: Created page with "I can't find anything except a church in Florida referring to a NYC mission. Please give a website and I will help. Nate ~~~~"

I can't find anything except a church in Florida referring to a NYC mission. Please give a website and I will help. Nate [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 11:11, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Talk:Devil

2013-03-03T15:59:10Z

NKeaton: /* False etymology */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

== False etymology ==

διαβάλλω is contracted from διά and βάλλω and it means "to throw or carry over or across", but it is literally used to describe a move in wrestling or "to pass over, cross". So generally it is used to describe the '''throw of a single item''', e.g. your opponent when wrestling or yourself (used reflexively as "to cross") - that's not how one creates chaos! Figuratively, it means "to attack a man's character, calumniate", "to speak or state slanderously", "deceive by false accounts", etc. To stress my: '''διαβάλλω does not mean ''to create chaos'', it has nothing to do with disorder.''' διάβόλος is a slanderer, '''διάβόλος doesn't mean creator of chaos.''' There is no evidence that it is even used literally in the sense of someone passing, etc. (See [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=%CE%B4%CE%B9%CE%B1%CE%B2%CE%AC%CE%BB%CE%BB%CF%89&la=greek#lexicon Liddell-Scott]]) --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:04, 3 March 2013 (EST)
::According to [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=diaba/llw this], the word can also mean "divert from a course of action" and according to your website it could also mean "filled with suspicion against another" i.e creating discord, or chaos in other words. Therefore the interpretation of the word as chaos is valid. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 09:21, 3 March 2013 (EST)
:That is very weak indeed! Chaos implies discord, but filling with suspicion doesn't necessarily imply chaos. There is no source which ever has translated διάβόλος as "one who creates chaos" or even ''"one who throws things around" in the sense of creating the chaos''. That's a mixture of clutching straws and wishful thinking, mixed with folk-etymology - it isn't used in that sense.
:Indeed, διάβόλος is even one step removed from διαβάλλω - it is generally only used as "slanderer".
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:28, 3 March 2013 (EST)
::When you take into account Satan's rule over the earth, causing division cannot means anything other than chaos. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 09:33, 3 March 2013 (EST)
:That's not translating - that' just playing a game of word associations. I hope that you are more diligent when tranlating the Hebrew text.
:Yes, Satan creates chaos. But your reasoning is circular:

:::''Satan obviously creates chaos'' and ''Devil means Satan'' therefore ''Devil means creator of chaos''. So, now ''Devil means creator of chaos'', therefore ''the Bible talked about chaos when it spoke of Satan as the devil'', proving that ''Satan creates chaos''.

:The meaning of διάβόλος is slanderer. You won't find any Greek source where it is understood in another meaning. So even if Luke started to use a new meaning for this word (as a kind of Biblical Humpty-Dumpty), his listeners only would have understood "slanderer".

:Markman, please think about the above and undo your edit. Thanks.

:--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:42, 3 March 2013 (EST)

::"his listeners only would have understood "slanderer"" His listeners (or more accurately readers) were Christians, so they would have already understood that the Devil is the source of all evil. When you add to that the meaning of the word as "divert from a course of action"/"filled with suspicion against another"/"one who throws things", they would have understood it to mean chaos. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 09:53, 3 March 2013 (EST)
:::No. The Jews did not have the same concept of Satan as Christ reveals. Most readers were Jews or Christians in a much more Jewish church than we know now. Given that the purpose of the gospels and letters is to teach and exhort, it is hard to say that all readers would have understood that the devil is the source of all evil. Anyway, as I already mentioned Mr. Schlafly, there is no indication from any use of diabolos in the entire new testament that any author ever used diabolos to refer to chaos or any concept like chaos. It means "slanderer". That's it. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 10:30, 3 March 2013 (EST)

::::The "slanderer" translation does not fit in the context of the [[Three Temptations of Christ]]. The devil was not slandering anyone then. What the devil was doing was trying to derail or create a chaotic disruption to God's order and purpose.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:43, 3 March 2013 (EST)
:::::It fits fine. It is not a translation. It's his name, or really the kind of thing he is, in every use you're referring to, not a reference to some action he is taking. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 10:59, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Talk:Devil

2013-03-03T15:30:03Z

NKeaton: /* False etymology */

Talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2013-03-01T05:53:50Z

NKeaton: /* when it quotes the devil, which is the word for chaos */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

[[Talk:Biblical_scientific_foreknowledge/Archive1|Archive 1]]

== One problem ==

This is a wonderful article, with many in sites that could drive atheists to the brink of despair. The one issue is "...by 2011 obesity was far more prevalent and harmful than hunger. " I realize that this is an America-centric wiki, but if you look at world numbers, 500 000 000 obese, 925 000 000 without adequate nutrition. Just found this a bit of a slap in the face

:I think you're missing a key word in your comment. I also think there are more than 500 million obese people in the world.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:51, 20 February 2012 (EST)

::http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/ These are the 2008 obesity statistics. As for the missing key word, I could not find it, but if you could point out a flaw in my argument, I would be quite happy [[User:Sy20|Sy20]] 12:02, 21 February 2012 (EST)

==Grand Unified Theory... what!?==
"''But Genesis explains that the creation of light was done in a separate, initial creation, free of darkness or entropy, and thus incapable of unification with matter.''" So did God specifically separate visible light out from the rest of the EM spectrum, or did He create x-rays, gamma rays, radio waves, electricity and magnetism at the same time? Seems to me if light was a separate creation it wouldn't rest in the middle of the current electromagnetic spectrum, was it shoehorned in later? I'm not sure what to make of what I'm reading here. Further explanation is required. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 20:38, 25 February 2012 (EST)
:Like I said below, both light and (say) electrons behave sometimes like waves, and sometimes like particles. In the standard formalism people use, one takes the fields to fundamental for everything: photons, gluons, quarks, electrons, and so on. (This is called quantum field theory, for obvious reasons.) And like Joshua said, is it specifically the visible spectrum, or all EM radiation? Because it's clear that there is nothing special about the visible spectrum. And GUT's refer to the unification of the strong force with the electroweak force. Not light with matter. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 10:18, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

==Section or new article on future knowledge==

I was thinking it would be a good idea to write an article, or perhaps a subsection to this article, that details knowledge or predictions in the bible that are not yet known to science. What do you think? --[[User:JeremyK|JeremyK]] 12:46, 1 March 2012 (EST)

:That's a great idea! Please start a subsection or, perhaps better, a new entry as you suggested.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:06, 1 March 2012 (EST)

::Excellent! I have to finish up a research paper this week so I'll be very busy, but I'll try and draw up a draft for next weekend.--[[User:JeremyK|JeremyK]] 08:50, 4 March 2012 (EST)

== GUT ==

You state that "Billions of dollars and millions of hours have been wasted by atheists in futile pursuit of a "grand unified theory" for physics. But Genesis explains that the creation of light was done in a separate, initial creation, free of darkness or entropy, and thus incapable of unification with matter." I had a laugh at this: electromagnetism/light ''was'' unified with another force (the weak force) around 40 years ago...
 
And don't tell me you are going to start a "counterexamples to the electroweak theory" page... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:54, 1 March 2012 (EST)
:Maybe you'll get a response. As you can see, I made similar statements a few sections above you. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 19:59, 1 March 2012 (EST)
::Yeah, I noticed that right after I posted mine. Sorry! [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:47, 1 March 2012 (EST)

:::Yeah, and sometimes light acts like particles (e.g., the [[photoelectric effect]]). But a few similarities between light and matter do not negate the fundamental differences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:36, 2 March 2012 (EST)

::::And what are the fundamental differences? Everything sometimes acts like particles, and sometimes like waves. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the point of a GUT to unite the electroweak theory with the theory of the strong force (quantum chromodynamics)? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:43, 6 March 2012 (EST)

:::::Semantic debates are not very interesting. The basic point is clear: light (the entire spectrum) is fundamentally different from matter as illustrated by their creation on different days. Efforts to unify them are a waste of time and money.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:54, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::So the point you are making is: light and matter are different, and so light cannot be on equal footing with (say) electrons, right? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 13:53, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::::They have the same [[Creator]], so if one searches hard enough then a few similarities can be found, but fundamentally they were created on different days for different purposes, and are very different.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:53, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::::And what are the differences? In the formalism one uses in particle physics, both the photons and the electrons are treated with the field as fundamental--the particles are merely quanta of the excited energy spectrum. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:00, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::::::If there were no differences, then a unified theory would exist. But it does not. Mass exerts a gravitational force that is fundamentally different from electromagnetism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:33, 20 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::::::Can light be unified with any other force? Like the nuclear forces? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 14:46, 21 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::::::::I also think you're confusing inertial mass with gravitational mass.... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:03, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

== Last shall be first, and the first shall be last ==

How is this statement hinting to set-theory? Could this explained? And did it hint the LIFO principle of queuing theory? For me this seems to be quite a stretch. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:04, 17 June 2012 (EDT)

== Pi to one significant figure ==

I removed the comment about pi to one significant figure as the verses deal with 10 * pi. I know that 31 to one sig fig is still 30, but the verses are in the order of magnitude 1, not 10, so it would be nonsensical to round 31 to 30. [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 00:54, 20 August 2012 (EDT)

== ... out of no extra material ==
One would think that loafs and fishes are measurable ("''material''") and therefore, that Banach-Tarski isn't applicable... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:08, 12 September 2012 (EDT)
:One would think that if Jesus' extraordinary doings were explainable by scientific means that said doings aren't actually miracles but merely a corollary of Clarke's third law? This, in turn ''could be'' used in a denial of Our Savior's deity. [[User:JuanMotame|JuanMotame]] 16:50, 12 September 2012 (EDT)

:Replying to August, I find his objection to be nitpicky. The analogy with Banach-Tarski is a strong one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:56, 14 September 2012 (EDT)

::''Nitpicky''? I start to see this as a compliment...
::Banach-Tarsky relies on the [[Axiom of Choice]] to choose two sets from a ball which are not measurable: there is no way to put a weight to those two sets in any sensible way - thus no material can be chopped up this way. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:04, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

== Zero ==

I couldn't find any reference to zero in the Bible in the sense of a [[place-value notation]]. Obviously there are many mentions of nothingness, but that is a different topic - and you'll find similar occurrences in virtually every piece of literature. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 06:03, 14 September 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly, by your standard the [[Iliad]] contains ''hundreds of references to the concept of zero throughout'':

::θαρσήσας μάλα εἰπὲ θεοπρόπιον ὅ τι οἶσθα:
::οὐ μὰ γὰρ Ἀπόλλωνα Διῒ φίλον, ᾧ τε σὺ Κάλχαν
::εὐχόμενος Δαναοῖσι θεοπροπίας ἀναφαίνεις,
::οὔ τις ἐμεῦ ζῶντος καὶ ἐπὶ χθονὶ δερκομένοιο
::σοὶ κοίλῃς παρὰ νηυσί βαρείας χεῖρας ἐποίσει
::συμπάντων Δαναῶν, οὐδ᾽ ἢν Ἀγαμέμνονα εἴπῃς,
::ὃς νῦν πολλὸν ἄριστος Ἀχαιῶν εὔχεται εἶναι.

:Do you see how [[Achilles]] refers to zero Greeks? Does this mean that [[Homer]] foresaw our modern decimal system? That is absurd. Until you can show at least ''one'' verse in the Bible where there is a reference to zero in the sense of a [[place-value notation]], I'll remove this topic. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:59, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

::In my opinion it is also incorrect to say that western mathematicians had no concept of zero, it is just that it is not necessary in an additive number system like roman numerals. I forget the exact place, but the Venerable Bede (who lived quite early in the middle ages) uses the word 'nulla'(or something to that effect, my Latin is non-existent) to stand for zero in a list.[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 09:42, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

:::The concept of nothing or zero existed by the [[Middle Ages]]. Many credit [[India]] with the discovery of zero/nothing around [[A.D.]] 500, I think.

:::But if Romans had not been so resistant to the [[Bible]] then they would have discovered and used it far sooner. The importance of zero/nothing is pervasive in the Bible. Indeed, I'll add the insight in one passage about how 0 times a large number is still zero.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:53, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

:::*The Romans were - most of the time - not resistant to the Bible, but ignorant of it: from 753 B.C. until 100 A.D., there was only the Old Testament around, and Judaism is not exactly religion encouraging missionaries...
:::*Bede used ''nulla'' in the early 8th century, the decimal system was introduced by Fibonacci in the 12th century. The inventors were the Hindus which generally didn't know the Bible at all: So was the knowledge of the Bible detrimental to the introduction of zero as a powerful mathematical concept?
:::*Again, please give us a sample of verses were zero occurs in the Bible - that shouldn't be difficult for you, as you claim that ''The importance of zero/nothing is pervasive in the Bible''.
:::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:09, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

=== Argument from Numerology ===
''Also, in Matthew 16:26, Jesus points out that after one loses his soul (the equivalent of zero), no multiplication of value can amount to anything: it's still zero. In other words, anything times zero is still zero, an insight the Romans lacked. ''

Aschlafy, you are introducing numerology into scripture! There is no mention of zero in this verse, you put it into it for your convenience!

''For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?'' (Matthew 16:26)

Where did you get the idea that the Romans lacked the insight that ''anything times zero is still zero''? Any scholarly source?

And you are not even consistent: On other places you are talking about the concept of infinity - but zero times infinity isn't necessarily zero....
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 04:36, 16 September 2012 (EDT)

*My [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Biblical_scientific_foreknowledge&diff=1006985&oldid=1006734 edit] comment got mangled - it should read: ''why zero and not -∞? That's just arbitrary...
*if you try to read mathematics into Matthew 16:26, one way is to say that the soul is of infinite value, therefore its worth more than all existing things. Another way is to say that it is of a very great, but finite value, but worth more than all existing things. A third, more modern way, is to claim that it doesn't make sense to compare the soul and mundane things, i.e., that there is no complete order on the value of everything. But these are all interpretations of this verse, none of which is ''obvious''-

--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:38, 17 September 2012 (EDT)

:The most straightforward interpretation is that when a man loses his soul, he has nothing (zero).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:18, 26 September 2012 (EDT)
::I'm afraid that is ''straightforward'' only to you - especially the use of the multiplication: when we lose or acquire things, we tend to add their value, not to multiply it. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:25, 26 September 2012 (EDT)

IMO numerological arguments are meaningless, but here is the most "obvious" or "straightforward" rendition of the verse using your "values": lost soul (0) + world (some value x) = x, ergo something. Have you found anyone else who realized that this verse uses the concept of zero? Or is this insight shared by no one else, allowing only you to see this reference to zero?

Such "insights" can be constructed for the Iliad, too! Does this mean that the Greek gods gave us the zero?

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:55, 26 September 2012 (EDT)

== The significance of blood ==

''The Old Testament teaches that the life of all flesh is its blood (Leviticus 17:13-14 (KJV)). Secular science remained ignorant of the properties and circulation of blood until the 17th century A.D.''

That is not correct - the source itself states: ''That is, life depends upon the existence and circulation of blood, '''a truth known empirically''' but not scientifically tested and proved until the 17th century a.d. (cf. Lev 17:11).''

Indeed, the blood circuit couldn't be seen completely before the invention of the microscope...

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 06:36, 14 September 2012 (EDT)

== God and Calculus ==

''The Bible emphasizes the importance of limits as a key distinction between this world and God; Calculus consists of relying on limits to derive useful results.''

Where does the Bible do so? The ''"source"'' - [http://www.aiias.edu/ict/vol_27/27cc_225-239.htm Norie Grace Rivera-Poblete: "''God and Calculus''"], Institute for Christian Teaching Education Department of [[Seventh-day Adventist]], Prepared for the 27th International Faith and Learning Seminar held at Mission, Muak Lek Saraburi, Thailand December 3 – 15, 2000 - gives '''''one ''''' example:
*''"Limit" reminds us of the experience of the Israelites, as they traveled through the wilderness. Most of the adult Israelites who came out from Egypt did not enter the Promised Land except for Caleb and Joshua. The children of Israel "approached" the Promised Land; generally speaking, all of them reached the border. But none of them would have made it were it not for God's limitless love and grace. Even though they disobeyed Him so many times, God still kept His covenant with the Israelites. ''
That's just not convincing. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:33, 14 September 2012 (EDT)

== The Concept of Infinity ==

''Most thinkers scoffed at the concept of infinity for thousands of years, despite being referenced in the Bible in many ways. See, e.g., Psalm 147:4-6 (God's "understanding is infinte"); Matthew 20:1-14 (parable of the wages for the workers in the vineyard). ''

#Where is the concept of infinity in the parable of the vineyard? Every worker has worked for at least an hour, and everyone gets the same amount of money - its subtext is about the infinite reward we may receive, but the parable itself is certainly finite...
#My Hebrew is worse than my Greek, but to my understanding the Greek idea of infinity/infinities (actual vs. potential) is more sophisticated than the one in the Old Testament. In fact you'll find that in the psalms the same word is used to describe ''the number of the stars'' and God's ''infinite wisdom'': מִסְפָּר (mispar)

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:46, 14 September 2012 (EDT)

:The owner of the vineyard has infinite wealth relative to the workers. The parable is illogical only to those who resist the concept of infinity, as non-believers did until mathematicians accepted the concept more than 1500 years later.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:03, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

::Do you say that the early Christians didn't understand the parable as the generally hadn't a concept of infinity?
::And, pray, how does the ''owner of the vineyard has infinite wealth relative to the workers''? He wasn't even rich as Midas....
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:13, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

''For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?'' (Matthew 16:26) Interesting, how Matthew avoids the term ''infinite''... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:41, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

== Light and Color ==

=== Light and Color ===

''The transfiguration of Jesus is described with remarkable consistency in all three synoptic [[Gospel]]s: in the fullness of light Jesus and his clothing display an intense white, whiter than any bleach could produce. This illustrates what was not discovered and accepted until nearly 1700 years later: that white is the combination of other fundamental colors, and the purest white light is formed by a perfectly full combination (see [[Prism]]).''

The color white seems to be a universal symbol of purity - I fail to see who this is a description ''that white is the combination of other fundamental colors, and the purest white light is formed by a perfectly full combination'' - did Jesus wear a rainbow - coat? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:34, 14 September 2012 (EDT)

:Your first sentence seems to be missing something, and I don't see its relevance anyway. The Bible is not describing a symbol, but an actual event. No, the fullness of light is not a rainbow because the colors are not separated from each other.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:06, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

== Christians do not "mock" creationist concepts ==

''atheists are the ones who "mocked" the creationist concept for about 100 years; Christians do not "mock" creationist concepts''

They would mock them - if they didn't see them as ''creationist concepts''! Wegener was mocked by the ''American Association of Petroleum Geologists'' in a conference in the 1920s. Were there only atheists in this association? No, of course not. But there were Christians which supported other theories, partly perhaps as those seemed to be more easily reconcilable with Scripture. Who are we to criticize them for not recognizing Wegener's theory as better fitting into [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]]? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:18, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

:[[Atheism]] promotes pseudo-intellectual mockery in a way that [[Christianity]] does not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:24, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

::Any examples? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:29, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

:::Are you joking? Perhaps 90% of [[atheistic]] commentary against [[creationist]] concepts is juvenile mockery, with very little logical or scientific substance. This was as true in the [[Scopes Trial]] (1925) as it is today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:39, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

::::Well, more than 90% of Christian commentary against evolutionary concepts is juvenile mockery, at least on this site (see [[:Category:Satire]]). So this doesn't corroborate your statement ''[[Atheism]] promotes pseudo-intellectual mockery '''in a way that [[Christianity]] does not.''''' --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:49, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

:::::Your link is to far less than 90% of this site. See [[Counterexamples to Evolution]] and [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]] and [[Radiometric Dating]], and numerous other entries. Also, there is not a tradition of [[Christians]] mocking [[atheists]] anything like the converse, which dates back to the [[Passion of Christ]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:17, 15 September 2012 (EDT)
A few points:

1. Conservapedia has a 21 page article on evolution which quotes/cites prominent evolutionists amongst others. The article has over 300 footnotes.

2. Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal.

3. The majority of satires were on atheism and not evolutionism. The Bible says that atheists are fools and that honor is not fitting for a fool. The most ardent evolutionists post WWII have been atheists/agnostics. The Conservapedia atheism article is 54 pages long with over 300 footnotes and cites atheists among others.

4. Evolutionists have shown themselves to be deceitful cowards. Deceitful cowards deserve to be mocked. See: [[Atheism and deception]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]] and [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]]

5. [[Shockofgod]] loves the satires and is going to do a whole series of weekly videos on the satires of atheism and evolutionism.

I hope that clears things up. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:20, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

:Thanks, I think you made my case very well. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:25, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

::August, you haven't addressed the fundamental way that [[atheists]] have relied '''''primarily''''' on juvenile mockery against creationism, dating back to the [[Passion of Christ]] as well as statements by [[Clarence Darrow]] during the [[Scopes Trial]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:33, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

:::My point is that the degree of ''juvenile mockery'' of both sides is roughly the same. And were there any atheists present at the [[Passion of Christ]]? I doubt it: there were Romans of various religious beliefs (Rome was quite tolerant) and Jews, but atheist aren't mentioned in the Bible... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:41, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

::::It's easy to compare the statements by [[Clarence Darrow]] against the statements by [[William Jennings Bryan]] during the [[Scopes Trial]]. There's no doubt that Darrow relied on mockery far, far more than Bryan did.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:49, 15 September 2012 (EDT)
AugustO, a few more points:

1. God willing, the Evangelical Covenant Church in Germany will spread the [http://creation.com/15 15 questions] that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer in Germany. Unlike the Protestant denomination that you belong to, they are growing in Germany.

2. One of the largest conservative Christian ministries in the world linked to my atheism and evolution articles.

3. The [[Concerned Women of America]] (CWA) website links to my atheism and evolution articles. CWA is the largest women organization in America. Ergo, conservative ladies love my atheism and evolution articles!

4. If memory serves, you indicated that the German Protestant denomination, which has some its member churches give homosexual "couple" "blessings", is shrinking.

I strongly suspect one of the reasons is that your Protestant denomination church body has a sub-replacement level of births. In 2010, Germany had a 1.39 children per woman which is far below the 2.1 replacement level of births.

All true conservative women love babies.

All true able bodied conservative Protestant married men love their wives and are hard workers with the Protestant work ethic. They are able to have big families.

Ergo, your Protestant church body is likely filled with liberal men and women!

5. Adolf Hitler was a German evolutionary racist and most of the evolutionists German public were enthusiastic followers of him and he spoke before enthusiastic crowds. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:59, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

:#''Unlike the Protestant denomination that you belong to, they are growing in Germany. '' Indeed, and extrapolating the current trends this Germany-wide operating church will have as many members as my church which is restricted mainly to the area of Northern Hesse in just 100 - 150 years.
:#''One of the largest conservative Christian ministries in the world linked to my atheism and evolution articles. '' Which one? I had troubles to find this link
:#''The [[Concerned Women of America]] (CWA) website links to my atheism and evolution articles.'' Indeed, it does - sort of: You have to look very hard to find this link. Using the on-site search option, Conservapedia is mentioned once in a footnote in the article [http://www.cwfa.org/familyvoice/2011-02/FamilyVoiceInsight_February2011.pdf Cutting the Cord - The Case for Defunding Planned Parenthood] from Feb 2011. However the link is to [[Planned Parenthood#Planned Parenthood's Teen Website Gets It Barred from California High School]] and not [[Atheism]] or [[Evolution]]. But there is [http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=15240&department=CFI&categoryid=misc this article] by Matt Barber which praises Conservapedia and mentions its articles on ''on topics ranging from atheism, to homosexuality, to the theory of evolution and so on. '' Sadly this article is quite dated - and nothing links to it on the CWA website.
:#''If memory serves, you indicated that the German Protestant denomination, which has some its member churches give homosexual "couple" "blessings", is shrinking. '' and the population of Germany is shrinking, too. What has this to do with the topic at hand? Is the position of the religious bodies in [[Malaysia]] or [[Indonesia]] more valid as their populations are growing? ''All true able bodied conservative Protestant married men love their wives and are hard workers with the Protestant work ethic. They are able to have big families. '' And many choose not to have big families, but only one to three children. Is this wrong? How many brothers and sisters do you have? How big a family are you planning to have when you reach maturity?
:#Adolf Hitler spoke unfortunately often before crowds in which you would find only few atheists, Nordics, but an overwhelming number of Christians who he laid astray - but Christians non the less. If his party had relied only on atheists it would have amassed the 5.3 million members it had in 1939...

== Growing obesity problem in the world plus obesity problem in the atheist population ==

''This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God--'' 2 Timothy 3:1-4

While Paul enumerates many sins of men in the end times, gaining weight isn't mentioned explicitly. Reading these verses I don't get the image that epidemic obesity is a sign of the end times. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:52, 24 September 2012 (EDT)
::Are you claiming that hedonism is not a major cause for obesity? If so, why? Is the Christian conservative Chuck Norris wrong about obesity primarily being caused by hedonism? See: [[Chuck Norris on the topic of obesity]] If so, why? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:29, 24 September 2012 (EDT)

== Seriously disappointed... ==

@Aschlafly. Unfortunately, I found your last edit to this article to be completely absurd. You added the following: "''A storm developed over the water while Jesus slept (i.e., chaos develops when God is not observing), and it was Jesus's awaking to observe it that calmed the storm.''"

"(...when God is not observing)"!? What sort of arrogant foolishness of man is this? The Almighty God is [[omnipotent]] and omnipresent in His revealed form! There is NOTHING that happens without His observation! Your edit seems to deny the [[Holy Trinity]]. Yet, even worse, casts Jesus down to the level of Fallen Man (who can be easily mistaken upon awakening from sleep). I hope you can find my knee-jerk reaction to be proven wrong. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 05:36, 1 February 2013 (EST)

== when it quotes the devil, which is the word for chaos ==

I don't know a thing about quantum mechanics but I know "devil" is not the word for "chaos". It comes from "diabalos", which is Greek for "slanderer". Satan certainly works to create chaos and turmoil in our lives but that is not what devil means. I would try to make your edit better without this part of the statement but I don't know anything about the science you are talking about. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 22:58, 28 February 2013 (EST)

:We have an entry on [[devil]], and I should have linked to it. My Merriam Webster Collegiate's dictionary says its first etymological meaning is "to throw across."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 28 February 2013 (EST)
::Interesting definition. I see that from a Greek concordance that those words are there in the definition in English but it looks like your translation is pretty loose. http://biblesuite.com/greek/1228.htm The Biblical use means "slander" and never "chaos" as far as I can tell looking at Strong's. Nate. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 23:55, 28 February 2013 (EST)

:::Strong's and older translations tend to prefer philosophical meanings of words, when today a more scientific connotation can be more informative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:38, 1 March 2013 (EST)
::::But why do you say that? The concordance tracks the meaning of the Greek word as it is used in the Bible. There is no scientific connotation. Diabolos means "slanderer". That is what Satan is! The Defamer. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 00:53, 1 March 2013 (EST)

St. Mary of the Angels

2013-03-01T05:51:44Z

NKeaton: Created page with "'''St. Mary of the Angels''' is an opulent "Polish Cathedral" style Catholic church located in Chicago, Illinois. Construction began in 1899. St. Mary of the Angels i..."

'''St. Mary of the Angels''' is an opulent "Polish Cathedral" style [[Catholic]] church located in [[Chicago]], [[Illinois]]. Construction began in 1899. St. Mary of the Angels is located in the Bucktown neighborhood, which was the center of "Polonia", the old center of Polish Catholic Chicago, also home to many German Catholic workers. It is under the authority of the [[Archdiocese of Chicago]] but has been overseen by the Prelature of [[Opus Dei]] since 1991. It is considered to be an extremely conservative Catholic Church within the Archdiocese. St. Mary of the Angels is well-known for providing a welcoming atmosphere for worship for the changing population of the neighborhood. Bucktown was originally founded by Bohemians and Polish, but the neighborhood has changed and the church now serves the remaining Polish population and an increasing number of wealthy young families committed to rigorous faith. The church has a parish school that serves grades 1 through 8.

==External links==
[http://www.sma-church.org/ St. Mary of the Angels]

St. Ignatius College Prep

2013-03-01T05:31:23Z

NKeaton: Created page with "'''St. Ignatius College Prep.''' is a private Jesuit Catholic college prep school located near downtown Chicago, Illinois. It was founded in 1869..."

'''St. Ignatius College Prep.''' is a private [[Society of Jesus|Jesuit]] [[Catholic]] college prep school located near downtown [[Chicago]], [[Illinois]]. It was founded in 1869 by Father Arnold Damen, for whom famous north-south Damen Avenue in Chicago was named. It is a diocesan school under the authority of the [[Archdiocese of Chicago]].

St. Ignatius is located several miles Southwest of downtown Chicago in what was previously open prairie next to swampy grasslands. Father Arnold was originally criticized for choosing a location for Holy Family Parish far from worshippers, but he replied "I shall not go to the people; I shall draw the people to me."<ref>http://www.ignatius.org/jesuit_history.aspx</ref> St. Ignatius is now in the heart of the city, located a few miles from Old St. Pat's Catholic Church, an important center of Irish Catholic culture in Chicago. It is just a few blocks north of the University of Illinois at Chicago and its new University Village development of the former Maxwell Street area.

<references/>

Talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2013-03-01T04:55:03Z

NKeaton: /* when it quotes the devil, which is the word for chaos */

Talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2013-03-01T03:58:16Z

NKeaton: /* when it quotes the devil, which is the word for chaos */ new section

Talk:Fidel Castro

2013-02-26T22:41:35Z

NKeaton: /* Occam's razor */

__TOC__
I’ve heard Castro called many things, but terrorist is not one of them, can someone explain why he is listed as a terrorist? Also could the information justifying that categorization be added to his page?--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 14:33, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:''4. We do not attempt to be neutral to all points of view. We are neutral to the facts. If a group is a terrorist group, then the label "terrorist" is used here but not on Wikipedia.'' (See [[Differences_with_Wikipedia]])
:see [[Terrorism]] for a description of a terroist. Castro certainly was one.
:[[User:BillyBoy|BillyBoy]] 14:41, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::It seems it depends on which of those definitions you are using as to whether or not Castro can be called a terrorist. If you are using the first definition, you can’t call him a terrorist (to the best of my knowledge) as the editorial policy here is (or seems to be) that we don’t say people (or possibly just living people) are guilty of doing something illegally (or, one assumes, unlawfully) unless they have been convicted of doing so. The second definition also probably doesn’t apply as Castro overpowered Batista with force not fear. The third definition (the one implicit in the discussion of Terrorism) may apply to Castro but I’d want to see evidence that he actually used “terror” to achieve his end—violence and intimidation clearly were used, but I’m less sure about terror (and if one part of a conjunction is false the whole of it is, so without some evidence that he used terror to achieve his end, you can’t call him a terrorist).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:19, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Castro couldn't have been convicted of being a terrorist because he terrorized the legal authority that could have convicted him out of existence.
:::[[User:BillyBoy|BillyBoy]] 15:26, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::::That does seem to be a problem with the editorial policy (though I would say he used violence rather than terror to end the previous Cuban government), but I don’t make the policy (I’ve even argued against it). I’m just telling you what I gather the policy is. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:29, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

"the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."

By that definition Batista was a terrorist with his coup in 1934, just as Castro is, or George Washington for that matter...

It's all about the word "unlawful", which generally doesn't have the same meaning in different times and countries.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

== DIctator/President ==

Interesting to note that Castro "has been the dictator of Cuba since 1959 and ''has called himself'' the President of Cuba since 1976," whereas [[Pervez Musharraf]] "''became'' President of Pakistan, ''via a coup''" (emphasis mine). What in essence is the difference? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:46, 19 February 2008 (EST)

:For a dictator, he certainly relinquished power without much of a struggle. [[User:Rugxulo|Rugxulo]] 18:53, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

==Castro Dead?==
Can we see some hard evidence suggesting this? Just because he is keeping to himself dosn't mean he has died. He is still the Secretary of the communist party--[[User:WilliamMc|WilliamMc]] 12:37, 29 December 2009 (EST)

:Maybe Fidel Castro is alive and even editing this site!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:08, 29 December 2009 (EST)

::Speculation is not necessary here as Castro is no longer running the show. His brother Raul Castro was innagurated as acting President in July 2006. Until such evidence is shown speculation of his death is ultimately baseless. Please do not add any. This is not a gossip site after all. --[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 16:02, 29 December 2009 (EST)

:::Matthew, you're clueless here. When someone is missing for 3.5 years and there is an incentive to lie about his fate, then he's presumptively dead. Communists don't define the truth. God does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:01, 29 December 2009 (EST)

::::In October Castro allegedly met with the leader of Cyprus and a Chinese official. [http://nba.msg.com/photo/0a1W9IQclz2DV Here] is a supposed photo of Castro with Wu Bangguo. It's released by the Cuban state media, but apparently the (obviously liberal) AP found it sufficiently convincing as to endorse it.
::::Obviously it's possible that the leader of Cyprus (and at least three other leaders who have allegedly met him since July) was paid off to lie about this and the photo is of a lookalike (or older). But true or false, matters are perhaps not quite so simple as Fidel simply disappearing for the last few years, and we should carefully consider the evidence. --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 20:13, 29 December 2009 (EST)
:::::Fidel, like many dictators, had body and face doubles, like the one we famously killed of Saddam in the opening salvo of the Iraq invasion. It seems far more likely to me that they just passed a double off as Castro than that they bribed a foreign head of state. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 20:16, 29 December 2009 (EST)

::::::[[Liberal denial]] illustrates its [[double standard]]. Natalie Holloway has been missing for a period comparable to Fidel Castro's absence, and no one would deny the likelihood that she is dead. It doesn't matter what the authorities might say. But no [[liberal]] will admit that Castro is likely dead also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:31, 30 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::Well, the difference there is that Natalie Holloway disappeared, whereas Castro hasn't been seen in public for years. By that logic Macaulay Culkin is also dead. But seriously, Castro certainly could be dead, but that doesn't mean he is. If I had to guess, I'd say he's not. I think if he had died they would have staged an enormous funeral for him with all sorts of parades, teeming with propaganda. Dictators love that stuff. But that's just my opinion. [[User:DanL|DanL]] 12:08, 30 December 2009 (EST)

I just noticed that this made "[[Liberal Denial]]." DanL seems to make a good point Andy. I guess what I don't see is:
*a) What motivation the Cubans would have to lie about Castro being dead and
*b) What motivation liberals would have to insist that Castro is alive if he really were dead. It seems like a really obscure point at best. Personally, I'm assuming that Castro is alive for the same reason everyone else does: dictators don't just pass away unnoticed. Or is there a historical precedent I'm missing? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 12:25, 30 December 2009 (EST)

Mr. Schlafly, I'm confused about whether you're saying you know he's dead or that you presume he's dead based on not being sighted in public. I just checked the news and there are quite a few references to him making statements recently. Are you saying someone is lying? If so, to what end? And the Holloway story is different in that she disappeared. You just haven't seen Castro lately. Others appear to have because they recorded his statements. [[User:Hectoruribe|Hectoruribe]] 12:38, 30 December 2009 (EST)

'''Motivation''' would primarily to conceal the power struggle while the fascists decide who's going to be the new dictator. Communists lie about everything else - particularly [[mass murder]] (see also [[genocide]]). The kind of political power that "comes out of the barrel of a gun" rather than the curtains of a voting booth is well disposed to deception. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:22, 30 December 2009 (EST)

:DanL and JDW seem to think that if a brutal communist regime claims someone is alive, then we should take that at face value even though he hasn't been seen publicly in 3.5 years. But they don't answer the question of why they believe communists when, for example, they probably wouldn't believe a similar claim that another missing person (such as Natalie Holloway) is still alive. As each day goes by without a public appearance by Fidel Castro or credible independent verification (e.g., a meeting with Republican congressmen), the chance Fidel Castro is still alive decreases. How much longer do DanL and JDW require before admitting that the chance has dropped to less than 50%? After 3.5 more years? 10 more years?

:Communists lie about everything. There's little reason to believe that the Russian dictator Yuri Andropov died when the communists said he did, given the long period when no one could confirm he was still alive either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:20, 30 December 2009 (EST)
::It's not just Cubans who say he's alive. Castro himself wrote several articles in the last few months and the president of Argentina met with him in Cuba. Do you think he's dead because you believe communists are in general liars? [[User:Hectoruribe|Hectoruribe]] 15:36, 30 December 2009 (EST)
:::Well if you have doubts, feel free to fly down to Havana and see him for yourself. And while you're there, see about getting the right to criticize Castro's government...or the right to free speech in general, or the right to assemble freely with like-minded persons, or the right to attend the church of your choice, or the right to possess a gun just in case the government gets a tad-tyrannical. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:55, 30 December 2009 (EST)

:::(edit conflict) Wow, Hector, that seals the case ... Castro supposedly wrote some articles! Of course that proves nothing.

:::Castro was a communist dictator. He reveled in worship of him by the public. After he's been missing for a period of time from self-serving public events, a period that started with a life-threatening medical condition and complex surgery, the chance that he is still alive decreases with each passing day. The [[liberal denial]] of this is remarkable.

:::Perhaps the closure by liberals will come when the New York Times finally runs a front page article asking these questions. Then, as soon as the communists can arrange it without being too obvious, they will announce that Castro just passed away.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:00, 30 December 2009 (EST)
::::I don't really care either way since I don't have a horse in this race. If you'll notice, I'm just asking you questions, not taking a position one way or the other, so I'm not in liberal denial, whatever that is. I'm just concerned that you're not addressing that the president of Argentina met with him earlier this year. Hugo Chavez met with him more recently. Are these men liars? [[User:Hectoruribe|Hectoruribe]] 16:03, 30 December 2009 (EST)
:::::Well, I guess your statement "I don't really care either way" constitutes the bonafide end of your argument. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:07, 30 December 2009 (EST)
::::::I'm sorry I came off as flippant there. I don't care whether he's alive or dead, to be honest, but I do care that the article reflect the truth instead of speculation. Thanks for pointing out my error. [[User:Hectoruribe|Hectoruribe]] 16:14, 30 December 2009 (EST)
:::::::What you need to do is to read the Bible as you said you try to do on your user page, specifically Revelation 3:14-18; it tells of what Jesus will do to a church that "doesn't really care one way or the other":
::::::::''And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.''
:::::::[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:19, 30 December 2009 (EST)

::Of course I don't take anything Communist regimes say at face value. They do indeed lie more than they tell the truth. Still I don't see the motivation in this case, as Castro is no longer even the leader, thus the power struggles Ed mentioned wouldn't be in play. Furthermore, I stand by my point. Dictators don't die unnoticed and unanounced: Stalin died and a massive funeral was organized overnight. Mao died and the same happened. Kim Il Sung, Hitler, you name it, no one kept their deaths a secret, because there was no reason to put off a big dramatic funeral and public outpouring of love for the Dear Leader. Can you name a single instance where a dictator died and his death was covered up?

::Not to mention, no one's touched my second question. What motivation would liberals have to ''deny'' that a dictator has died? To put it nicely, this whole issue sounds like shadow-boxing to me. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 16:40, 30 December 2009 (EST)

:::I do not know about Fidel Castro, however in history there were cases in which a leader died and a weaker leader took over, pretending to serve the interests of the previous leader. If Raul Castro is unpopular, maybe he pretends his brother is alive to use his power? I am not saying that this happened, but it is not without precedent.--[[User:Wuhao1911|Wuhao1911]] 16:59, 30 December 2009 (EST)

::::Well, apparently he's alive. He's made a public reappearance a couple of days ago. He looks quite ill, though. --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 14:02, 12 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::And he was wearing a Nike jacket. Where is his hate to "American Imperialism"? This is liberal hypocrisy at its worst. I bet most cubans are not even allowed to buy one of those jackets.--[[User:Quetzalcoatl|Quetzalcoatl]] 14:56, 12 July 2010 (EDT)
::::::CBS News reporting on Castro death rumors: ''[http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-215_162-1859015.html State Secret: Is Castro Dead?]'', Brian Goodman, September 22, 2009. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:19, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

Since the last contribution to this discussion was two years ago, I just thought I'd chime in. Unless there was a revolution in plastic surgery I'm unaware of, this is Fidel Castro, speaking about Obama and the Republican nomination. He speaks about recent events in Syria and Lybia, mentions the POTUS as being almost powerless (so obviously he means Obama), and the last time there was a Republican nomination without a Dem nomination at the same time was in 1996, so this video could hardly be that old. Is this enough for us to at least consider the possibility of him being alive?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPcXhLojPo8
[[User:Fbelard|Fbelard]] 14:35, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

Here's a recent picture of himself, his brother, and Hugo Chavez: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/13/fidel-castro-hugo-chavez-colombia-farc-talks]. [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 08:14, 14 October 2012 (EDT)

And here`s a picture of February the 3rd 2013 http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/02/04/fidel-castro-says-hugo-chavez-condition-improving-in-battle-against-pelvic/ --[[User:Alex00|Alex00]] 13:31, 5 February 2013 (EST)

:The man photographed is too young to be Castro - look at his skin, the tell-tale sign of age. He's also too short to be Castro, assuming average height for those around him.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:48, 5 February 2013 (EST)
::Watch this [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57567465/fidel-castro-hits-polls-in-rare-public-appearance/ video]. You can clearly see that the man in the video is elderly, frail, and stooped with age. You can also see that the man is quite obviously Fidel Castro. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 14:05, 5 February 2013 (EST)

:::Your comment is non-responsive to my specific points: the stand-in's skin is too young (and dissimilar to Castro), his height is too short, and it is generally implausible that an extremely sick, elderly man who likely had a terminal disease in 2006, is inexplicably fit and active more than six years later.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:30, 5 February 2013 (EST)
::::Try watching the video I linked to. The man isn't short, he's become severely stooped with age. His skin is on par with individuals of his age, and if you had watched the video, you wouldn't be describing him as "fit and active". --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 15:12, 5 February 2013 (EST)

== Category liberalism ==

Really? He's a communist. I think most people, including himself, would say that he's not a liberal. [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 03:45, 20 October 2012 (EDT)

== He's alive ==

Multiple reference testify to Castro's continued life. Please supply references proving otherwise before reverting again. I refer you to your own Conservapedia Commandments. Obey them or admit they are no longer relevant to this project. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 17:18, 24 February 2013 (EST)

== Occam's razor ==

By this point, we should all admit to ourselves that Fidel Castro is alive. Old and haggard, certainly. But not dead. He has appeared in public multiple times. His appearances have become rare, but this is understandable given his age. And besides, Cuba may be a dump, but Castro is still a powerful man. He can avail himself to state-of-art healthcare if he wishes it. His alleged condition, diverticulitis, is hardly a death sentence, and can be cured by antibiotics. The root disease, diverticulosis, can be managed by a simple change in diet. It seems that if Castro did indeed have diverticulitis, he suffered complications and had to have surgery. it's possible that complications in the surgery may have lead to bacteria escaping the colon and killing him, but this brings us down to two competing hypotheses. 
Castro is dead 
Castro is alive 
Given that he has appeared in public, the likelier explanation is that he is alive. 
Castro will eventually die, sooner rather than later. But until then, Conservapedia embarrasses itself by claiming he is dead.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 21:31, 24 February 2013 (EST)
:So, no comment? I'll fix up the article in a few days if nobody objects--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 10:36, 26 February 2013 (EST)
::You will be reverted and possibly blocked. You should know better after all the discussion on this site that shows you without any doubt at all that the owner of the site wants it this way. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 17:41, 26 February 2013 (EST)

Capitalism

2013-02-26T14:28:25Z

NKeaton: Undo revision 1036921 by DawkinsIsWrong (talk)

[[Image:Tokyo Stock Exchange.jpg|thumb|Tokyo Stock Exchange]]
'''Capitalism''' is a [[free market]] economic system based on private ownership and entrepreneurship. The investment of capital, and production, distribution, income, and prices are determined not by government (as in [[socialism]]) but through the operation of a competitive market where decisions are voluntary and private rather than regulated and mandated by government (see [[law of supply and demand]]).

==Overview==
One self-regulating feature of capitalism is competition, which helps maintain fair market value for goods and services. However, ''unrestrained'' or ''pure'' capitalism may sometimes create a positive feedback loop in which a small number of individual accumulations of capital grow ever larger, eventually becoming so few as to limit effective competition, thus ceasing to strictly be free-market capitalism. In this regard, pure capitalism is unstable. Modern political systems have developed regulation mechanisms in an attempt to render capitalism more stable, including anti-trust regulation, trade tariffs, etc.

Since the fall of [[communism]], and the advent of information technology, capitalism is becoming increasingly widespread.

[[Adam Smith]] described the operation of capital accumulation through the productive powers of labor as such,
{{Cquote|Whatever a person saves from his [[revenue]] he adds to his [[capital]], and either employs it himself in maintaining an additional number of productive hands, or enables some other person to do so, by lending it to him for an interest, that is, for a share of the profits. As the capital of an individual can be increased only by what he saves from his annual revenue or his annual gains, so the capital of a society, which is the same with that of all the individuals who compose it, can be increased only in the same manner. <ref>Adam Smith, ''An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations'', [http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN.html Book II, Chapter 3, Paragraph 15,] ''Of the Accumulation of Capital, or of Productive and Unproductive Labour'', First Edition 1776.</ref>}}

Smith goes on to describe how the productive powers of labor employed by the owner of a capital allow laborers to reproduce with a profit the value of their maintenance, over and above their own consumption, which then allows for an additional set of hands to be employed. <ref>Adam Smith, ''Wealth of Nations'', Book II, Chapter 3, Paragraph 22.</ref> Smith observes labor is the original purchase price for all the wealth of the world,
[[Image:Eco Pillars.jpg|right|400px|thumbnail|The [[free enterprise]] system in [[United States of America|America]] before [[liberals]], [[Republican in name only|rinos]], and/or members of the [[progressive movement]], such as President [[Barack Obama]], eroded America's [[economics|economic]] freedom and prosperity. Recently, President Barack Obama [[Obamunism|created massive Federal government debt.]] ]]
{{Cquote|The real price of every thing, what every thing really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it. What every thing is really worth to the man who has acquired it, and who wants to dispose of it or exchange it for something else, is the toil and trouble which it can save to himself, and which it can impose upon other people. What is bought with money or with goods is purchased by labour, 2<ref>'Everything in the world is purchased by labour.'—Hume, 'Of Commerce,' in Political Discourses, 1752, p. 12</ref> as much as what we acquire by the toil of our own body. That money or those goods indeed save us this toil. They contain the value of a certain quantity of labour which we exchange for what is supposed at the time to contain the value of an equal quantity. Labour was the first price, the original purchase-money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labour, that all the wealth of the world was originally purchased; and its value, to those who possess it, and who want to exchange it for some new productions, is precisely equal to the quantity of labour which it can enable them to purchase or command. <ref>Adam Smith, ''An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations'', [http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN.html Book I, Chapter 5, Paragraph 2,] ''Of the Real and Nominal Price of Commodities'', First Edition 1776.</ref>}}

Real wealth consists not in money, but in the things money will exchange for,
{{Cquote|In order to put industry into motion, three things are requisite; materials to work upon, tools to work with, and the wages or recompense for the sake of which the work is done. Money is neither a material to work upon, nor a tool to work with; and though the wages of the workman are commonly paid to him in money, his real revenue, like that of all other men, consists, not in money, but in the money's worth; not in the metal pieces, but in what can be got for them. <ref>Adam Smith, ''An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations'', [http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN7.html Book II, Chapter 2, Paragraph 37,] ''Of Money Considered as a particular Branch of the General Stock of the Society, or of the Expence of Maintaining the National Capital '', First Edition 1776.</ref>}}

Since wealth does not consist in money, gold, or silver, and labor is the original purchase price, Smith explains how the capitalist system is then put into motion, complete with natural incentives, only Smith does not use the word "capital" here to describe what is needed. Smith explains how a "store of goods", or "stock sufficient to maintain" the original capitalist entrepreneur is necessary;
{{Cquote|When the stock which a man possesses is no more than sufficient to maintain him for a few days or a few weeks, he seldom thinks of deriving any revenue from it. He consumes it as sparingly as he can, and endeavours by his labour to acquire something which may supply its place before it be consumed altogether. His revenue is, in this case, derived from his labour only. This is the state of the greater part of the labouring poor in all countries.

But when he possesses stock sufficient to maintain him for months or years, he naturally endeavours to derive a revenue from the greater part of it; reserving only so much for his immediate consumption as may maintain him till this revenue begins to come in. His whole stock, therefore, is distinguished into two parts. That part which, he expects, is to afford him this revenue, is called his capital. The other is that which supplies his immediate consumption <ref>Adam Smith, ''An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations'', [http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN7.html Book II, Chapter 1, Paragraphs 1 & 2,] ''Of the Division of Stock '', First Edition 1776.</ref>}}

The [[division of labor]] is the necessary condition that gives rise to the productive powers of labor that allows for large scale economic growth. By "division of labor", Smith is referring to "specialization of labor", where each worker acquires specific knowledge to apply to a specific task.
{{Cquote|In that rude state of society in which there is no division of labour, in which exchanges are seldom made, and in which every man provides everything for himself, it is not necessary that any stock should be accumulated or stored up beforehand in order to carry on the business of the society. Every man endeavours to supply by his own industry his own occasional wants as they occur. When he is hungry, he goes to the forest to hunt; when his coat is worn out, he clothes himself with the skin of the first large animal he kills: and when his hut begins to go to ruin, he repairs it, as well as he can, with the trees and the turf that are nearest it.

But when the division of labour has once been thoroughly introduced, the produce of a man's own labour can supply but a very small part of his occasional wants. The far greater part of them are supplied by the produce of other men's labour, which he purchases with the produce, or, what is the same thing, with the price of the produce of his own. But this purchase cannot be made till such time as the produce of his own labour has not only been completed, but sold. A stock of goods of different kinds, therefore, must be stored up somewhere sufficient to maintain him, and to supply him with the materials and tools of his work till such time, at least, as both these events can be brought about.

As the accumulation of stock must, in the nature of things, be previous to the division of labour, ...in order to give constant employment to an equal number of workmen, an equal stock of provisions, and a greater stock of materials and tools than what would have been necessary in a ruder state of things, must be accumulated beforehand. <ref>Adam Smith, ''An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations'', [http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN7.html Book II, Introduction, Paragraphs 1, 2, & 3] ''Of the Nature, Accumulation, and Employment of Stock,'', First Edition 1776.</ref>}}
{{Cquote|When the division of labour has been once thoroughly established, it is but a very small part of a man's wants which the produce of his own labour can supply. He supplies the far greater part of them by exchanging that surplus part of the produce of his own labour, which is over and above his own consumption, for such parts of the produce of other men's labour as he has occasion for. Every man thus lives by exchanging, or becomes in some measure a merchant, and the society itself grows to be what is properly a commercial society. <ref>Adam Smith, ''An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations'', [http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN7.html Book I, Chapter 4, Paragraphs 1] ''Of the Origin and Use of Money'', First Edition 1776.</ref>}}

==Capitalism and Society==
[[Image:Ludwig von Mises.jpg|thumb|100px|Ludwig von Mises]]
Historically, capitalism has fostered freedom and an increase in the standard of living and human rights, and vice versa. Societies that have tried non-capitalist systems inevitably fall into tyranny.

For example, [[Venezuela]], while not a perfect country before [[Hugo Chavez]], had freedom and wealth unprecedented in its history. As Chavez has nationalized industries, he has also centralized power for himself, becoming a dictator.

Capitalist societies also generally have higher standards of living compared to their non-capitalist counterparts in terms of per capita GDP, education, healthcare, and poverty rates. [[China]], for instance, has been growing extremely prosperous since it began opening its economy to capitalism in the 1980s.

However, capitalist societies also have seen progressively larger gaps between the upper and middle classes develop, such as the United States where the top twenty percent owned eighty-seven percent of the financial wealth and eighty percent of the total wealth, despite having the largest GDP in the world.

== Quotes ==

“Historical evidence speaks with a single voice on the relation between political freedom and a free market. I know of no example in time or place of a society that has been marked by a large measure of political freedom, and that has not also used something comparable to a free market to organize the bulk of economic activity.”

"Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself."
--[[Milton Friedman]], Capitalism and Freedom, 1962.

"If an exchange between two parties is voluntary, it will not take place unless both believe they will benefit from it. Most economic fallacies derive from the neglect of this simple insight, from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another."

--[[Milton Friedman]], Free to Choose

“Capitalism is essentially the economic system of poor people. That’s what allowed the people that came from humble origins of the world to have economic rights the way only nobility and the high bourgeoisie had it before. So capitalism is essentially a tool for poor people to prosper.”

--Hernando de Soto, PBS Interview, March 30-31, 2001

(cf: [http://www.americansolutions.com/General/?Page=026a3bda-755c-45d8-84d3-c68eef294612 Values - Free Enterprise])

"The only real cure for poverty is production". [[Henry Hazlitt]], from ''Man vs. the Welfare State''.

"The first condition for the establishment of perpetual peace is the general adoption of the principles of laissez-faire capitalism."

--Ludwig von Mises, The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science

"There are two methods, or means, and only two, whereby man's needs and desires can be satisfied. One is the production and exchange of wealth; this is the economic means. The other is the uncompensated appropriation of wealth produced by others; this is the political means."

-- Albert Jay Nock, Our enemy, the State

"Businessmen are the symbol of a free society — the symbol of America."

-- Ayn Rand

== See also ==
*[[Austrian economics]]
*[[Capital]]
*[[Free Enterprise]]
*[[Ludwig von Mises]]
*[[Enterprise]]
*[[Planned economy]]
*[[Socialism]]
*[[Welfare State]]

==External links==
*[http://www.capmag.com Capitalism Magazine]
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/capitalism/ What Liberals Say - Category: Capitalism], [[Accuracy In Media]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Economics]]
[[Category:Libertarianism]]

Capitalism

2013-02-26T14:28:09Z

NKeaton: Undo revision 1036922 by DawkinsIsWrong (talk)

[[Image:Tokyo Stock Exchange.jpg|thumb|Tokyo Stock Exchange]]
'''Capitalism''' is a [[market]] economic system based on "private ownership" and "entrepreneurship". The investment of capital, and production, distribution, income, and prices are determined not by government (as in [[socialism]]) but through the operation of a competitive market where decisions are voluntary and private rather than regulated and mandated by government (see [[law of supply and demand]]).

==Overview==
One self-regulating feature of capitalism is competition, which helps maintain fair market value for goods and services. However, ''unrestrained'' or ''pure'' capitalism may sometimes create a positive feedback loop in which a small number of individual accumulations of capital grow ever larger, eventually becoming so few as to limit effective competition, thus ceasing to strictly be free-market capitalism. In this regard, pure capitalism is unstable. Modern political systems have developed regulation mechanisms in an attempt to render capitalism more stable, including anti-trust regulation, trade tariffs, etc.

Since the fall of [[communism]], and the advent of information technology, capitalism is becoming increasingly widespread.

[[Adam Smith]] described the operation of capital accumulation through the productive powers of labor as such,
{{Cquote|Whatever a person saves from his [[revenue]] he adds to his [[capital]], and either employs it himself in maintaining an additional number of productive hands, or enables some other person to do so, by lending it to him for an interest, that is, for a share of the profits. As the capital of an individual can be increased only by what he saves from his annual revenue or his annual gains, so the capital of a society, which is the same with that of all the individuals who compose it, can be increased only in the same manner. <ref>Adam Smith, ''An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations'', [http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN.html Book II, Chapter 3, Paragraph 15,] ''Of the Accumulation of Capital, or of Productive and Unproductive Labour'', First Edition 1776.</ref>}}

Smith goes on to describe how the productive powers of labor employed by the owner of a capital allow laborers to reproduce with a profit the value of their maintenance, over and above their own consumption, which then allows for an additional set of hands to be employed. <ref>Adam Smith, ''Wealth of Nations'', Book II, Chapter 3, Paragraph 22.</ref> Smith observes labor is the original purchase price for all the wealth of the world,
[[Image:Eco Pillars.jpg|right|400px|thumbnail|The [[free enterprise]] system in [[United States of America|America]] before [[liberals]], [[Republican in name only|rinos]], and/or members of the [[progressive movement]], such as President [[Barack Obama]], eroded America's [[economics|economic]] freedom and prosperity. Recently, President Barack Obama [[Obamunism|created massive Federal government debt.]] ]]
{{Cquote|The real price of every thing, what every thing really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it. What every thing is really worth to the man who has acquired it, and who wants to dispose of it or exchange it for something else, is the toil and trouble which it can save to himself, and which it can impose upon other people. What is bought with money or with goods is purchased by labour, 2<ref>'Everything in the world is purchased by labour.'—Hume, 'Of Commerce,' in Political Discourses, 1752, p. 12</ref> as much as what we acquire by the toil of our own body. That money or those goods indeed save us this toil. They contain the value of a certain quantity of labour which we exchange for what is supposed at the time to contain the value of an equal quantity. Labour was the first price, the original purchase-money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labour, that all the wealth of the world was originally purchased; and its value, to those who possess it, and who want to exchange it for some new productions, is precisely equal to the quantity of labour which it can enable them to purchase or command. <ref>Adam Smith, ''An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations'', [http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN.html Book I, Chapter 5, Paragraph 2,] ''Of the Real and Nominal Price of Commodities'', First Edition 1776.</ref>}}

Real wealth consists not in money, but in the things money will exchange for,
{{Cquote|In order to put industry into motion, three things are requisite; materials to work upon, tools to work with, and the wages or recompense for the sake of which the work is done. Money is neither a material to work upon, nor a tool to work with; and though the wages of the workman are commonly paid to him in money, his real revenue, like that of all other men, consists, not in money, but in the money's worth; not in the metal pieces, but in what can be got for them. <ref>Adam Smith, ''An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations'', [http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN7.html Book II, Chapter 2, Paragraph 37,] ''Of Money Considered as a particular Branch of the General Stock of the Society, or of the Expence of Maintaining the National Capital '', First Edition 1776.</ref>}}

Since wealth does not consist in money, gold, or silver, and labor is the original purchase price, Smith explains how the capitalist system is then put into motion, complete with natural incentives, only Smith does not use the word "capital" here to describe what is needed. Smith explains how a "store of goods", or "stock sufficient to maintain" the original capitalist entrepreneur is necessary;
{{Cquote|When the stock which a man possesses is no more than sufficient to maintain him for a few days or a few weeks, he seldom thinks of deriving any revenue from it. He consumes it as sparingly as he can, and endeavours by his labour to acquire something which may supply its place before it be consumed altogether. His revenue is, in this case, derived from his labour only. This is the state of the greater part of the labouring poor in all countries.

But when he possesses stock sufficient to maintain him for months or years, he naturally endeavours to derive a revenue from the greater part of it; reserving only so much for his immediate consumption as may maintain him till this revenue begins to come in. His whole stock, therefore, is distinguished into two parts. That part which, he expects, is to afford him this revenue, is called his capital. The other is that which supplies his immediate consumption <ref>Adam Smith, ''An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations'', [http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN7.html Book II, Chapter 1, Paragraphs 1 & 2,] ''Of the Division of Stock '', First Edition 1776.</ref>}}

The [[division of labor]] is the necessary condition that gives rise to the productive powers of labor that allows for large scale economic growth. By "division of labor", Smith is referring to "specialization of labor", where each worker acquires specific knowledge to apply to a specific task.
{{Cquote|In that rude state of society in which there is no division of labour, in which exchanges are seldom made, and in which every man provides everything for himself, it is not necessary that any stock should be accumulated or stored up beforehand in order to carry on the business of the society. Every man endeavours to supply by his own industry his own occasional wants as they occur. When he is hungry, he goes to the forest to hunt; when his coat is worn out, he clothes himself with the skin of the first large animal he kills: and when his hut begins to go to ruin, he repairs it, as well as he can, with the trees and the turf that are nearest it.

But when the division of labour has once been thoroughly introduced, the produce of a man's own labour can supply but a very small part of his occasional wants. The far greater part of them are supplied by the produce of other men's labour, which he purchases with the produce, or, what is the same thing, with the price of the produce of his own. But this purchase cannot be made till such time as the produce of his own labour has not only been completed, but sold. A stock of goods of different kinds, therefore, must be stored up somewhere sufficient to maintain him, and to supply him with the materials and tools of his work till such time, at least, as both these events can be brought about.

As the accumulation of stock must, in the nature of things, be previous to the division of labour, ...in order to give constant employment to an equal number of workmen, an equal stock of provisions, and a greater stock of materials and tools than what would have been necessary in a ruder state of things, must be accumulated beforehand. <ref>Adam Smith, ''An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations'', [http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN7.html Book II, Introduction, Paragraphs 1, 2, & 3] ''Of the Nature, Accumulation, and Employment of Stock,'', First Edition 1776.</ref>}}
{{Cquote|When the division of labour has been once thoroughly established, it is but a very small part of a man's wants which the produce of his own labour can supply. He supplies the far greater part of them by exchanging that surplus part of the produce of his own labour, which is over and above his own consumption, for such parts of the produce of other men's labour as he has occasion for. Every man thus lives by exchanging, or becomes in some measure a merchant, and the society itself grows to be what is properly a commercial society. <ref>Adam Smith, ''An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations'', [http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN7.html Book I, Chapter 4, Paragraphs 1] ''Of the Origin and Use of Money'', First Edition 1776.</ref>}}

==Capitalism and Society==
[[Image:Ludwig von Mises.jpg|thumb|100px|Ludwig von Mises]]
Historically, capitalism has fostered freedom and an increase in the standard of living and human rights, and vice versa. Societies that have tried non-capitalist systems inevitably fall into tyranny.

For example, [[Venezuela]], while not a perfect country before [[Hugo Chavez]], had freedom and wealth unprecedented in its history. As Chavez has nationalized industries, he has also centralized power for himself, becoming a dictator.

Capitalist societies also generally have higher standards of living compared to their non-capitalist counterparts in terms of per capita GDP, education, healthcare, and poverty rates. [[China]], for instance, has been growing extremely prosperous since it began opening its economy to capitalism in the 1980s.

However, capitalist societies also have seen progressively larger gaps between the upper and middle classes develop, such as the United States where the top twenty percent owned eighty-seven percent of the financial wealth and eighty percent of the total wealth, despite having the largest GDP in the world.

== Quotes ==

“Historical evidence speaks with a single voice on the relation between political freedom and a free market. I know of no example in time or place of a society that has been marked by a large measure of political freedom, and that has not also used something comparable to a free market to organize the bulk of economic activity.”

"Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself."
--[[Milton Friedman]], Capitalism and Freedom, 1962.

"If an exchange between two parties is voluntary, it will not take place unless both believe they will benefit from it. Most economic fallacies derive from the neglect of this simple insight, from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another."

--[[Milton Friedman]], Free to Choose

“Capitalism is essentially the economic system of poor people. That’s what allowed the people that came from humble origins of the world to have economic rights the way only nobility and the high bourgeoisie had it before. So capitalism is essentially a tool for poor people to prosper.”

--Hernando de Soto, PBS Interview, March 30-31, 2001

(cf: [http://www.americansolutions.com/General/?Page=026a3bda-755c-45d8-84d3-c68eef294612 Values - Free Enterprise])

"The only real cure for poverty is production". [[Henry Hazlitt]], from ''Man vs. the Welfare State''.

"The first condition for the establishment of perpetual peace is the general adoption of the principles of laissez-faire capitalism."

--Ludwig von Mises, The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science

"There are two methods, or means, and only two, whereby man's needs and desires can be satisfied. One is the production and exchange of wealth; this is the economic means. The other is the uncompensated appropriation of wealth produced by others; this is the political means."

-- Albert Jay Nock, Our enemy, the State

"Businessmen are the symbol of a free society — the symbol of America."

-- Ayn Rand

== See also ==
*[[Austrian economics]]
*[[Capital]]
*[[Free Enterprise]]
*[[Ludwig von Mises]]
*[[Enterprise]]
*[[Planned economy]]
*[[Socialism]]
*[[Welfare State]]

==External links==
*[http://www.capmag.com Capitalism Magazine]
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/capitalism/ What Liberals Say - Category: Capitalism], [[Accuracy In Media]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Economics]]
[[Category:Libertarianism]]

Abortion

2013-02-26T14:27:45Z

NKeaton: Undo revision 1036923 by DawkinsIsWrong (talk)

[[Image:Baby.jpg|right|thumb|250px|An unborn child in the womb. Liberals believe that the unborn child has no right to life.]]
'''Abortion''' is the induced termination of a [[pregnancy]],<ref>American Heritage Dictionary definition, [http://www.bartleby.com/61/7/A0020700.html abortion].</ref> often causing [[fetal pain]]. As of 2012, it is estimated there have been over 54 million babies murdered by abortion in the [[United States]] since 1973.<ref name=factsheet>''National Right to Life Committee''. [http://www.christianliferesources.com/?/library/view.php&articleid=1042 U.S. Abortion Statistics By Year (1973-Current)]. National Right to Life Factsheet, January 2012. (Privacy laws and likely desire to keep this silent holocaust from raising alarm hinders data collection on abortion. CDC researchers have admitted they probably undercount the total number of abortions because reporting laws vary from state to state and some abortionists probably do not report or under-report the abortions they perform. Abortions from CA and NH have not been counted by the CDC since 1998, and reports from other states are also missing for some years.)</ref> Abortion is a billion-dollar industry in the [[United States]]. Although [[Planned Parenthood]] likes to claim abortion accounts for just 3% of its services, according to its 2007-08 budget, it received $1.038 billion of revenue, and half to two-thirds relates to its abortion services. (''See [[Abortion#Planned_Parenthood.27s_Budget|Planned Parenthood's Budget]]'') Dr. George Tiller "estimated that he performed 250 to 300 late-term abortions in 2003, each costing an average of $6,000."<ref>Hegeman, R. (2009, March 25). [http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2009/03/25/kan_doctor_testifies_in_abortion_case_against_him/ Kan. doctor testifies in abortion case against him]. ''Associated Press''.</ref>

All of the arguments for abortion fall flat when given serious scrutiny. Right to choice is a misnomer, since moral people can recognize that choosing to murder is a choice worthy of punishment. Right to one's body is no excuse for using that body to harm others. A right to privacy should not permit murder, whether in the privacy of one's own home or own body. And
{{TOC right}}
as Thomas Lucente Jr. once pointed out, saying one can't criticize a woman's choice to murder her children is the same as saying one can't criticize the president without being the president.<ref name=lucente>Lucente Jr., T.J. (2012, January 29). [http://www.limaohio.com/articles/right-78475-privacy-one.html Right to Privacy is Not a License to Kill]. ''LimaOhio.com.'' Freedom Communications, Inc.</ref> Both life of the mother and rape are rare circumstances accounting for less than 1% of all abortions, with little bearing on the broader "abortion on demand" issue, particularly since all legislation the Pro-Life movement has been putting out recently has included exceptions for them, and many states had laws allowing abortion for such cases before Roe v. Wade - abortion was legalized for other reasons. (''See [[Abortion#Arguments_On_Abortion|Arguments On Abortion]]'')

Ultimately, this debate is about when a fetus becomes a human being worthy of all applicable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness under the [[Declaration of Independence]], for once it is we should not take its life lightly. And when it comes to that, 18,150 abortions occur after the 21st week of pregnancy<ref name=induced>(2011, August). [http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html/ Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States]. ''Guttmacher Institute''.</ref> - the earliest point children can be born prematurely and live.<ref name=tooyoung>Rochman, B. (2011, May 27). [http://healthland.time.com/2011/05/27/baby-born-at-21-weeks-survives-how-young-is-too-young-to-save/ A 21-Week-Old Baby Survives and Doctors Ask, How Young is Too Young to Save?] ''Time Magazine''.</ref> An additional 45,980 abortions occur in the 16th-20th weeks of pregnancy.<ref name=induced /> These are 60 thousand abortions each year that are clearly murder, since the child is at or near the same stage of pregnancy as children born prematurely via C-Section. Furthermore, substantial fetal development occurs within the first 12 weeks (1st trimester) of pregnancy, including brain wave activity at 6 weeks, complete body sensitivity at 10 weeks, and all facial expressions (including smiling) at 11 weeks.<ref name=clowes>Clowes, Brian, PhD. 2001. [http://www.hli.org/index.php/the-facts-of-life/480?task=view The Facts of Life]. Ch. 12. Front Royal: Human Life International.
Also in: Sharing the Pro-Life Message. Chicago: Pro-Life Action League, 2009. Print.</ref> By not erring on the side of caution when potentially infringing on the inalienable right to life given by our Creator, the Pro-Choice movement has brought the blood of countless children on their hands, and on our nation's. (''See [[Abortion#When_Does_Life_Begin.3F|When Does Life Begin?]]'')

A growing body of evidence increasingly suggests that abortion is linked to Breast Cancer, later premature births, and other health concerns. Millions of women who had an abortion later suffer psychologically or physically from it, and support groups exist to help.<ref>Rodgers-Melnick, A. (2002, January 20). [http://www.post-gazette.com/regionstate/20020120abortion0120p3.asp Groups support those who regret abortions]. ''Pittsburgh Post-Gazette''.</ref> Many victims of abortion find healing by speaking out against, and discouraging, similar harm to other mothers and their children.<ref>"I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born," observed President [[Ronald Reagan]]. He also observed, "With me, abortion is not a problem of religion, it's a problem of the Constitution. I believe that until and unless someone can establish that the unborn child ''is not a living human being'', then that child is already protected by the Constitution, which guarantees life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to all of us."</ref> "Abortion doesn't solve your problems, it only creates different ones," warned a full-page ad by women who had abortions.<ref>''Anglicans for Life'' and ''Priests for Life''. [http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/signaturead/ad.pdf We Regret Our Abortions]. ''Orange County Right to Life''.</ref> Abortion always ends the life of the unborn child, typically by dismemberment. Abortion increases the risk of breast cancer, future premature birth, mental illness, and other long-term health problems for the mother, as detailed below. (''See [[Abortion#Health_Concerns|Health Concerns]]'')

One of NARAL's founders, [[Bernard Nathanson]], acknowledged that NARAL in the early days of the Pro-Choice movement simply fabricated statistics on back-alley abortions; inflating the actual numbers ten-fold to get abortion legalized. Rather than making abortion rare, the annual number of abortions has increased 1500% since [[Roe v. Wade]].<ref name=nathanson>Kupelian, David (2005, January 20). "[http://www.wnd.com/2005/01/28544/ Blood Confessions: Ex-Abortionists Spill Their Guts]." ''Whistleblower Magazine''. ''Whistleblower Magazine'' (2003, January 2). "[http://www.wnd.com/2003/01/16460/ Ex-Abortionists Expose America's Greatest Scandal]."</ref> (''See [[Abortion#History|History]]'') Gallup polling in 2012 reveals that just 24% of Americans support abortion after the first 12 weeks of pregnancy,<ref name=gallupabortion>''Gallup''. "[http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx/ Abortion]." Do you think abortion should be legal in most circumstances or only in a few circumstances?</ref> even though abortion is allowed in all 9 months. <ref name=ninemonths>[http://www.whyprolife.com/is-abortion-legal-all-9-months-of-pregnancy/ Is Abortion Legal All 9 Months of Pregnancy?] ''WhyProLife.com''.</ref> Just 25% believe abortion should be legal under all circumstances, and an additional 13% believe it should be legal under most circumstances. Most Americans believe abortion should usually be illegal save in rare cases.<ref name=gallupabortion /> (''See [[Abortion#Public_Opinion|Public Opinion]]'')

[[Abortion in Poland]] declined by 99% after [[communism]] was overthrown (and abortion abolished<ref>''Catholic World News'' (2007, April 11). [http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=50451 Liberal abortion law takes effect in Portugal]. Trinity Communications.</ref>), and women's health has dramatically improved there due to fewer abortions.<ref>Johnston, W.R., Dr. (2008, October 9). [http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-poland.html Historical abortion statistics, Poland]. ''Johnston's Archive'.</ref>

==Statistics on abortion==

* As of 2012, it is estimated there has been over 54 million babies murdered by abortion since the Supreme Court handed down its 1973 ''Roe v. Wade'' decision. After reaching 25 percent from a high of over 1.6 million in the year 1990, the number of abortions performed annually in the U.S. has leveled off at about 1.2 million infants murdered by abortion a year, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI).<ref name=factsheet />
* Approximately 22% of all U.S. pregnancies ended in abortion.<ref>Jones RK and Kooistra, K., [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1363/4304111/abstract Abortion incidence and access to services in the United States], 2008, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2011, 43(1):41-50. (Excludes miscarriages.)</ref>
* Only about 1 percent each year are attributed to rape and incest.<ref name=rare>Johnston, W.R., Dr. (2008, October 9). [http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html Reasons given for having abortions in the United States]. ''Johnston's Archive'.</ref> 40% of women ages 15 to 44 have had at least one abortion. 4 out of 10 teen pregnancies end in murder by abortion. Based on the rate of abortion, it was estimated (2000) that 43 percent of American women would have at least one abortion by the age of 45.
* 7 out of 10 U.S. women are sexually active (usually as fornicators) but do not want to become pregnant.<ref>''Alan Guttmacher Institute'', In Brief: Fact Sheet, [http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html/ Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States], August 2011.</ref>
* Women who have never married and are not cohabiting account for 45% of all abortions. 57% of all women having abortions between 15-44 are in their 20’s. 36% of non-Hispanic women are abortions were white, 30% are non-Hispanic black, and 25% are hispanic.<ref name=patients>Jones RK, Finer LB and Singh S, [https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/US-Abortion-Patients.pdf Characteristics of U.S. Abortion Patients], 2008, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2010.</ref>
* 37% of women killing babies by abortion were Protestant, (include those who identified as “Christian” but who did not specify a denomination) while 28% were Catholic, and 20% identified themselves as born-again, evangelical, charismatic or fundamentalist (in 2000, some 13% of abortion patients aged 18 and older identified as born-again or evangelical before the question was reworded slightly for the 2008 survey), while 27% gave no religious affiliation, increasing from 22% in 2000. (Protestants were under-represented among those committing abortion in proportion to the total number of Protestants nationwide, and the relative abortion rate for this group was lower than the rate for all women.)<ref name=patients />
* Although 66% of women having abortions had some type of health insurance, 57% paid for their abortion out of pocket. Among women with private health insurance, 63% paid out of pocket.<ref name=patients />

==Arguments On Abortion==
The following are some common Pro-Choice arguments on abortion, and problems with the reasoning.
===Right to Choose===
The obvious question not being confronted is what choice is at stake? The choice to kill another human being to bypass the consequences and responsibilities that should accompany the choice to create another life; in essence the choice to murder one's own children so sex can be engaged in freely without responsibility or consequence.<ref>Hoffman, M.C. (2012, May 28). [http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/abortion-is-murder-for-the-purpose-of-population-control-says-turkish-prime Abortion is ‘murder’ for the purpose of population control, says Turkish prime minister]. ''Life Site News''.</ref> Sometimes women die from abortion.<ref>See "Documented Incidents of 365 Women Who Have Been Killed by "Safe" and Legal Abortion." [http://abortionviolence.com/DEATHS.HTM 365 women who have been killed by 'Legal' abortion]</ref> Since abortion is deliberate and thought about in advance, it is comparable to a premeditated killing.<ref>First-degree murder is defined as "a killing which is deliberate and premeditated." [http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/first+degree+murder First Degree Murder]. ''The Free Dictionary''.</ref>
====Rare Circumstances: Life of Mother and Rape====
''BBC News'' has an article called "Abortion in self-defence" arguing that abortion should be allowed in cases where the mother's life and health are at risk, and that this is justifiable self-defense. However, ''BBC News'' acknowledges that abortion is NOT justified for the following reasons: {{cquote|"But supposing the mother is not in physical danger, what then? There are a number of cases where some people argue that a woman should have the right to an abortion, such as: damage to mental health, damage to family, damage to career prospects, damage to financial prospects, damage to plans for her life. The self-defence argument for abortion seems to fail here, because although a threat to life can be a defence to a charge of killing someone, none of the above would be an adequate defence in a case of homicide, nor would they be regarded as reasons that justified euthanasia. But if we don't regard the foetus as a person with a right to live, or if we regard it as a being that doesn't have a full right to life, then these cases of self-defence may be arguable."
-''BBC News''.<ref name=bbc>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/philosophical/selfdefence.shtml Abortion in Self-Defence]. ''BBC News''. Retrieved July 23, 2012.</ref>}} However, (A) danger to life of the mother, like rape, is a very rare circumstance that accounts for less than 1% of all abortions<ref name=rare />, (B) all major legislation put out by the Right to Life movement over the past decade has included exceptions allowing abortions for rape and life of the mother (e.g. [[Mexico City Policy]], [[Born Alive Infant Protection Act]], [[Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act]], etc.) and (C) at least 13 states had legislation allowing abortion for rape or life of the mother BEFORE Roe v. Wade<ref>[http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortiontimeline.html Abortion History Timeline]. ''National Right to Life Committee''.</ref> - abortion was legalized for other reasons.

The bottom line is that apart from such extremely rare circumstances, ''BBC News'' acknowledges that "''The self-defence argument for abortion seems to fail here, because although a threat to life can be a defence to a charge of killing someone, none of the above would be an adequate defence in a case of homicide, nor would they be regarded as reasons that justified euthanasia.''"<ref name=bbc /> Choosing to kill another person, in other words, is unjustifiable unless the mother's life is in danger or, debatably, if rape occurred. In fact, those who bring up cases like rape and life of the mother are doing so because, deep inside, they themselves know that choosing to murder another human being is justifiable only under such extreme circumstances, and NOT for abortion on demand.

The only way to justify abortion apart from such circumstances is, as ''BBC News'' says, "''if we don't regard the foetus as a person with a right to live, or if we regard it as a being that doesn't have a full right to life''".<ref name=bbc /> You see, this is not about the right to choose at all, and such a slogan distracts from the real issue - the real issue is whether the fetus is a human being deserving of a full right to life. Because if it is a human being worthy of the right to life, then there is no excuse for "choosing to kill" via abortion on demand.

===Right to One's Body===
The Pro-Choice movement likes to say that women should have a right to their bodies. However, such a right should logically not allow one to harm others with that body, including physical assault, murder, rape, or theft, and therefore, this is not an absolute right, but a privilege that is not intended to exceed another's unalienable rights, including the right to life. As Hugh V. McLachlan of ''Glasgow Caledonian University'' pointed out in 1997, there is no entitlement to one's body and "''we have rights duties, liabilities, restrictions and
disadvantages as well as rights concerning our own bodies.''" {{cquote|"Consider the assumption at issue in the abstract: 'That particular X is your X and, therefore, you are entitled to do what you want with it'. As a matter of pure logic, the claim is an absurdity. What if 'X' stands for a Thompson Machine Gun? Should we say: 'That is your machine gun and, therefore, you can do whatever you like with it?' On the contrary, although there might be some things which you and only you can of right do to and with the gun, if that particular machine gun is your machine gun then it is incumbent upon you in particular to ensure that certain things are not done with it. Is the situation any different when 'X' pertains to one's body or to parts of it? I do not think so."
-Hugh V. McLachlan, ''Glasgow Caledonian University''.<ref name=mclachlan>McLachlan, H.V. (1997). [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1377347/ Bodies, Rights, and Abortions]. Journal of Medical Ethics. Vol. 23. p. 176.</ref>}}
As McLachlan continues to point out, this emphasis on rights neglects the other side of the coin, responsibilities or duties. He gives on pg. 177 the example of an insurance policy, and how using one's body to commit suicide can invalidate such a contract.<ref name=mclachlan /> Logically, creating another human life should likewise bring responsibly for actions toward that life - how is the decision to create another human life of lesser importance than the decision to sign an insurance contract? Why should one be able to kill a separate person to void the sexual decision to bring about another life, yet not be able to kill oneself without voiding an insurance contract? {{cquote|"Certainly a woman has a right to control her own body, but the unborn entity, though for a time living inside her body, is not part of her body. Hence, abortion is not justified, since no one's right to personal autonomy is so strong that it permits the arbitrary execution of others."
-Francis J. Beckwith, ''Christian Research Journal''.<ref>Beckwith, F.J. (1991). [https://christiananswers.net/q-sum/q-life009.html Doesn't a woman have the right to control her own body?] ''Christian Research Journal''. At ''ChristianAnswers.net''.</ref>}}Ultimately, the real question is whether the fetus in question is another human being to be accorded unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness under the Declaration of Independence, for if so, no right to one's body should give power to infringe on its unalienable right to life. Your right to your body does not include the right, in other words, to kill others using that body to avoid the responsibilities and consequences of a sexual decision to create another life. That is what in the real world is called "murder" and it is reprehensible. Therefore, the real question is at what point a fetus becomes a human being.

===Right to Privacy===
To get abortion legalized, the Pro-Choice movement had to argue that women should have a "right to privacy".<ref>Levin, M.R. (2005, March 14). [http://old.nationalreview.com/levin/levin200503140754.asp Death by Privacy]. ''The National Review''.</ref> However, logically, if the fetus is a human being and thus murder would be committed, privacy is no excuse for such murder. Logically, killing someone in the privacy of one's own home should no more be an excuse for murder than killing them in the privacy of one's body. Furthermore, as Judge Henry J. Friendly pointed out in the nation's first major abortion case, [[Hall v. Lefkowitz]], abortion is actually a complete violation of privacy when you look at it, requiring intervention in a woman's most private areas by a physician and variety of medical personnel.
{{cquote|A holding that the privacy of sexual intercourse is protected against governmental intrusion scarcely carries as a corollary that when this has resulted in conception, government may not forbid destruction of the fetus. The type of abortion the plaintiffs particularly wish to protect against governmental sanction is the antithesis of privacy. The woman consents to intervention in the uterus by a physician, with the usual retinue of assistants, nurses, and other paramedical personnel, indeed the condition calling for such intervention may very likely have been established by clinical tests... Yet, even if we were to take plaintiffs’ legal position that the legislature cannot constitutionally interfere with a woman’s right to do as she will with her own body so long as no harm is done to others, the argument does not support the conclusion plaintiffs would have us draw from it. For we cannot say the New York legislature lacked a rational basis for considering that abortion causes such harm. Even if we should put aside the interests of the father, negligible indeed in the many cases when he has abandoned the prospective mother but not in all, the legislature could permissibly consider the fetus itself to deserve protection.<ref name=friendly>Randolph, A. Raymond. [http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No3_Randolph.pdf Before Roe v. Wade: Judge Friendly's Draft Abortion Opinion]. ''Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy''. Vol. 29.</ref>}}
===Women Choose, Not Men===
The Pro-Choice movement likes to say men and fathers should have no say in the abortion debate, only women. However, as Thomas J. Lucente Jr. points out, this is similar to saying one can't criticize the President unless one is the President. {{cquote|"The pro-abortion crowd will argue that because I am a man, I should not be allowed to have an opinion on abortion, unless, of course, I support the mass murder of 50 million babies in the last 39 years. That's akin to saying I can't criticize the president unless I have been the president."
-Thomas J. Lucente Jr.<ref name=lucente />}} As [[Alan Keyes]] has pointed out, the Pro-Choice movement essentially is arguing for the baby's rights to be dependent on the mother's desire for it, making women slave-owners, essentially - this is very different from the [[Declaration of Independence]] which says the Creator gives us our unalienable rights, rather than them being dependent upon other people.<ref>Jefferson, T. (1776, July 4). [http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm The Declaration of Independence]. Retrieved from ''USHistory.org''. Independence Hall Association.</ref> {{cquote|"Either you can subscribe to the American creed which says that God endowed us with our rights, or you can subscribe to the abortion creed which says that those rights are the consequences of our mother's will."
-Alan Keyes, speech at Southern Methodist University, Feb. 24, 1997.<ref>[http://www.abortiontv.com/Words/Slavery.htm Former Presidential candidate, Alan Keyes shares his views on the commonalities between abortion and slavery]. ''AbortionTV.com''.</ref>}}
{{cquote|"... abortion is to our time what slavery was to the 19th Century, and if anyone of conscience went anywhere in the 19th Century and did not confront the American people with the evil of slavery, then they were not doing what statesmanship required... Well, it's a part of her body utterly dependent on her body, not viable apart from her body. She has, therefore, absolute power over this being, and given that absolute power she has the absolute right to dispose of it according to her will. We don't recognize what that's saying? What that's saying is that power makes for right. Might makes for right. If I have you in my power, I may dispose of you and your life according to my will. And if that argument is now accepted, and we have embraced it as a fundamental principle of law, then we have rejected the right principle. For if our right, our most basic and conditional right, the right to life itself comes to us not from God but from our mother's choice, then there is no human right that transcends in its claim, human choice and human power. Abortion is the paradigm, the ultimate paradigm of despotism, tyranny, oppression, slavery, holocaust."
-Alan Keyes, speech in San Francisco, March 3, 2003.<ref>[http://www.notable-quotes.com/a/abortion_quotes.html Abortion Quotes]. ''NotableQuotes.com''.</ref>}} Ultimately, every American has a responsibility to stand up for the rights of other Americans when they are being murdered - regardless of gender. And to say a mother should be able to murder her children whenever she feels like it, apart from the father's opinions, is simply wrong.

==When Does Life Begin?==
Logically, we ought to be erring on the side of caution when potentially infringing on another person's inalienable right to life, rather than seeing how close we can come to committing murder without doing so. Abortion in the U.S. is legal in all 9 months (36 weeks) of pregnancy.<ref name=ninemonths />
===Premature Birth===
Even though children can be born as early as 21 weeks after pregnancy<ref name=tooyoung /> the Guttmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood's research arm, reports that 1.5% of the 1.21 million abortions in the United States occur after the 21st week of pregnancy.<ref name=induced /> Therefore, 18,150 abortions occur each year after the earliest point that children can be born prematurely and live. An additional 3.8% occur 16-20 weeks after pregnancy, an additional 45,980 abortions each year that are most certainly murder given proximity to time of premature birth.<ref name=induced /> Why is a baby considered human outside the womb, yet nothing more than a fetus to be aborted at or near the same point in pregnancy if still inside the womb? And what will abortionists argue? That this is "only" 50-60 thousand innocent lives being taken each year?

===Fetal Development===
{{cquote|"Modern biology instructs that the genetic code that will dictate the entire future of the fetus is formed as early as the ___ day after conception; the fetus is thus something more than inert matter. The rules of property and of tort have come increasingly to recognize its rights."
-Judge Henry Friendly, [[Hall v. Lefkowitz]].<ref name=friendly>Randolph, A. Raymond. "[http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No3_Randolph.pdf Before Roe v. Wade: Judge Friendly's Draft Abortion Opinion]." ''Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy''. Vol. 29.</ref>}}
According to Brian Clowes, Ph.D<ref name=clowes />, as cited by the Pro-Life Action League<ref>(2009). [http://www.whyprolife.com/life-in-the-womb/ Sharing the Pro-Life Message]. "Life in the Womb." Pro-Life Action League. Chicago.</ref>, fetal development occurs as follows after conception:
* 2 weeks: First completed brain cells appear.
* 3 weeks: Heart begins beating, eyes form; brain, spinal column, and nervous system virtually complete.
* 4 weeks: Muscle development, arm and leg buds visible, neocortical cells appear, blood flows in baby's veins separate from mother's blood.
* 5 weeks: Pituitary gland forms, mouth, ears, and nose take shape.
* 6 weeks: Brain waves can be detected.
* 7 weeks: Cartilage skeleton completely formed, umbilical cord complete, brain coordinates voluntary muscle movement and involuntary organ movement, lips sensitive to touch.
* 8 weeks: Based on nervous system development, a fetus can likely feel pain, teeth present, all organs present save lungs, taste buds and fingerprints forming, responds to tapping on amniotic sac.
* 9 weeks: Fingernails form, can bend its fingers around an object and suck its thumb.
* 10 weeks: All parts of body sensitive to touch; can swallow, squint, frown, and pucker brow.
* 11 weeks: Breathing amniotic fluid and does so until birth, urination, all facial expressions (including smiling) possible, taste buds complete.
* 12 weeks: Can kick, turn over, make a fist, hiccup, cry, open its mouth, press its lips together, and practice breathing.
* 13 weeks: All senses are present, including vocal chords.
* 20 weeks: Can be surprised by loud external noises.
* 23 weeks: A fetus demonstrates REM (Rapid Eye Movement).
* 4 months: Can grasp, swim, and turn somersaults.
* 6 months: Hair growth on head and eyebrows, eyelashes form.
* 7 months: A fetus' hands can support its entire weight.
* 8 months: Fetus weighs more than 4 lbs., all body systems present.
* 9 months: After this point, the fetus gains a half lb. each week and 41 of the 45 total generations of cell replication have already taken place.

Given this, it is small wonder that 76% of Americans in 2011 disapprove of abortion after the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.
 (''See [[Abortion#2nd_Trimester|Public Polling]]'')

==Health Concerns==
===Mental Health Risks From Abortion===
A comprehensive review of literature, published in the ''British Journal of Psychiatry'' suggests that "there is a significant increase in mental health problems after abortion."<ref name="BJP">{{cite web|url = http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/199/3/A11.full#sec-3|title =Abortion, mental health and dental disease|publisher = British Journal of Psychiatry|quote=A comprehensive review of the literature suggests that there is a significant increase in mental health problems after abortion. Coleman (pp. 180–186) suggests that these risks need to be reflected in the delivery of abortion services, and raises the thorny issue that 90% of UK abortions are justified on the presumption that abortion actually reduces the risk to mental health associated with continuing the pregnancy. There is an increasing awareness of increased comorbid physical illness in patients with severe mental illness. Kisely and colleagues (pp. 187–193) found that the levels of advanced dental disease were increased threefold in patients with severe mental illness. The authors suggest that there needs to be improved recognition of this problem – reflected in a more proactive approach to dental hygiene in these patients.|accessdate = 01 September 2011}}</ref><ref name="DavenportMD">{{cite web|url = http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/09/major_study_links_suicide_and_other_mental_health_problems_to_abortion.html|title =Major Study Links Suicide and Other Mental Health Problems to Abortion|publisher = [[American Thinker]]|quote=An important meta-analysis published today in the prestigious British Journal of Psychiatry demonstrates that nearly 10% of mental health problems in women are directly attributable to abortion. "Abortion and mental health: quantitative synthesis and analysis of research published 1995-2009," by Priscilla Coleman of Bowling Green University, shows that women with an abortion history have an 81% increased risk of mental health problems and 155% increased risk of suicide. This meta-analysis combines 22 studies of 877,181 women, 163, 831 of whom have had abortions. A meta-analysis is an especially powerful type of study because it includes a large number of subjects, and by combining studies is much more reliable than a single study.|author=Mary L. Davenport, MD|accessdate = 01 September 2011}}</ref>

===Abortion and Breast Cancer ===
The vast majority of scientific studies have shown that abortion causes an increase in breast cancer, including 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies.<ref name=trumped>Malek, K. (2003). [http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf The Abortion-Breast Cancer Link: How Politics Trumped Science and Informed Consent]. ''Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons'', 8(2), 41-45.</ref> "A new study coming from researchers in [[Sri Lanka]] finds women who had abortions ... [had a] 3.42 [increased risk] ... compared with those who kept their baby. ... The Sri Lankan study is the fourth epidemiological study in fourteen months to report an abortion-breast cancer link, including studies from the U.S., China and Turkey."<ref>Ertelt, S. (2010, June 22). [http://www.lifenews.com/nat6451.html Study Confirms Abortion Triples Breast Cancer Risk Among Sri Lanka Women]. ''LifeNews.com''.</ref> LifeNews also reported in 2009 that a [[National Cancer Institute]] researcher admitted there was a link between abortion and breast cancer.<ref>Ertelt, S. (2009, January 1). [http://www.lifenews.com/nat5850.html National Cancer Institute Researcher Admits Abortion-Breast Cancer Link True]. ''LifeNews.com''.</ref> Studies showing that abortion increases breast cancer predate the political controversy.<ref>(2002). [http://www.bcpinstitute.org/brochure.htm Breast Cancer Prevention Institute Online Brochure]. ''Breast Cancer Prevention Institute''.</ref> A study at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center published in 2009 confirmed a 40% increase in risk in breast cancer from abortion.<ref>Byrne, D. (2010, January 11). [http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/dennis-byrne-barbershop/2010/01/breast-cancer-oral-contraceptives-abortion-and-lies.html Breast cancer, oral contraceptives, abortion and lies (?)] ''ChicagoNow''.</ref><ref>It is undisputed that childbirth protects against breast cancer, and thus early termination of pregnancy must increase the risk of cancer for the mother compared to carrying that same pregnancy to birth.</ref> Yet the abortion industry conceals this increased risk, just as the tobacco industry concealed its cancer risk for decades.<ref>Addison, T.E., M.D. (1998, July). [http://www.mindfully.org/Industry/Tobacco-ChronologyJul98.htm A Chronology of Tobacco in the Civilized World], ''San Francisco Medicine''.</ref>
[[Image:Abortion Hurts Women.jpg|thumb|250px|right|Walk for Life rally]]
A new study on breast cancer in Turkey published in April 2009 in the peer-reviewed World Journal of Surgical Oncology found, through a surveying process, that induced abortion was a statistically significant cause of breast cancer risk. The study concludes, “Our findings suggest that age and induced abortion were found to be significantly associated with increased breast cancer risk….”<ref>Ozman, V. et al. (2009, April 8). [http://wjso.com/content/7/1/37 Breast cancer risk factors in Turkish women – a University Hospital based nested case control study]. ''World Journal of Surgical Oncology'', 7(37). doi:10.1186/1477-7819-7-37</ref>

Specifically, the study found that Turkish women who received one or more induced abortions had a 66% higher risk of breast cancer than women who never had an abortion.<ref>Baklinski, T.M. (2009, July 29). [http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jul/09072903.html Study: Breast Cancer Risk 66% Higher in Turkish Women with Abortions]. ''LifeSiteNews.com''.</ref> <ref>Malek, K. (2009, July 28). [http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/press_releases/090728/index.htm Study: Turkish Women with Abortions Have Statistically Significant 66% Increase in Breast Cancer Risk / Researchers Likely Underestimated the Risk, Reports Scientist]. ''Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer''.</ref>

Dr. Janet Daling, who considers herself supportive of a right to perform abortions, brought the abortion-breast cancer link into the mainstream with her federally funded research on the topic. Her report, released in 1994, found a 50% increase in breast cancer risk due to induced abortion.<ref>Janet R. Daling et al., "Risk of Breast Cancer Among Young Women: Relationship to Induced Abortion," 86 Journal of the National Cancer Institute; (1994);1584</ref><ref>(2001, March 28). [http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/032801.htm Women's Organization Accuses MAMM of Misleading Public About Abortion-Breast Cancer Link]. ''Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer''.</ref> She said, "I have three sisters with breast cancer and I resent people messing with the scientific data to further their own agenda, be they pro-choice or pro-life. I would have loved to have found no association between breast cancer and abortion, but our research is rock solid and our data is accurate."<ref>L.A. Daily News, Sept. 1997.</ref> Similarly, an early study published in Japan in 1957 showed that women who have abortions have a much higher risk of breast cancer than those who decide to keep their baby.<ref>Segi M, et al. An epidemiological study on cancer in Japan. GANN. 1957; 48:1-63.</ref>

In a peer-reviewed medical journal, Karen Malec observed that:<ref name=trumped />

:Thirty-eight epidemiological studies exploring an independent link [between abortion and] breast cancer have been published. Twenty-nine report risk elevations. Thirteen out of 15 American studies found risk elevations. Seventeen studies are statistically significant, 16 of which report increased risk.

Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, M.D., F.A.C.S., a specialist in breast cancer an a clinical assistant professor of surgery at the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, has explained the physiology and epidemiology of the abortion-breast cancer link. She made the following observation:<ref>Angela Lanfranchi, M.D., F.A.C.S, "The breast physiology and the epidemiology of the abortion breast cancer link," 12 Imago Hominis, No. 3, 228 (2005) (emphasis added).</ref>

:This past August in Minneapolis, Patrick Carroll, director of the Pension and Population Research Institute of London, presented a paper to the largest gathering of statisticians in North America. '''He showed that abortion was the best predictor of breast cancer in Britain.''' Breast cancer is the only cancer in Britain which has its highest incidence and mortality rate among the upper rather than lower social classes. Abortion before a full term pregnancy and late pregnancy were the best explanations for this incidence. He also found that there had been a 70% increase risk of breast cancer between 1971 and 2002 and that for women between 50 and 54 years of age incidence was highly correlated with abortion.

Demographic evidence of abortion causing breast cancer includes the following. Breast cancer rates are far lower in Western countries that prohibited abortion than in those that promoted it. Ireland, which virtually bans abortion, reportedly has a lifetime rate of breast cancer of only 1 in 13, nearly half the rate of 1 in 7.5 in the United States.<ref>"Probability of breast cancer in American Women," National Cancer Institute (Apr. 15, 2005); K. O'Flaherty, R. Oakley, "Self-checks 'useless' in breast cancer fight," Sunday Tribune (Ireland), at 8 (Oct. 6, 2002).</ref> The rate of breast cancer increases steadily as one travels from Ireland, where abortion is illegal, to Northern Ireland, where abortion is legal but rare, to England, where abortion is common. <ref> R. O'Reilly, "New weapon in war against breast cancer," The Press Association Limited (Dec. 17, 1998); "Portugal-abortion referendum," Associated Press Worldstream (June 27, 1998).</ref>

In Romania, abortion was illegal under two decades of rule by the dictator Nicolae Ceausescu, and the country enjoyed one of the lowest breast cancer rates in the entire world during that time, far lower than comparable Western countries. Romania's breast cancer rate was an astounding one-sixth the rate of the United States.<ref>A. Khan, "The role of fat in breast cancer," The Independent (May 18, 1998).</ref> But after the execution of Ceausescu on Christmas Day, 1989, Romania has taken the opposite approach, embracing abortion to the point that Romania now has one of the highest abortion rates in the world.<ref>N. Abdullaev, "Russians are quickest to marry and divorce," Moscow Times (Dec 8, 2004).</ref> One Romanian observer decried, "The liberalization of abortions in Romania in 1990, the significant increase of the number of abortions at relatively short intervals, determined a rise in the incidence of breast and uterine cervix cancer in my country."<ref>Information packet, Women’s Environment and Development Organization (WEDO) World Conference on Breast Cancer (July 1997).</ref>

Studies on rats, which are an accepted method for identifying causes of cancer in humans, further confirm that abortion does indeed increase the risk of breast cancer. As Dr. [[Joel Brind]] observed, "Researchers also widely admit to the biological plausibility of abortion as an independent cause of breast cancer, through the estrogen-mediated stimulation of breast growth in the absence of differentiation. This was demonstrated experimentally in rats in the landmark experiments of Russo and Russo."<ref>[[Joel Brind]], "[http://www.jpands.org/vol10no4/brind.pdf Induced Abortion as an Independent Risk Factor for Breast Cancer: A Critical Review of Recent Studies Based on Prospective Data]," J. of Am. Physicians & Surgeons 105 (Winter 2005) (citing Russo J, Russo IH. Susceptibility of the mammary gland to
carcinogenesis. 1980;100:497-512).</ref> Additional scientific information on the abortion-breast cancer link is available at [http://www.bcpinstitute.org BCPInstitute.org].

An expert (Dr. Lynn Rosenberg) hired to defend abortion felt compelled to admit, under cross-examination, that a woman increases her risk for breast cancer by having an abortion compared to carrying her pregnancy to childbirth:<ref>[http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/rosenberg's_testimony.htm Rosenberg's Testimony]. ''Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer''.</ref>

:Question by the attorney: 'So in other words, a woman who finds herself pregnant at age 15 will have a higher breast cancer risk if she chooses to abort that pregnancy, than if she carries the pregnancy to term, [is that] correct?'

:Dr. Lynn Rosenberg: 'Probably, yes.'

:Question: 'Looking at that another way, let's compare two women. Let's say both got pregnant at age 15-- one terminates the pregnancy, but the other carries the pregnancy to term. And both women go on to get married and have two kids, say, at age 30 and age 35. Is the risk of breast cancer higher for the woman who had an abortion at age 15 or the woman who had a baby at age 15, all other things being equal?'

:Dr. Lynn Rosenberg: 'It's probably higher for the one who had an abortion at age 15.'

Despite the overwhelming evidence -- and inescapable logic -- for abortion increasing breast cancer, promoters of abortion cite flawed articles in an attempt to deny the link. The flaws in these articles are exposed in the [[Harvard abortion study]] and "Legal Implications of a Link Between Abortion and Breast Cancer" by Andrew Schlafly in the ''Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons''.<ref>Schafly, A. (2005, Spring). [http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/aschlafly.pdf Legal Implications of a Link Between Abortion and Breast Cancer]. ''Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons'', 10(1), 10-14.</ref>

As Dr. Lanfranchi has explained:<ref>Lanfranchi, A. (2008, Spring). [http://www.jpands.org/vol13no1/lanfranchi.pdf The Federal Government and Academic Texts as Barriers to Informed Consent]. ''Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons'', 13(1), 12-15.</ref>

:Well-documented breast physiology accounts for the fact that oral contraceptives and abortion are risk factors for breast cancer. There is an effort to suppress this information by federal agencies and those in academic medicine. Without this information, women cannot make a fully informed choice about their method of fertility control or about whether to maintain an unplanned pregnancy. Medical ethics demands that they be informed.

Pro-choice should include ''informed'' choice.<ref>The Archdiocese of St. Louis, for example, remarked about abortions and increased risk for breast cancer: "To dismiss that link is irresponsible." http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/5620863.html (Link no longer works)</ref> Yet efforts continue to suppress awareness that abortion increases breast cancer. Pro-life scientists were almost entirely barred from the National Cancer Institute's "study" of the link, and its resulting statements were fatally flawed as explained in [[National Cancer Institute on Abortion]].

Just as organizations denied or failed to disclose the connection between smoking and lung cancer, many organizations aligned with [[liberal]] politicians deny the correlation between abortion and breast cancer despite numerous studies published in peer reviewed journals indicating a likely connection.

[[File:Smelliesdoublecrochet.jpg|right|thumb|250px| The Smellie's double crochet abortion tool was used to grab and forcibly remove the fetus from the womb.]]

===Abortion Causes Future Harm with Premature Births===

"At least 49 studies have demonstrated a statistically significant increase in premature births (PB) or low birth weight (LBW) risk in women with prior induced abortions (IAs)."<ref>Brent Rooney and Byron C. Calhoun, "Induced Abortion and Risk of Later Premature Births," 8 J. Am. Physicians & Surgeons 46 (Summer 2003). [http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/rooney.pdf]</ref> Premature birth tragically causes brain damage, and an array of other severe, lifelong injuries ranging from Cerebral Palsy to blindness, or even death, and few mothers would knowingly increase the risk of that happening. "There are at least seventeen (17) studies that have found that previous induced abortions increase preterm birth risk” and thereby increase debilitating Cerebral Palsy in children."<ref>Brent Rooney, Letter, 96 European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 239 (2001) (citations omitted).</ref>

In 2008, the generally pro-abortion British medical journal, ''The Lancet'', admitted that a procedure often used in abortion increase the risk of premature birth:<ref name=lancet>Dr, Jay D. Iams, Dr. Robert Romero, Jennifer F. Culhane (PhD), Dr. Robert L. Goldenberg. [http://www.v2020la.org/pub/PUBLICATIONS_BY_TOPICS/ROP/Primary,_secondary,_and_tertiary_interventions.....pdf]Primary, secondary, and tertiary interventions to reduce the morbidity and mortality of preterm birth. Lancet 2008;371:164-175. While the text of this article conceals the connection with abortion, it cites as support for its claims two studies showing how abortion increases risk of premature birth: the 2004 'Ancel' study of ten European countries and the 2005 'Moreau' study that used French subjects. Ancel P-Y, Lelong N, Papiernik E, Saurel-Cubizoilles M-J, Kaminski M. [http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/3/734.full History of induced abortion as a risk factor for preterm birth in European countries: results of the EUROPOP survey]. Human Reproduction. 2004;112:734-740. Moreau C, Kaminski M, Ancel PY et al. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15777440 Previous I induced abortions and the risk of very preterm delivery; Results of the EPIPAGE study]. British J Obstetrics Gynaecology 2005; 112:430-437.</ref>

:"For example, greater public and professional awareness of evidence that repeated uterine instrumentation--eg, uterine curettage or endometrial biopsy--is associated with increased risk of subsequent preterm birth might over time influence decision-making about the procedure."

Researchers Rooney and Calhoun observed:<ref name=lancet />

:Large studies have reported a doubling of [early premature birth] EPB risk from two prior IAs. Women who had four or more IAs experienced, on average, nine times the risk of [extremely early premature births] XPB, an increase of 800 percent. These results suggest that women contemplating IA should be informed of this potential risk to subsequent pregnancies, and that physicians should be aware of the potential liability and possible need for intensified prenatal care.

Demographic evidence of how abortion increases premature birth includes the following:

:* The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): "[T]he abortion rate for black women has been approximately '''three times''' as high as that for white women (range: 2.6--3.1) since 1991"<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5407a1.htm (emphasis added)</ref>
:* ''Science Daily'''s report on a study by the Washington University School of Medicine: "African-American women are '''three times''' more likely to deliver babies three to 17 weeks prematurely than Caucasian women"<ref>Washington University School of Medicine (2007, February 12). [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070209074144.htm African-American Mothers]. (emphasis added)</ref>

In 2002 an article entitled "Preterm Birth: A Continuing Challenge" noted that premature births are abnormally high in the United States, citing a study that observed that a previous abortion is a "risk factor for both infertility and preterm birth."<ref>Moore, M.L. (2002, Fall). [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1595132/ Preterm Birth: A Continuing Challenge]. ''The Journal of Perinatal Education'', 11(4), 37-40. doi: 10.1624/105812402X88948</ref>

The rate of premature birth is elevated by the same amount as the abortion rate, as expected if abortion increases the risk of premature birth.

===Other Health Risks from Abortion===

The [[U.S. Supreme Court]] ruled in 2007 that:<ref>''Gonzales v. Carhart'', 127 S. Ct. 1610, 1634 (2007).</ref> {{cquote|"While we find no reliable data to measure the phenomenon, it seems unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained. See Brief for Sandra Cano ''et al.'' as Amici Curiae in No. 05-380, pp 22-24. Severe depression and loss of esteem can follow."}} A study published in the Southern Medical Journal observed that there are higher death rates associated with women who have abortion, and that these higher death rates persist over time and across socioeconomic boundaries.<ref>D.C. Reardon, P.G. Ney, F.J. Scheuren, J.R. Cougle, P.K. Coleman, T. Strahan, "Deaths associated with pregnancy outcome: a record linkage study of low income women," 95 Southern Medical Journal 8, at 834-41 (August 2002).</ref>

In [[England]], the "Royal College of Psychiatrists says women should not be allowed to have an abortion until they are counselled on the possible risk to their mental health." The medical royal college warned that women who have abortions may be at risk of mental health problems.<ref>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article3559486.ece (Link no longer works)</ref> A New Zealand study found that abortion in young women may be associated with increased risks of mental health problems.<ref>Fergusson, D.M., et. al. (2006, January). [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16405636 Abortion in young women and subsequent mental health]. ''The Journal of Child Psychology andPsychiatry'', 47(1), 16-24. PMID: 16405636.</ref> The researcher in this study, who was not pro-life, was shaken by the study and had to go to four journals before he could find one who would publish it. <ref name=gilson>Gilson, T. (2006, February 24). [http://www.thinkingchristian.net/C1148465919/E20060224082323/index.html Abortion and Mental Health]. ''Thinking Christian''.</ref>

The study concludes with the following statement:
{{cquote|These findings are inconsistent with the current consensus on the psychological effects of abortion. In particular, in its 2005 statement on abortion, the American Psychological Association concluded that “well-designed studies of psychological responses following abortion have consistently shown that risk of psychological harm is low...the percentage of women who experience clinically relevant distress is small and appears to be no greater than in general samples of women of reproductive age” (American Psychological Association, 2005). This relatively strong conclusion about the absence of harm from abortion was based on a relatively small number of studies which had one or more of the following limitations: a) absence of comprehensive assessment of mental disorders; b) lack of comparison groups; and c) limited statistical controls. Furthermore, the statement appears to disregard the findings of a number of studies that had claimed to show negative effects for abortion (Cougle et al., 2003; Gissler et al., 1996; Reardon & Cougle, 2002). <ref name=gilson />}}

Professor David Fergusson, lead author of the New Zealand study stated:
{{cquote|It borders on scandalous that one of the most common surgical procedures performed on young women is so poorly researched and evaluated. If this were Prozac or Vioxx, reports of associated harm would be taken much more seriously with more careful research and monitoring procedures." <ref>Throckmorton, W. (2006, January 20). [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/jan/20/20060120-091648-6456r/?page=all#pagebreak Abortion and Mental Health]. ''The Washington Times''.</ref>}}

Another study published in the OB/GYN Survey detailed long-term physical and psychological health consequences of induced abortions.<ref>J.M. Thorp, Jr., K.E. Hartmann, and E.M. Shadigian, "[content.silaspartners.com/156/41045/156_41045_shadigian.1.pdf Long-Term Physical & Psychological Health Consequences of Induced Abortion: Review of the Evidence]," 58 OB/GYN Survey 1, at 67-79 (2003)</ref>

Suicide rates among women who had abortions are six times higher than women who gave birth in the prior year. Overall, deaths from suicide, homicide and accidents were 248% higher after an abortion, as found by a 13-year study in Finland of its entire population.<ref>http://www.abortionrecoverycounseling.com/Page8.html (Link no longer works)</ref>

In the United States, only one state (Missouri) requires that the abortionist have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion.<ref>Mo. Rev. Stat. § 188.080 prohibits an abortion by a physician "who does not have clinical privileges at a hospital which offers obstetrical or gynecological care located within thirty miles of the location at which the abortion is performed or induced."</ref> In the other 49 states, an abortion patient can and often is left without prompt medical care by the treating physician.

One of the largest abortion providers in the United States, the Metropolitan Medical Associates of New Jersey, was shut down in 2007 by state health officials after one of its botched abortions left a 20-year-old woman in a coma for more than four weeks. She "became severely ill following the abortion and was transferred to Newark Beth Israel Medical Center where she needed blood transfusions and had her uterus removed. She also suffered a stroke due to the serious blood loss and had one of her lungs collapse." The State of New Jersey had shut down the same facility in 1993 also.<ref>Ertelt, S. (2007, March 1). [http://www.lifenews.com/state2137.html Woman Comatose for a Month After Botched Abortion Caused Center’s Closing]. ''LifeNews.com''.</ref>

==History==
[[Image:115523-004-FA619CA3.jpg|thumb|right|250px| The perverse and cruel [[atheism|atheist]] [[Marquis de Sade]] advocated induced abortion.<ref>http://jme.bmj.com/content/6/1/7.abstract</ref>]]
''Please also see:'' [[History of abortion]]

Abortion was an extremely harsh '''''punishment''''' in the [[Old Testament]], imposed against those who have "rebelled against" God:

:"Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb." (Hosea 9:16)

:"Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up." (Hosea 13:16)

:"Then Menahem smote Tiphsah, and all that were therein, and the coasts thereof from Tirzah: because they opened not to him, therefore he smote it; and all the women therein that were with child he ripped up." (2 Kings 15:16)

The father of [[medicine]], [[Hippocrates]], expressly prohibited abortion in his ethical [[Oath]] long before [[Christianity]].

The ''Journal of Medical Ethics'' article declared concerning the [[atheism|atheist]] and [[sadism|sadist]] [[Marquis de Sade]]:
{{cquote|In 1795 the Marquis de Sade published his La Philosophic dans le boudoir, in which he proposed the use of induced abortion for social reasons and as a means of population control. It is from this time that medical and social acceptance of abortion can be dated, although previously the subject had not been discussed in public in modern times. It is suggested that it was largely due to de Sade's writing that induced abortion received the impetus which resulted in its subsequent spread in western society.<ref>Farr, A.D. (1980). [http://jme.bmj.com/content/6/1/7.abstract The Marquis de Sade and induced abortion]. ''Journal of Medical Ethics'', 6, 7-10. doi:10.1136/jme.6.1.7</ref>}}

[[Population control]] is based on [[pseudoscience]] and ill founded [[economics|economic]] assumptions.<ref>Egnor, M. (2010, November 30). [http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/pz_myers_on_abortion040971.html P.Z. Myers on Abortion]. ''Evolution News and Views''.</ref>

=== Adolf Hitler and Abortion ===
''For more information see:'' [[Abortion and Adolf Hitler]]
[[Image:Hitlerspeech.jpg|thumb|290px|right|[[Adolf Hitler]]]]‎In 1942 [[Adolf Hitler]] declared:
{{cquote|In view of the large families of the Slav native population, it could only suit us if girls and women there had as many abortions as possible. We are not interested in seeing the non-[[German]] population multiply…We must use every means to instill in the population the idea that it is harmful to have several children, the expenses that they cause and the dangerous effect on woman's health… It will be necessary to open special institutions for abortions and doctors must be able to help out there in case there is any question of this being a breach of their professional ethics. <ref>Hoffman, M.C. (2007, September 7). [Israeli Doctor Exposes Nazi Abortion Program http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/sep/07090708.html]. ''LifeSiteNews.com''.</ref>}}

After [[World War II]], the War Crimes Tribunal indicted ten [[Nazi]] leaders for "encouraging and compelling abortion," which the tribunal considered a "crime against humanity."<ref>Wilke, J.C., Dr., et. al. (2006). [http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_25.asp#But%20didn%E2%80%99t%20Hitler%20oppose%20abortion? Why Can't We Love Them Both: Chapter 25, Euthanasia]. ''AbortionFacts.com''.</ref>
===Hall v. Lefkowitz===
[[Hall v. Lefkowitz]] was a court case on November 4, 1969<ref>"[http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=19691335305FSupp1030_11150.xml&docbase=CSLWAR1-1950-1985 Hall v. Lefkowitz]." 305 F.Supp. 1030 (1969). www.Leagle.com.</ref> during which Roy Lucas, an assistant professor at the University of Alabama Law School, and his self-founded James Madison Constitutional Law Institute, sued to challenge New York's abortion laws. A three-judge court presided which included famous judge Henry Friendly. Friendly wrote a draft opinion in the spring of 1970 declaring government had right to regulate abortion and protect a fetus, contrary to the later [[Roe v. Wade]] ruling. However, shortly thereafter the New York legislature amended state abortion law to allow abortion within the first 24 weeks of pregnancy, and Hall's case was dismissed as unnecessary.<ref name=friendly>Randolph, A. Raymond. "[http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No3_Randolph.pdf Before Roe v. Wade: Judge Friendly's Draft Abortion Opinion]." ''Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy''. Vol. 29.</ref> [[Hall v. Lefkowitz|Read some of Friendly's arguments]] made years before Roe v. Wade.

===NARAL's Lies About Back-Alley Abortions===
Bernard Nathanson, one of NARAL's co-founders, described how he and the organization fabricated abortion statistics and used slogans to sway the public during the early days of Roe v. Wade.
{{cquote|I remember laughing when we made those slogans up. We were looking for some sexy, catchy slogans to capture public opinion. They were very cynical slogans then, just as all of these slogans today are very, very cynical. We persuaded the media that the cause of permissive abortion was a liberal, enlightened, sophisticated one. Knowing that if a true poll were taken, we would be soundly defeated, we simply fabricated the results of fictional polls. We announced to the media that we had taken polls and that 60 percent of Americans were in favor of permissive abortion. We aroused enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000, but the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000. Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200-250 annually. The figure we constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These false figures took root in the consciousness of Americans, convincing many that we needed to crack the abortion law. Another myth we fed to the public through the media was that legalizing abortion would only mean that the abortions taking place illegally would then be done legally. In fact, of course, abortion is now being used as a primary method of birth control in the U.S. and the annual number of abortions has increased by 1,500 percent since legalization.<ref name=nathanson />

=== Roe v. Wade ===
Prior to 1973 abortion was illegal in most of the United States, though a few states (such as Hawaii and New York) allowed it with restrictions.<ref>''A Timeline of Reproductive Rights'' [http://ecampus.bentley.edu/org/wc/reproductiverights.html The Women's Center]</ref> The U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 [[Roe v. Wade]]<ref>Online text of [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=410&page=113 Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)]</ref> decision ruled that abortions are lawful under the [[U.S. Constitution]] up to the point at which the fetus becomes able to survive outside the womb, and an accompanying decision issued the same day captioned [[Doe v. Bolton]] essentially legalized abortion in the unlimited discretion of the abortionist at any time during pregnancy, up to and including birth. Conservatives immediately criticized these decisions as examples of [[Judicial Activism]].
===Present Day ===
In 2008, worldwide there were approximately 115,000 abortions done per day.<ref name=abortionno>[http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html Abortion Facts]. ''The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform].</ref> In 2008, approximately 83% of all abortions were performed in developing countries and 17% occurred in developed countries.<ref name=abortionno />

States may regulate abortion, such as requiring a 24-hour waiting period and parental consent for minors. Abortion clinics often fail to comply with the health standards of surgical facilities, and States can require compliance (but often do not, resulting in discomfort and harm to the victims of abortion). Many abortionists lack hospital admitting privileges at nearby facilities, so women having complications must go on their own to emergency rooms to see physicians unfamiliar with what actually happened. For any other operation the cost of treating complications is included in the cost of the operation, but for abortions the abortion clinics take their money and typically do not pay for the care of complications.

The more pro-abortion the State regulations are, the larger the number of abortion clinics it will have. [[Arizona]], though a pro-life State, has a regulatory system that results in twelve abortion clinics operating within its borders. In contrast, [[Mississippi]] has only one abortion clinic, and [[Missouri]] has only two.

==Reasons Given For Abortions==

[[File:AbortionReasons.jpg‎|thumb|400px| Primary reasons women reported for undergoing abortions]]

The Alan Guttmacher Institute, which is not a [[conservative]] or [[pro-life]] organization, conducted a poll of more than 1,200 patients undergoing induced abortions at 11 large-scale [[abortion facilities]] in the United States. The women were asked to identify reasons for seeking abortions, and identify the primary motivation. An additional 38 women at four sites were interviewed in-depth.<ref name="agiSurvey">[http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf Lawrence Finer, et al., "Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives", ''Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health'', September 2005]</ref>

The poll omitted any reference to whether the women were able to see an ultrasound of their unborn children before choosing to have an abortion. For the vast majority of women who have abortion, the reason is a lack of knowledge about the unborn child as displayed by an ultrasound. Because a large part of their campaign funds are bankrolled by the abortion industry, liberals are frequent opponents to laws making available ultrasound treatment for patients not certain of the decision. Some physicians have been reported intimidating and pressuring patients to continue with an abortion after the patient has had a change of heart, either on the operating table or before surgery. One doctor, who was also employed as a spokesman for a prominent liberal pro-abortion think tank, reportedly forced a patient to undergo the procedure in order to fill a quota on insurance claims.

Among reasons provided to the women as part of the poll, the two most common selections were "Having a baby would dramatically change my life" (74%) and "I can't afford a baby now" (73%).<ref name="agiSurvey"/> Concerns about their own health were mentioned by only 13% of the women, while only 12% mentioned concerns about the baby's health, though only 3% and 4% respectively gave those as their primary reason for seeking abortion.<ref name="agiSurvey"/>

Interestingly, only 14% indicated "[[husband]] or partner wants me to have an abortion" as a reason, down from 24% in a previous survey in 1987.<ref name="agiSurvey"/> This contrasts with research on women post-abortion, among whom 64% reported feeling pressured by others to abort, and may indicate pressure to abort comes not so much from husbands now as other relationships.<ref name="reardon">[http://www.theunchoice.com/pdf/FactSheets/ForcedAbortionFactSheet.pdf David Reardon, "Forced Abortion in America", April 2010]</ref>

What is often ignored in studies of why women submit to abortions is an ambivalence by some in early pregnancy. Such ambivalence typically resolves when the mother becomes more aware of her unborn child, as displayed by an [[ultrasound]].<ref>Lederman, ''Psychosocial Adaptation in Pregnancy'', 1984</ref><ref>"The Unwanted Pregnancy," ''Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology'', 1970, Cited in Gardner, ''Abortion: The Personal Dilemma'', 1972</ref><ref>Nichols and Humenick, ''Childbirth Education: Practice, Research, and Theory'', 1988</ref>

==Public Opinion==
Public polling, as seen below (sourced from Gallup<ref name=gallupabortion/>), reveals that Americans are increasingly calling themselves Pro-Life (50%) and continue to say abortion should be legal only in a few circumstances (59%) such as rape (75%) and life of the mother (83%).
===Legal or Illegal===
According to Gallup's most recent poll (May 3-6, 2012), 20% of Americans believe abortion should always be illegal, and 39% believe it should be legal only in a few circumstances, a combined 59% that believe it should always or usually be illegal. 25% believe abortion should always be legal, and 13% believe that it should be legal in most circumstances, a combined 38% that believe it should always or usually be legal. 4% hold no opinion. The percentage of Americans which believe abortion should always or usually be illegal has varied from a low of 51% (Sept. 6-7, 1994, and Sept. 22-24, 1995) to a high of 62% (May 2-5, 2005). Gallup has polled the question 33 times since it began asking in 1994.<ref>''Gallup''. "[http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx/ Abortion]." Do you think abortion should be legal in most circumstances or only in a few circumstances?</ref>
===Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice===
Currently, 50% of Americans describe themselves as Pro-Life, 41% describe themselves as Pro-Choice, and 4% as Mixed/Neither, as of the most recent poll (May 3-6, 2012). The percentage of Americans describing themselves as Pro-Life has varied from a low of 33% (Sept. 3-6, 1995) to a high of 51% (May 7-10, 2009). Gallup has polled the question 41 times since it began asking in 1995.<ref name=gallupabortion/>
===By Trimester===
Gallup has asked the following question four times from 2003-2011: "Thinking more generally, do you think abortion should generally be legal or generally illegal during each of the following stages of pregnancy. How about -- [RANDOM ORDER]?"<ref name=gallupabortion/>
====1st Trimester====
The following results were given for "In the first three months of pregnancy" (1st Trimester):
{| border="1" cellpadding="2" align="center"
! Polling Date
! Should be legal
! Should be illegal
! Depends (vol.)
! No opinion
|-
| 2011, June 9-12
|align="center"|62%
|align="center"|35%
|align="center"|2%
|align="center"|1%
|-
| 2003, January 10-12
|align="center"|66%
|align="center"|29%
|align="center"|3%
|align="center"|2%
|-
| 2000, March 30-April 2
|align="center"|65%
|align="center"|31%
|align="center"|2%
|align="center"|2%
|-
| 1996, July 25-26
|align="center"|64%
|align="center"|30%
|align="center"|4%
|align="center"|2%
|-
|}

====2nd Trimester====
The following results were given for "In the second three months of pregnancy" (2nd Trimester):
{| border="1" cellpadding="2" align="center"
! Polling Date
! Should be legal
! Should be illegal
! Depends (vol.)
! No opinion
|-
| 2011, June 9-12
|align="center"|24%
|align="center"|71%
|align="center"|3%
|align="center"|2%
|-
| 2003, January 10-12
|align="center"|25%
|align="center"|68%
|align="center"|4%
|align="center"|3%
|-
| 2000, March 30-April 2
|align="center"|24%
|align="center"|69%
|align="center"|4%
|align="center"|3%
|-
| 1996, July 25-26
|align="center"|26%
|align="center"|65%
|align="center"|7%
|align="center"|2%
|-
|}
====3rd Trimester====
The following results were given for "In the last three months of pregnancy" (3rd Trimester):
{| border="1" cellpadding="2" align="center"
! Polling Date
! Should be legal
! Should be illegal
! Depends (vol.)
! No opinion
|-
| 2011, June 9-12
|align="center"|10%
|align="center"|86%
|align="center"|2%
|align="center"|1%
|-
| 2003, January 10-12
|align="center"|10%
|align="center"|84%
|align="center"|4%
|align="center"|2%
|-
| 2000, March 30-April 2
|align="center"|8%
|align="center"|86%
|align="center"|3%
|align="center"|3%
|-
| 1996, July 25-26
|align="center"|13%
|align="center"|82%
|align="center"|3%
|align="center"|2%
|-
|}
===By Circumstances===
According to the most recent Gallup poll (June 9-12, 2011), the following percentages of Americans say abortion should be legal under each circumstance:<ref name=gallupabortion/>
{| border="1" cellpadding="2" align="center"
! Circumstance
! Should be legal
! Should be illegal
! Depends (vol.)
! No opinion
|-
| When the woman's life is endangered
|align="center"|83%
|align="center"|13%
|align="center"|1%
|align="center"|3%
|-
| When the woman's physical health is endangered
|align="center"|82%
|align="center"|15%
|align="center"|1%
|align="center"|2%
|-
| When the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest
|align="center"|75%
|align="center"|22%
|align="center"|1%
|align="center"|2%
|-
| When the woman's mental health is endangered
|align="center"|61%
|align="center"|35%
|align="center"|2%
|align="center"|2%
|-
| When there is evidence the baby may be mentally impaired
|align="center"|51%
|align="center"|46%
|align="center"|2%
|align="center"|2%
|-
| When there is evidence the baby may be physically impaired
|align="center"|50%
|align="center"|45%
|align="center"|2%
|align="center"|3%
|-
| When the woman or family cannot afford to raise the child
|align="center"|36%
|align="center"|61%
|align="center"|1%
|align="center"|2%
|-
|}
===Pro-Life Initiatives===
According to Gallup's most recent poll (July 15-17, 2011) these proposals by the Pro-Life movement have received the following public support levels. Those marked "(2005)" were polled most recently on November 11-13, 2005. Those marked "(2003)" were last polled on January 10-12, 2003.<ref name=gallupabortion/>
{| border="1" cellpadding="2" align="center"
! Proposal
! Favor
! Oppose
! No opinion
|-
| (2003) A law requiring doctors to inform patients about alternatives to abortion before performing the procedure
|align="center"|88%
|align="center"|11%
|align="center"|1%
|-
| A law requiring doctors inform patients about possible risks of abortion before performing the procedure
|align="center"|87%
|align="center"|11%
|align="center"|2%
|-
| A law requiring women under 18 to get parental consent for any abortion
|align="center"|71%
|align="center"|27%
|align="center"|2%
|-
| A law requiring women seeking abortions to wait 24 hours before having the procedure done
|align="center"|69%
|align="center"|28%
|align="center"|3%
|-
| A law making partial birth abortions illegal except for life of the mother
|align="center"|64%
|align="center"|31%
|align="center"|5%
|-
| (2005) A law requiring that the husband of a married woman be notified if she decides to have an abortion
|align="center"|64%
|align="center"|34%
|align="center"|2%
|-
| A law requiring women seeking an abortion be shown an ultrasound image of her fetus at least 24 hours before
|align="center"|50%
|align="center"|46%
|align="center"|3%
|-
| A law letting pharmacists and health providers opt out of medicine/surgical procedures resulting in abortion
|align="center"|46%
|align="center"|51%
|align="center"|4%
|-
| (2005) A constitutional amendment to ban abortion in all circumstances, except to save the life of the mother
|align="center"|37%
|align="center"|61%
|align="center"|2%
|-
|}

==Abortion Alternatives==
[[Optionline]] provides consultants that connects individuals to nearby pregnancy centers that offer the following services: free pregnancy tests and pregnancy information; Information about the risks of abortion and the morning after pill; medical services, including [[STD]] tests; early ultrasounds and pregnancy confirmation. In addition, some of these centers provide information regarding free housing to women who are facing housing concerns.<ref>[http://www.pregnancycenters.org/ OptionLine]. ''OptionLine.org''.</ref>

The primary alternative to abortion is adoption. [[Liberty Godparent Foundation]] is a [[Christian]] organization focused on improving the lives of unwed pregnant teens, babies and adoptive families by providing two alternatives, The Liberty Godparent Maternity Home and Family Life Services Adoption Agency.<ref>[http://www.godparent.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20&Itemid=59 Family Life Services]. ''GodParentFoundation.org''.</ref>. [[Catholic Social Services]] provides adoption assistance to people of all beliefs in addition to supporting families in need.

==Planned Parenthood's Budget==
[[Planned Parenthood]] likes to claim that abortion accounts for just 3% of its services.<ref>[http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/planned-parenthood-glance-5552.htm Planned Parenthood At a Glance]. ''Planned Parenthood''.</ref> However, an examination of its finances reveals that much if not most of its [[income]] relates to abortion.<ref>Barto, N. & Musgrave, M. (2012, July 29). [http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/2012/07/27/20120727womens-health-care.html Diverting Funds Betters Women's Health Care]. ''The Arizona Republic''.</ref> According to Planned Parenthood's 2007-08 budget, it received $1.038 billion of [[revenue]] from the following sources:<ref>[http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/AR08_vFinal.pdf Annual Report 2007-2008]. Pg. 18. ''Planned Parenthood''.</ref>
{| border="1" cellpadding="2" align="center"
!
! Revenue (millions)
! %
|-
| Health Center Income
|align="center"|$374.7
|align="center"|36.1%
|-
| Govt. Grants & Services
|align="center"|$349.6
|align="center"|33.7%
|-
| Contributions & Requests
|align="center"|$244.9
|align="center"|23.6%
|-
| Other Operating Revenue
|align="center"|$68.9
|align="center"|6.6%
|-
|align="center"|'''Total Revenue'''
|align="center"|'''$1,038.1'''
|align="center"|'''100.0%'''
|-
|}
Planned Parenthood's reported $374.7 million of revenue from "Health Center Income". Given that it reported performing 305,130 abortions<ref>Page 9.</ref>, at an average cost of $450 (which lines up with statistics from the [[National Abortion Federation]]<ref>Dudley, S. (2003). [http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/economics.html Economics of Abortion]. ''National Abortion Federation''.</ref>), approximately $137.4 million of that $374.7 million Health Center Income came directly from performing abortions per analysis by [[Live Action]].<ref>Schmidt, D. (2010, May 14). [http://liveaction.org/blog/data-36-7-of-planned-parenthoods-health-center-income-is-from-abortions/ DATA: 36.7% of Planned Parenthood’s 'Health Center Income' is from Abortions]. ''Live Action''.</ref>

Since much of its money comes from Government Grants and Services or Contributions and Requests ($595.5 million) likely related to abortion, in addition to this $137.4 million of direct abortion revenue, it appears probable that as much as half to two-thirds of Planned Parenthood's revenue relates to abortion.

==Targeted Demographics==
===Women in China===
Forced abortion caused by China's One-Child Policy leads to deaths of mothers<ref>Bo Gu, B. (2012, June 14). [http://behindthewall.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/06/14/12222877-gruesome-photos-put-spotlight-on-chinas-one-child-policy?lite Gruesome Photos Put Spotlight on China's One-Child Policy]. ''NBC News''.</ref>, as well as "gendercide".<ref>Hayes, A. (2012, April 30). [http://articles.cnn.com/2012-04-30/asia/world_asia_china-forced-abortions_1_reggie-littlejohn-china-s-national-population-abortions?_s=PM:ASIA Activists allege forced abortions, sterilizations in China]. ''CNN''. Littlejohn, R. (2012, April 27). [http://www.lifenews.com/2012/04/27/the-real-war-against-women-forced-abortion-gendercide/ The Real War Against Women: Forced Abortion, Gendercide]. ''LifeNews''.</ref> Because men tend to be higher wage earners, many families choose to abort their female children, opting instead for males.<ref>Ling, C. [http://www.allgirlsallowed.org/category/topics/one-child-policy-china One-Child Policy Statistics]. ''AllGirlsAllowed.com''.</ref> Photos in 2012 of these forced abortions led to national outrage and calls to end China's One-Child Policy.<ref>Riviera, G. (2012, June 14). [http://abcnews.go.com/International/chinas-forced-abortions-child-rule-hits-women/story?id=16558428 How China's Forced Abortion Policy Hits Two Women]. ''ABC News''. Wong, E. (2012, July 22). [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/23/world/asia/pressure-to-repeal-chinas-one-child-law-is-growing.html?pagewanted=all Reports of Forced Abortions Fuel Push to End Chinese Law]. ''New York Times''. MacLeod, C. (2012, July 24). [http://www.usatoday.com/news/story/2012-07-25/China-forced-abortions/56465974/1 Pressure mounts to stop China's forced abortions]. ''USA Today''. Sudworth, J. (2012, June 15). [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-18453995 Chinese officials apologise to woman in forced abortion]. ''BBC News''.</ref> The sex-selective abortion policy has led to a huge gender disparity in China, 122.66 boys for every girl born, the highest ratio in the entire Asia Specific region<ref>(2010, March 9). [http://www.un.org.cn/cms/p/news/27/1346/content.html Gender Inequality Persists in China]. ''United Nations in China''. Ward, C. (2011, August 12). [http://abcnews.go.com/International/chinas-census-shows-growing-gender-gap/story?id=14288216 China's Preference for Boys Shows Growing Gender Gap]. ''ABC News''.</ref>, and resulted in 32 million single males.<ref>LaFraniere, S. (2009, April 10). [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/11/world/asia/11china.html Chinese Bias for Baby Boys Creates a Gap of 32 Million]. ''The New York Times''. AFP (2010, January 12). [http://news.discovery.com/human/china-birth-rate-single-men.html China's Gender Gap Leaves Millions of Single Men]. ''Discovery News''.</ref> Logically this is a driving force behind human trafficking, prostitution, and the female slave trade which occurs near China.<ref>Weisenthal, J. (2010, April 12). [http://articles.businessinsider.com/2010-04-12/news/30049254_1_boys-and-girls-selective-abortions-village-hall Amazing First-Hand Account Of The Massive Gender Disparity In China]. ''Business Insider''.</ref>

===Minority Communities===
[[File:4287336112 d3f9126c99.jpg|right|thumb|325px|According to [[Cybercast News Service]]: "An analysis by the Cybercast News Service compared the location of [[Planned Parenthood]] abortion clinics with population data from the U.S. Census in 2000. The results appear to bolster the charge that the organization targets black communities."<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Carchive%5C200502%5CSPE20050207a.html (Link no longer works.)</ref>
 
 
(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/muriel215/4287336112/ Flickr, see Creative commons license agreement)] ]]
"Each day '''1,786''' African American children are aborted." According to the [[U.S.]] Census of 2006, African Americans are at 1.96 birth rate which is beneath the replacement level of 2.1. <ref>[http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/1685410938.html African American Pro-Life Group Holds Protest at NAACP] Christian News Network, July 13, 2009</ref> At the continued rate, [[racism]] by abortion will decimate the black population of the U.S.

According to writer George Grant, the author of ''Killing Angel'':

"During the 1980s when [[Planned Parenthood]] shifted its focus from community-based clinics to school-based clinics, it again targeted inner-city minority neighborhoods...Of the more than 100 school-based clinics that have opened nationwide in the last decade [1980s], none has been at substantially all-white schools....None has been at suburban middle-class schools. All have been at black, minority or ethnic schools.” <ref>Green, T.L. (2001, May 10). [http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/special_issues/population/the_negro_project.htm The Negro Project: Margaret Sanger's Eugenic Plan for Black Americans]. ''Concerned Women For America''.</ref>

Planned Parenthood itself reported that its abortions on minorities in 1991 were 42.7% of its total abortions. <ref name=ppracism>Murphy, L.K. (1994, June). [http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/PPRACISM.TXT Planned Parenthood's Racism]. ''Life Research Institute''.</ref>. However, during that time period, minorities comprised only 19.7% of the U.S. population.<ref name=ppracism />

According to [[Cybercast News Service]]: "An analysis by the Cybercast News Service compared the location of Planned Parenthood abortion clinics with population data from the U.S. Census in 2000. The results appear to bolster the charge that the organization targets black communities."<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Carchive%5C200502%5CSPE20050207a.html (Link no longer works.)</ref>

==Political Support of Abortion==
The most powerful political action committee (PAC) is EMILY’s List.<ref>http://www.emilyslist.org/newsroom/releases/20070201.html (Link no longer works.)</ref> EMILY's List contributes money to Democratic candidates who support abortion-on-demand, including forced taxpayer funding of abortion. EMILY's List candidates also oppose regulations such as:

* Providing health information to abortion patients;
* Requiring that the abortionist have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital in case there is a complication; and
* Providing parental notification if the patient is a teenager.

Due to the influence of the abortion industry and EMILY's List, nearly every Democratic presidential candidate and senatorial candidate supports abortion-on-demand. "EMILY's List, the nation's largest political action committee, continues to be the dominant financial resource for Democratic candidates," its above-referenced website declares.

There is no comparably funded organization opposing abortion, because there are no monetary rewards to defending human life. Instead, candidates and supporters who oppose abortion are motivated by religious and ethical principles.
===Pro-Life Democrats===
''See also:'' [[DFLA#2009-2010_Obamacare_Influence]]

While most Democrats support abortion, a growing number have been affiliating with [[Democrats For Life of America]], also known as Pro-Life Democrats. ObamaCare in 2009-2010 would have passed rapidly if not for their influence, since Democrats had a Supermajority allowing them to pass anything without a single Republican vote. However, 40 Pro-Life Democrats, led by Congressman [[Bart Stupak]] signed a letter refusing to let ObamaCare pass without reforms on the abortion issue, and fought the bill from June 2009 to March 2010, in an attempt to add the Stupak Amendment to the bill (which was added to the House bill but removed in the Senate despite attempts by Sen. [[Ben Nelson]] to add it there as well).
===Politics and Demographics===
''See also:'' [[American atheism]] and [[Global atheism]] and [[Decline of atheism]] and [[liberal]]

The Birkbeck College, University of London professor Eric Kaufman wrote in his 2010 book ''Shall the Righteous Inherit the Earth?'' concerning America:
{{cquote|High evangelical fertility rates more than compensated for losses to liberal Protestant sects during the twentieth century. In recent decades, white secularism has surged, but Latino and Asian religious immigration has taken up the slack, keeping secularism at bay. Across denominations, the fertility advantage of religious fundamentalists of all colours is significant and growing. After 2020, their demographic weight will begin to tip the balance in the [[Culture War|culture wars]] towards the conservative side, ramping up pressure on hot-button issues such as abortion. By the end of the century, three quarters of America may be pro-life. Their activism will leap over the borders of the 'Redeemer Nation' to evangelize the world. Already, the rise of the World Congress of Families has launched a global religious right, its arms stretching across the bloody lines of the War on Terror to embrace the entire Abrahamic family.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/05/why-are-years-2012-and-2020-key-years.html Why are 2012 and 2020 key years for Christian creationists and pro-lifers?]</ref>}}

==Ultrasound images==
About 80% of women who see an ultrasound of their fetus (unborn child) decide not to abort.<ref>(2005, April 22). [http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/145703/abortion_foes_use_ultrasound__focus_on_the_family_budgets/ Abortion Foes Use Ultrasound ; Focus on the Family Budgets Millions for Pricey Equipment]. ''RedOrbit''.</ref>

*http://www.ob-ultrasound.net/frames.htm
*http://www.flickr.com/photos/drakelelane/388759116/
*http://www.parentingweekly.com/pregnancy/pregnancy_information/ultrasound/13_weeks.htm
*http://www.parentingweekly.com/pregnancy/pregnancy_information/ultrasound/ultrasound_3d.htm
*http://www.parentingweekly.com/pregnancy/pregnancy_information/ultrasound/triple_jump.htm

== See Also ==
*[[Conservapedia:Pro-life Project|Conservapedia Pro-life Project]]
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Abortion Directory of abortion related articles]
*[http://www.investigatemagazine.com/mar3abrt.htm Abortion and breast cancer in New Zealand]
*[[Abortion and the Bible]]
*[[Abortion and eugenics]]
*[[Abortion Facts]]
*[[Abortion funding]]
*[[Abortion genocide]]
*[[Abortion procedures]]
*[[Abortion rates by US state]]
*[[Abortionist]]
*[[Anti Abortion activism: a personal essay]]
*[[More News/Abortion|Articles about '''Abortion''' from "More News"]]
*[[Culture of life]]
*[[Separate Life|Essay on abortion]]
*[[Eugenics]]
*[[Fetus]]
*[[Harvard abortion study]]
*[[Abortion breast cancer studies]]
*[[Homosexual activists and abortion]]
*[[Margaret Sanger]]
*[http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/chs/abrpt/2006abrpt.pdf Minnesota official abortion statistics]
*[[National Right to Life Committee]]
*[[Partial birth abortion]]
*[[Planned Parenthood]]
*[[Right to life]]
*[[Right to life movement]]
*[[Sanctity of life]]
*[[Silent scream]]
*[[Taxpayer-funded abortion]]

==External Links==
* [http://creationwiki.org/Abortion Abortion] by [[CreationWiki]]
* [http://www.abortionfacts.com/ Abortion Facts]
* [http://www.carm.org/abortion.htm Abortion] by [[Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry]]
* [http://www.lifesitenews.com/ LifeSiteNews.com]
* [http://www.ProLifeOnCampus.com/ Pro Life on Campus]
* [http://www.aim.org/wls/category/abortion/ What Liberals Say - Category: Abortion], [[Accuracy In Media]]
{{Abortion}}
{{Liberalism}}

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

[[Category:Abortion]]
[[Category:Sexuality]]
[[Category:Religion and Politics]]
[[Category:Liberals]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]

Communism

2013-02-26T14:27:15Z

NKeaton: Undo revision 1036919 by DawkinsIsWrong (talk)

[[Image:HammerAndSickle.png|right|175px]]
'''Communism''' is a [[left-wing]] [[materialist]]ic and violently [[atheist]]ic ideology created to justify the overthrow of [[Capitalism]], replacing [[free market]] economics and [[democracy]] with a "[[dictatorship of the proletariat]]". Under Communism, the [[political]] system replaces the [[private property|private ownership]] of the means of production with "collective ownership" of the economy, this is to be accomplished through direct "democratic" control by the workers.<ref>http://www.marxists.org/archive/mandel/1968/11/workersdem.htm</ref>
Twentieth century Communism was based on [[Karl Marx]]'s manifesto which proposed to establishment of a "[[classless society]]." However, all Communist societies have had a [[class structure]], notably the [[USSR]], which was dominated by a self appointed ''[[Nomenklatura]]''.

In the belief that "people cannot change", governments under the banner of Communism have caused the death of somewhere between 40 million to 260 million human lives.<ref>[http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>[http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref><ref>[http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm]</ref><ref>[http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365 Memory and Ideology]</ref><ref>[http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526 The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression]</ref> Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term [[democide]] (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that it caused the death of approximately 148,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.<ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM</ref>

President [[Ronald Reagan]] in an address before the British [[House of Commons]] said,
{{Cquote|'''What I am describing now is a plan and hope for the long term -- the march of freedom and democracy which will leave [[Marxism-Leninism]] on the ash heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people.'''<ref>President Ronald Reagan [http://www.iri.org/history_ReaganSpeech.asp Speech to the British Parliament], June 8, 1982. Retrieved from International Republican Institute 05/24/07. </ref>}}

Today, communism continues to rule over at least one-fifth of the world's people.<ref>[http://www.victimsofcommunism.org/history_communism.php Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation], Documenting Communism's Crimes Against Humanity.</ref>
__TOC__
 

==Communist Theory and Practice==

[[Image:Captive-nations-01b----07-19-06.jpg|thumbnail|180px|left|A monument to the Captive Nations stands at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation in [[Washington, D.C.]]]]
Communism is based upon [[Marxism]], a philosophy which uses [[materialism]] to explain all physical and social phenomena. The theory of [[evolution]] influenced the thinking of the Communists, including Marx, [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]], [[Vladimir Lenin]], and [[Joseph Stalin]].<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref> Marx wrote, "[[Charles Darwin|Darwin]]'s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the [[class struggle]] in history." Marx offered to dedicate the second German edition of his polemic "Das Kapital" to [[Charles Darwin]], but Darwin declined the "honour." <ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref> <ref>Karl Marx's Social and Political Thought, Bob Jessop, ISBN 0415193265 (pg 476)</ref>

Economically, communism advocates a [[socialist]] economy in which the government owns the [[means of production]]. In countries where communism has been imposed, the government has taken ownership of farms, factories, stores and so on in the name of the people; see "[[dictatorship of the proletariat]]". This drives all [[free market|market-based]] economic activity underground and leads to inefficiencies and shortages. In both the Soviet Union and Red China, the number of people who starved to death when the government confiscated their farm products (animals and grain) is estimated in the tens of millions.

Even more important, one party controls every organization from the local labor union to the the army to the national government. The party is not elected. Its top officials (the "Politburo") select replacements when there is a vacancy. usually a dictator (like Stalin, Mao or Castro) controls the Politburo, but sometimes power is shared among five or six people. No dissent is allowed--all news media are controlled, and the Internet is heavily censored.

Elites do not disappear. Members of the ruling party (see [[Nomenklatura]]) have special stores in which ordinary people are barred, stores which are allegedly immune to the shortages which the lower class must endure.

Various communist doctrines have evolved or been adapted to the time and place they have been implemented. Marxism, developed by [[Karl Marx]], and its modifications under [[Vladimir Ilyich Lenin| Vladimir Lenin]], [[Joseph Stalin]], and [[Mao Zedong]], advocates the overthrow of the existing order by a revolution of the proletariat, the social group which does not control the means of production. The goal of Marxism is supposedly to create a classless society which would result in no longer the need for any [[government]] (Communism).

The most famous government to label itself "communist" is the former [[USSR]] or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; the Communist Party controlled its government from 1918 to 1991. This government was officially [[atheist]] and attempted to suppress all religion until World War II, when it discovered religion was needed to rally the people against the Nazi invaders. Like all authoritarian regimes, it tried to cultivate reverence for the state as a psychological substitute for religion.

Marxist theory is intended to appeal to its adherents with the phrase, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", which essentially states point blank a worker does not get paid according to his abilities, and there is no [[incentive]] within the economic theory. Another quote by Marx was, "The theory of the Communism may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property," or as some have phrased it, legalized theft.

== Communism and militant atheism ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and communism]]

[[Karl Marx]] established [[atheism]] as a key part of communism. He famously said, "Religion ... is the opium of the masses."<ref>Marx, K. [http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/31765.html Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right] (Classic Quotations) (Standard translation from the original German).</ref> He believed it was part of the "superstructure," a false culture built to maintain the status quo. Thus he denigrated Christianity as a fictional religion. Instead, Marx was an avowed atheist, as he wrote, "Communism begins from the outset with [[atheism]]; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."<ref>Marx, Karl, [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm Private Property and Communism], 1944.</ref>

[[Vladimir Lenin]] similarly wrote: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on ''in practice'' and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."<ref>Lenin, Vladimir Ilyich, ''Proletary'', No. 45, May 13 (26), 1909, translated by Andrew Rothstein and Bernard Issacs, quote from [http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm].</ref>

In 1955, [[China|Chinese]] communist leader Chou En-lai declared, "We Communists are atheists".<ref>Noebel, David, The Battle for Truth, Harvest House, 2001.</ref>

The [[atheism]] in communist regimes has been and continues to be [[militant atheism]] and various acts of repression including the razing of thousands of religious buildings and the killing, imprisoning, and oppression of religious leaders and believers.<ref>http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2000/March_2000_4.html</ref><ref>http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/frroman1.aspx</ref><ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref><ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref><ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

Marxists justification for its persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church was based upon the claim that the Church was a "willing tool of Tsarism."<ref>http://www.marxist.com/religion-soviet-union170406-6.htm</ref>

The clergy openly stated its support for the counter-revolution (White Revolution). Lenin proclaimed that a communist regime must show itself to be merciless toward the question of religion. There was no place for the church in Lenin's regime. This led to anti-religious decrees and propaganda. All church property was expropriated by the new Soviet government. <ref>http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-42047/Union-of-Soviet-Socialist-Republics#277888.hook</ref>

During the late 1930's and later 1940's the restrictions on church activity were loosened as Stalin needed all the support he could get for the war. This doctrine of co-operation between the church and state continued through out the existence of the Soviet republics and the other Warszawa pact nations. Though never going as far as a leader of the Soviet Union asking [http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/simon_barrow/2007/03/hiding_behind_god.html god to bless the country] the clause in the Soviet Unions constitution addressing the separation of church and state was rendered useless.

Dr. [[Martin Luther King]] said, "for the Communist there is no divine government, no absolute moral order, there are no fixed, immutable principles; consequently almost anything - force, violence, murder, lying - is a justifiable means." <ref>''Stride Toward Freedom : The Montgomery Story'', Martin Luther King, Jr., Harper and Rowe, New York, 1958, p. 92.</ref>
[[File:Stalin-kill.jpg|thumb|300px|left|Exhumed skeletons of [[class war]] victims murdered by communists.<ref>[http://www.mega.nu/ampp/rummel/rm1.stalin.kill.htm.</ref> Apologists maintain communism has never really been tried. ]]

== Atrocities and Repression ==
Communist regimes have engaged in mass killings on a scale of millions of individuals.<ref>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/comfaq.htm#part3</ref> A work entitled ''[[The Black Book of Communism]]'' published by the [[Harvard]] Press focuses on the crimes, terror, and repression of modern communist regimes over a 70 year period.<ref>http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/COUBLA.html</ref> This book is fairly controversial partly due to the various estimates regarding the millions of people who died under communist regimes.<ref>http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html</ref><ref>http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm</ref><ref>http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm</ref>
<ref>http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365</ref><ref>http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526</ref>

Similarly, a influential book which concerns itself with Russian communist torture, repression and atrocities is [[Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]]'s ''[[The Gulag Archipelago]]'' which won Solzhenitsyn a [[Nobel Prize]].<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/03/01/home/solz-gulag.html</ref> In 1983, Alexander Solzhenitsyn in which he gave his explanation of the cause of why millions of people died under Russian communism:
{{Cquote|Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened. Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.}}
In communist [[North Korea]], abuse and killing in prison camps is occurring today.<ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5596</ref><ref>http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/nkdefec3.htm</ref> In addition, the North Korean government practices brutal repression and atrocities against North Korean Christians.<ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref>

In 1999, the publication [[Christian Century]] reported that "China has persecuted religious believers by means of "harassment, prolonged detention, and incarceration in prison or `reform-through-labor' camps and police closure of places of worship."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref> In 2003, owners of Bibles in China were sent to prison camps and 125 Chinese churches were closed.<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref> China continues to practice religious oppression today.<ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

== Similarities between Communism, Nazism and liberalism ==

''See also:'' [[Similarities between Communism, Nazism and liberalism]]

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!
![[Communism|Communist]] Manifesto
![[Nazi]] Party Platform
!Analysis
|-
|1
|"Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes."
|"We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land."
|The stripping away of land from private owners. [[Liberalism]] today demands "eminent domain" on property.
|-
|2
|"A heavy progressive or graduated income tax."
|"We demand the nationalization of all trusts...profit-sharing in large industries...a generous increase in old-age pensions...by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor...and the creation of a national (folk) army."
|The points raised in the [[Nazi]] platform demand an increase in taxes to support them. Liberalism today demands heavy progressive and graduated income taxes.
|-
|3
|"Abolition of all rights of inheritance."
|"That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished."
|Liberalism today demands a "death tax" on anyone inheriting an estate.
|-
|4
|"Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels."
|"We demand that all non-Germans who have entered Germany since August 2, 1914, shall be compelled to leave the Reich immediately."
|The Nuremburg Laws of 1934 allowed Germany to take Jewish property.
|-
|5
|"Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly."
|"We demand the nationalization of all trusts."
|Central control of the financial system.
|-
|6
|"Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State."
|"We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the press...editors and their assistants on newspapers published in the German language shall be German citizens...Non-German newspapers shall only be published with the express permission of the State...the punishment for transgressing this law be the immediate suppression of the newspaper..."
|Central control of the press. Liberals today demand control or suppression of talk radio and Fox News.
|-
|7
|"Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c."
|"In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State. "
|Central control of education, with an emphasis on doing things their way. Liberals today are doing things ''their way'' in our schools.
|-
|}

==Communists cite scripture==

Some Communist ideology has made its way into the Church as a [[Social Gospel]], interpreting the Gospel as less redemptive of sin and more of a public works campaign and activism. They often cite Jesus feeding the masses and warnings to the wealthy who believed self-seeking is all this world has to offer. Communists often cite the Acts of the Apostles, as early Christians practicing some form of sharing for the common good:
{{Cquote|And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (Acts 2:44-45, KJV)

Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,

Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.(Acts 4:34-7, KJV)}}

But as Arnold Toynbee has pointed out, this Marxist view denies the most crucial points,
{{Cquote|The passage in the Acts represents the philanthropy of the primitive Christian Society as flowing from a God-given grace which was the fruit of a belief in the divinity of Jesus. In other words, the charity which is here depicted as moving the primitive Christians to go—in their mutual concern for one another's welfare—to the extreme length of sharing all their worldly goods is not a mere love of Man for Man (which is the limited literal meaning of the word ‘philanthropy’), but is a spiritual relation to which God is a party as well as His human creatures. In fact, this Christian Socialism is a practical application, on the economic surface of life, of the fundamental religious truth that the brotherhood of man is a consequence of the fatherhood of God - a truth which is driven home with special force by a religion which teaches that God is not only the Father and Creator of man, but also his Savior, Who has been incarnate in human shape and has suffered, and triumphed over, death.<ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585, ''Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity''.</ref>}}

==Communists shared totalitarian ideals with facism and nazism==

[[Adolf Hitler]] noted that Communists made excellent converts to Nazism, because the same personality type was attracted to both. "[T]here is more that binds us to [[Bolshevik|Bolshevism]] than separates us from it. There is, above all, genuine, revolutionary feeling, which is alive everywhere in Russia except where there are Jewish Marxists. I have always made allowance for this circumstance, and given orders that former Communists are to be admitted to the party at once. The petit bourgeois [[Social democracy|Social-Democrat]] and the trade-union boss will never make a [[National Socialist]], but the Communists always will."<ref>quoted in Hermann Rauschning, ''Hitler Speaks''</ref> [[Josef Stalin]] also recognized that ex-Nazis and ex-[[fascist]]s were natural recruits for post-war Communist regimes. As Stanley Payne notes in his ''A History of Fascism: 1914-1945'', "All over Soviet-occupied eastern Europe (should be: Central and Eastern Europe), most rank-and-file former fascist party members, together with many lower-level leaders, were welcomed to fill the ranks of the initially exiguous local Communist parties. The psychological transition seems to have been an easy one, for obvious reasons."<ref>http://www.lietuvos.org/istorija/communism/</ref>

==Cuban communism==
[[Cuba]] remains a communist state controlled by the Castro brothers since 1960 and under U.S economic sanctions.

==Asian communism==
The [[CCP]] in China retains an autocratic regime controlled by the Communist party, which allows no democracy or dissent. However it does allow capitalism, and has experienced a very rapid growth of the private sector and the middle class. Observers expect that the regime's efforts to control public opinion and forestall the will of the people will be more and more difficult.

[[North Korea]] remains a brutal dictatorship controlled by the same family. [[Laos]], and [[Vietnam]] are also run by the old Communist cliques.

==Collapse of the Soviet bloc==

The shooting down by the Soviets on Sept. 1, 1983 of [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] may have been a contributing factor for the downfall of the Soviet Union as well as for the whole Soviet block. It being a catalyst for the collapse of the Soviet Union may be inferred from the fact that NATO had decided, under the impetus of the U.S. administration, to deploy Pershing II and cruise missiles in Europe, primarily West Germany. This deployment would have placed missiles just 6-10 minutes striking distance from Moscow. But support for the deployment was wavering and many doubted that the missile deployment would find enough support to effect it. When the Soviet Union shot down Flight 007 with 269 people aboard, including conservative Democratic Congressman [[Larry McDonald]] —an act which U.S. President Ronald Reagan characterized as a "massacre"—enough support was galvanized for the deployment. The deployment caused great resources of the Soviet Union to be diverted from inner economic use to military expenditures to counter the U.S. and NATO missile deployment.
Between 1989 and 1991, many communist governments fell. The [[Berlin Wall]] in [[Germany]], which had become a symbol for the division between the communist states and the rest of Europe, was torn down largely in response to Ronald Reagan in 1989, and there was also a large revolution against Romanian dictator [[Nicolaie Ceausescu]]. In 1991, the USSR broke up into several countries - each which reformed to capitalism. Some of these remained under autocratic governments, but some have embraced democracy. With the collapse the remnants of Communist parties have dropped their old names and ideologies, but still operate on the left of the political spectrum.

==American communism==
:''Main article : [[Committees of Correspondence]]''
With the collapse of Soviet communism and the conversion of Chinese communism to "state run capitalism," the spiritual and ideological center of world of communism and the [[Marxist-Leninist]] tradition shifted to the [[United States]]. Several prominent American communists, rudderless without [[Moscow]] direction, formed a new organization in 1992 called the [[Committees of Correspondence for Democratic Socialism]].

The initial organizational conference was held in [[Berkeley]], [[California]], July 17-19, 1992. Charlene Mitchell, a former leader of the California Communist Party, speaking at the conference said, "the collapse of [[socialism]] in [[Central Europe]] and the [[Soviet Union]] left the [[United States]] in a near unchallenged position of world leadership." Mitchell continued,
{{Cquote|What began as a moment to take stock and ponder where to go from there has now become a very different entity. People from the Communist Party, from CrossRoads, from the [[Democratic Socialists of America]], from NCIPA [National Committee for Independent Political Action], from Solidarity, from the Socialist Organizing Network and many others, including independent leftists and independent socialists, have come together here in Berkeley.}}
Criticizing U.S. actions in the [[First Gulf War]], Mitchell stated,
{{Cquote|[[progressive]] forces were nearly powerless in the face of an onslaught of demagogic, [[patriotic]] [[jingoism]] and yellow ribbons. This war, fought for no legitimate reason, was the crowning height of [[George H.W. Bush|President [George H.W.] Bush]]'s [[New World Order]]. Previously, the Soviet Union helped to provide a certain balance to rein in the crazies in this country. Now, that balance is no longer there. It is now up to us, the American people, to rein in our own crazies. The [[left]] must take a major responsibility in organizing this task.}}

==Notorious communists==

Well known communists include:
*[[Salvador Allende]]
*[[William Ayers]]
*[[Fidel Castro]]
*[[Raul Castro]]
*[[Hugo Chavez]]
*[[Carl Davidson]]
*[[Frank Marshall Davis]]
*[[Bernardine Dohrn]]
*[[Friedrich Engels]]
*[[Che Guevara]]
*[[Benjamin Jones]]
*[[Van Jones]]
*[[Kim Il Sung]]
*[[Kim Jong Il]]
*[[Kim Jong Un]]
*[[Lazar Kaganovich]]
*[[Vladimir Lenin]]
*[[Mao Zedong]]
*[[Karl Marx]]
*[[Ho Chi Minh]]
*[[Pol Pot]]
*[[Paul Robeson]]
*[[Joseph Stalin]]
*[[Yakov Sverdlov]]
*[[Leon Trotsky]]
*[[Genrikh Yagoda]]
*[[Yakov Yurovsky]]

==Further reading==
* Pipes, Richard. ''Communism: A History'' (2003), by a leading conservative historian
** Pipes, Richard. ''History of Communism: A Brief History'' (2002)
* Priestland, David. ''The Red Flag: A History of Communism'' (2009)
*[http://www.archive.org/stream/100thingsyoushou1949unit#page/n3/mode/2up 100 Things You Should Know About Communism'']

==See also==
*[[List of Communist States]]
*[[Communist Party of the United States of America]]
*[[Cold War]]
*[[Capitalism]]
*[[Iron Curtain]]
*[[Progressives for Obama]]
*[[Socialism]]
*[[Social Effects of the Theory of Evolution]]
*[[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] for the connection of the shootdown by the Soviets of KAL 007, with 269 people aboard, on Sept. 1, 1983 with the heightened U.S./Soviet confrontations of 1983-4.
*[[The Soviet/ U.S naval confrontation]] over KAL 007
*[[KAL 007 and the Soviet Top Secret Memos]]

==Notes and references==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/communism/ What Liberals Say - Category: Communism], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:Communism]]
[[Category:Oppression]]
[[Category:Marxist terminology]]
[[Category:Forms of Government]]
[[Category: Anti-American]]
[[Category:Atheism]]

Communism

2013-02-26T14:26:54Z

NKeaton: Undo revision 1036920 by DawkinsIsWrong (talk)

[[Image:HammerAndSickle.png|right|175px]]
'''Communism''' is a [[left-wing]] ideology created to overthrow Capitalism, creating [[free market]] economics, promoting [[democracy]] and equal rights for all. Under Communism, the [[political]] system replaces the [[private property|private ownership]] of the means of production with "collective ownership" of the economy, this is to be accomplished through democratic control by the workers - hence the public have power over how they are ruled and governed .<ref>http://www.marxists.org/archive/mandel/1968/11/workersdem.htm</ref>
Twentieth century Communism was based on [[Karl Marx]]'s manifesto which proposed to establishment of a "[[classless society]]." However, all Communist societies have had a [[class structure]], notably the [[USSR]], which was dominated by a self appointed ''[[Nomenklatura]]''.

In the belief that "people cannot change", governments under the banner of Communism have caused the death of somewhere between 40 million to 260 million human lives.<ref>[http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>[http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref><ref>[http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm]</ref><ref>[http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365 Memory and Ideology]</ref><ref>[http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526 The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression]</ref> Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term [[democide]] (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that it caused the death of approximately 148,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.<ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM</ref>

President [[Ronald Reagan]] in an address before the British [[House of Commons]] said,
{{Cquote|'''What I am describing now is a plan and hope for the long term -- the march of freedom and democracy which will leave [[Marxism-Leninism]] on the ash heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people.'''<ref>President Ronald Reagan [http://www.iri.org/history_ReaganSpeech.asp Speech to the British Parliament], June 8, 1982. Retrieved from International Republican Institute 05/24/07. </ref>}}

Today, communism continues to rule over at least one-fifth of the world's people.<ref>[http://www.victimsofcommunism.org/history_communism.php Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation], Documenting Communism's Crimes Against Humanity.</ref>
__TOC__
 

==Communist Theory and Practice==

[[Image:Captive-nations-01b----07-19-06.jpg|thumbnail|180px|left|A monument to the Captive Nations stands at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation in [[Washington, D.C.]]]]
Communism is based upon [[Marxism]], a philosophy which uses [[materialism]] to explain all physical and social phenomena. The theory of [[evolution]] influenced the thinking of the Communists, including Marx, [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]], [[Vladimir Lenin]], and [[Joseph Stalin]].<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref> Marx wrote, "[[Charles Darwin|Darwin]]'s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the [[class struggle]] in history." Marx offered to dedicate the second German edition of his polemic "Das Kapital" to [[Charles Darwin]], but Darwin declined the "honour." <ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref> <ref>Karl Marx's Social and Political Thought, Bob Jessop, ISBN 0415193265 (pg 476)</ref>

Economically, communism advocates a [[socialist]] economy in which the government owns the [[means of production]]. In countries where communism has been imposed, the government has taken ownership of farms, factories, stores and so on in the name of the people; see "[[dictatorship of the proletariat]]". This drives all [[free market|market-based]] economic activity underground and leads to inefficiencies and shortages. In both the Soviet Union and Red China, the number of people who starved to death when the government confiscated their farm products (animals and grain) is estimated in the tens of millions.

Even more important, one party controls every organization from the local labor union to the the army to the national government. The party is not elected. Its top officials (the "Politburo") select replacements when there is a vacancy. usually a dictator (like Stalin, Mao or Castro) controls the Politburo, but sometimes power is shared among five or six people. No dissent is allowed--all news media are controlled, and the Internet is heavily censored.

Elites do not disappear. Members of the ruling party (see [[Nomenklatura]]) have special stores in which ordinary people are barred, stores which are allegedly immune to the shortages which the lower class must endure.

Various communist doctrines have evolved or been adapted to the time and place they have been implemented. Marxism, developed by [[Karl Marx]], and its modifications under [[Vladimir Ilyich Lenin| Vladimir Lenin]], [[Joseph Stalin]], and [[Mao Zedong]], advocates the overthrow of the existing order by a revolution of the proletariat, the social group which does not control the means of production. The goal of Marxism is supposedly to create a classless society which would result in no longer the need for any [[government]] (Communism).

The most famous government to label itself "communist" is the former [[USSR]] or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; the Communist Party controlled its government from 1918 to 1991. This government was officially [[atheist]] and attempted to suppress all religion until World War II, when it discovered religion was needed to rally the people against the Nazi invaders. Like all authoritarian regimes, it tried to cultivate reverence for the state as a psychological substitute for religion.

Marxist theory is intended to appeal to its adherents with the phrase, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", which essentially states point blank a worker does not get paid according to his abilities, and there is no [[incentive]] within the economic theory. Another quote by Marx was, "The theory of the Communism may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property," or as some have phrased it, legalized theft.

== Communism and militant atheism ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and communism]]

[[Karl Marx]] established [[atheism]] as a key part of communism. He famously said, "Religion ... is the opium of the masses."<ref>Marx, K. [http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/31765.html Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right] (Classic Quotations) (Standard translation from the original German).</ref> He believed it was part of the "superstructure," a false culture built to maintain the status quo. Thus he denigrated Christianity as a fictional religion. Instead, Marx was an avowed atheist, as he wrote, "Communism begins from the outset with [[atheism]]; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."<ref>Marx, Karl, [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm Private Property and Communism], 1944.</ref>

[[Vladimir Lenin]] similarly wrote: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on ''in practice'' and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."<ref>Lenin, Vladimir Ilyich, ''Proletary'', No. 45, May 13 (26), 1909, translated by Andrew Rothstein and Bernard Issacs, quote from [http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm].</ref>

In 1955, [[China|Chinese]] communist leader Chou En-lai declared, "We Communists are atheists".<ref>Noebel, David, The Battle for Truth, Harvest House, 2001.</ref>

The [[atheism]] in communist regimes has been and continues to be [[militant atheism]] and various acts of repression including the razing of thousands of religious buildings and the killing, imprisoning, and oppression of religious leaders and believers.<ref>http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2000/March_2000_4.html</ref><ref>http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/frroman1.aspx</ref><ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref><ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref><ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

Marxists justification for its persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church was based upon the claim that the Church was a "willing tool of Tsarism."<ref>http://www.marxist.com/religion-soviet-union170406-6.htm</ref>

The clergy openly stated its support for the counter-revolution (White Revolution). Lenin proclaimed that a communist regime must show itself to be merciless toward the question of religion. There was no place for the church in Lenin's regime. This led to anti-religious decrees and propaganda. All church property was expropriated by the new Soviet government. <ref>http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-42047/Union-of-Soviet-Socialist-Republics#277888.hook</ref>

During the late 1930's and later 1940's the restrictions on church activity were loosened as Stalin needed all the support he could get for the war. This doctrine of co-operation between the church and state continued through out the existence of the Soviet republics and the other Warszawa pact nations. Though never going as far as a leader of the Soviet Union asking [http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/simon_barrow/2007/03/hiding_behind_god.html god to bless the country] the clause in the Soviet Unions constitution addressing the separation of church and state was rendered useless.

Dr. [[Martin Luther King]] said, "for the Communist there is no divine government, no absolute moral order, there are no fixed, immutable principles; consequently almost anything - force, violence, murder, lying - is a justifiable means." <ref>''Stride Toward Freedom : The Montgomery Story'', Martin Luther King, Jr., Harper and Rowe, New York, 1958, p. 92.</ref>
[[File:Stalin-kill.jpg|thumb|300px|left|Exhumed skeletons of [[class war]] victims murdered by communists.<ref>[http://www.mega.nu/ampp/rummel/rm1.stalin.kill.htm.</ref> Apologists maintain communism has never really been tried. ]]

== Atrocities and Repression ==
Communist regimes have engaged in mass killings on a scale of millions of individuals.<ref>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/comfaq.htm#part3</ref> A work entitled ''[[The Black Book of Communism]]'' published by the [[Harvard]] Press focuses on the crimes, terror, and repression of modern communist regimes over a 70 year period.<ref>http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/COUBLA.html</ref> This book is fairly controversial partly due to the various estimates regarding the millions of people who died under communist regimes.<ref>http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html</ref><ref>http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm</ref><ref>http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm</ref>
<ref>http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365</ref><ref>http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526</ref>

Similarly, a influential book which concerns itself with Russian communist torture, repression and atrocities is [[Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]]'s ''[[The Gulag Archipelago]]'' which won Solzhenitsyn a [[Nobel Prize]].<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/03/01/home/solz-gulag.html</ref> In 1983, Alexander Solzhenitsyn in which he gave his explanation of the cause of why millions of people died under Russian communism:
{{Cquote|Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened. Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.}}
In communist [[North Korea]], abuse and killing in prison camps is occurring today.<ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5596</ref><ref>http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/nkdefec3.htm</ref> In addition, the North Korean government practices brutal repression and atrocities against North Korean Christians.<ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref>

In 1999, the publication [[Christian Century]] reported that "China has persecuted religious believers by means of "harassment, prolonged detention, and incarceration in prison or `reform-through-labor' camps and police closure of places of worship."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref> In 2003, owners of Bibles in China were sent to prison camps and 125 Chinese churches were closed.<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref> China continues to practice religious oppression today.<ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

== Similarities between Communism, Nazism and liberalism ==

''See also:'' [[Similarities between Communism, Nazism and liberalism]]

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!
![[Communism|Communist]] Manifesto
![[Nazi]] Party Platform
!Analysis
|-
|1
|"Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes."
|"We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land."
|The stripping away of land from private owners. [[Liberalism]] today demands "eminent domain" on property.
|-
|2
|"A heavy progressive or graduated income tax."
|"We demand the nationalization of all trusts...profit-sharing in large industries...a generous increase in old-age pensions...by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor...and the creation of a national (folk) army."
|The points raised in the [[Nazi]] platform demand an increase in taxes to support them. Liberalism today demands heavy progressive and graduated income taxes.
|-
|3
|"Abolition of all rights of inheritance."
|"That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished."
|Liberalism today demands a "death tax" on anyone inheriting an estate.
|-
|4
|"Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels."
|"We demand that all non-Germans who have entered Germany since August 2, 1914, shall be compelled to leave the Reich immediately."
|The Nuremburg Laws of 1934 allowed Germany to take Jewish property.
|-
|5
|"Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly."
|"We demand the nationalization of all trusts."
|Central control of the financial system.
|-
|6
|"Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State."
|"We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the press...editors and their assistants on newspapers published in the German language shall be German citizens...Non-German newspapers shall only be published with the express permission of the State...the punishment for transgressing this law be the immediate suppression of the newspaper..."
|Central control of the press. Liberals today demand control or suppression of talk radio and Fox News.
|-
|7
|"Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c."
|"In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State. "
|Central control of education, with an emphasis on doing things their way. Liberals today are doing things ''their way'' in our schools.
|-
|}

==Communists cite scripture==

Some Communist ideology has made its way into the Church as a [[Social Gospel]], interpreting the Gospel as less redemptive of sin and more of a public works campaign and activism. They often cite Jesus feeding the masses and warnings to the wealthy who believed self-seeking is all this world has to offer. Communists often cite the Acts of the Apostles, as early Christians practicing some form of sharing for the common good:
{{Cquote|And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (Acts 2:44-45, KJV)

Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,

Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.(Acts 4:34-7, KJV)}}

But as Arnold Toynbee has pointed out, this Marxist view denies the most crucial points,
{{Cquote|The passage in the Acts represents the philanthropy of the primitive Christian Society as flowing from a God-given grace which was the fruit of a belief in the divinity of Jesus. In other words, the charity which is here depicted as moving the primitive Christians to go—in their mutual concern for one another's welfare—to the extreme length of sharing all their worldly goods is not a mere love of Man for Man (which is the limited literal meaning of the word ‘philanthropy’), but is a spiritual relation to which God is a party as well as His human creatures. In fact, this Christian Socialism is a practical application, on the economic surface of life, of the fundamental religious truth that the brotherhood of man is a consequence of the fatherhood of God - a truth which is driven home with special force by a religion which teaches that God is not only the Father and Creator of man, but also his Savior, Who has been incarnate in human shape and has suffered, and triumphed over, death.<ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585, ''Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity''.</ref>}}

==Communists shared totalitarian ideals with facism and nazism==

[[Adolf Hitler]] noted that Communists made excellent converts to Nazism, because the same personality type was attracted to both. "[T]here is more that binds us to [[Bolshevik|Bolshevism]] than separates us from it. There is, above all, genuine, revolutionary feeling, which is alive everywhere in Russia except where there are Jewish Marxists. I have always made allowance for this circumstance, and given orders that former Communists are to be admitted to the party at once. The petit bourgeois [[Social democracy|Social-Democrat]] and the trade-union boss will never make a [[National Socialist]], but the Communists always will."<ref>quoted in Hermann Rauschning, ''Hitler Speaks''</ref> [[Josef Stalin]] also recognized that ex-Nazis and ex-[[fascist]]s were natural recruits for post-war Communist regimes. As Stanley Payne notes in his ''A History of Fascism: 1914-1945'', "All over Soviet-occupied eastern Europe (should be: Central and Eastern Europe), most rank-and-file former fascist party members, together with many lower-level leaders, were welcomed to fill the ranks of the initially exiguous local Communist parties. The psychological transition seems to have been an easy one, for obvious reasons."<ref>http://www.lietuvos.org/istorija/communism/</ref>

==Cuban communism==
[[Cuba]] remains a communist state controlled by the Castro brothers since 1960 and under U.S economic sanctions.

==Asian communism==
The [[CCP]] in China retains an autocratic regime controlled by the Communist party, which allows no democracy or dissent. However it does allow capitalism, and has experienced a very rapid growth of the private sector and the middle class. Observers expect that the regime's efforts to control public opinion and forestall the will of the people will be more and more difficult.

[[North Korea]] remains a brutal dictatorship controlled by the same family. [[Laos]], and [[Vietnam]] are also run by the old Communist cliques.

==Collapse of the Soviet bloc==

The shooting down by the Soviets on Sept. 1, 1983 of [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] may have been a contributing factor for the downfall of the Soviet Union as well as for the whole Soviet block. It being a catalyst for the collapse of the Soviet Union may be inferred from the fact that NATO had decided, under the impetus of the U.S. administration, to deploy Pershing II and cruise missiles in Europe, primarily West Germany. This deployment would have placed missiles just 6-10 minutes striking distance from Moscow. But support for the deployment was wavering and many doubted that the missile deployment would find enough support to effect it. When the Soviet Union shot down Flight 007 with 269 people aboard, including conservative Democratic Congressman [[Larry McDonald]] —an act which U.S. President Ronald Reagan characterized as a "massacre"—enough support was galvanized for the deployment. The deployment caused great resources of the Soviet Union to be diverted from inner economic use to military expenditures to counter the U.S. and NATO missile deployment.
Between 1989 and 1991, many communist governments fell. The [[Berlin Wall]] in [[Germany]], which had become a symbol for the division between the communist states and the rest of Europe, was torn down largely in response to Ronald Reagan in 1989, and there was also a large revolution against Romanian dictator [[Nicolaie Ceausescu]]. In 1991, the USSR broke up into several countries - each which reformed to capitalism. Some of these remained under autocratic governments, but some have embraced democracy. With the collapse the remnants of Communist parties have dropped their old names and ideologies, but still operate on the left of the political spectrum.

==American communism==
:''Main article : [[Committees of Correspondence]]''
With the collapse of Soviet communism and the conversion of Chinese communism to "state run capitalism," the spiritual and ideological center of world of communism and the [[Marxist-Leninist]] tradition shifted to the [[United States]]. Several prominent American communists, rudderless without [[Moscow]] direction, formed a new organization in 1992 called the [[Committees of Correspondence for Democratic Socialism]].

The initial organizational conference was held in [[Berkeley]], [[California]], July 17-19, 1992. Charlene Mitchell, a former leader of the California Communist Party, speaking at the conference said, "the collapse of [[socialism]] in [[Central Europe]] and the [[Soviet Union]] left the [[United States]] in a near unchallenged position of world leadership." Mitchell continued,
{{Cquote|What began as a moment to take stock and ponder where to go from there has now become a very different entity. People from the Communist Party, from CrossRoads, from the [[Democratic Socialists of America]], from NCIPA [National Committee for Independent Political Action], from Solidarity, from the Socialist Organizing Network and many others, including independent leftists and independent socialists, have come together here in Berkeley.}}
Criticizing U.S. actions in the [[First Gulf War]], Mitchell stated,
{{Cquote|[[progressive]] forces were nearly powerless in the face of an onslaught of demagogic, [[patriotic]] [[jingoism]] and yellow ribbons. This war, fought for no legitimate reason, was the crowning height of [[George H.W. Bush|President [George H.W.] Bush]]'s [[New World Order]]. Previously, the Soviet Union helped to provide a certain balance to rein in the crazies in this country. Now, that balance is no longer there. It is now up to us, the American people, to rein in our own crazies. The [[left]] must take a major responsibility in organizing this task.}}

==Notorious communists==

Well known communists include:
*[[Salvador Allende]]
*[[William Ayers]]
*[[Fidel Castro]]
*[[Raul Castro]]
*[[Hugo Chavez]]
*[[Carl Davidson]]
*[[Frank Marshall Davis]]
*[[Bernardine Dohrn]]
*[[Friedrich Engels]]
*[[Che Guevara]]
*[[Benjamin Jones]]
*[[Van Jones]]
*[[Kim Il Sung]]
*[[Kim Jong Il]]
*[[Kim Jong Un]]
*[[Lazar Kaganovich]]
*[[Vladimir Lenin]]
*[[Mao Zedong]]
*[[Karl Marx]]
*[[Ho Chi Minh]]
*[[Pol Pot]]
*[[Paul Robeson]]
*[[Joseph Stalin]]
*[[Yakov Sverdlov]]
*[[Leon Trotsky]]
*[[Genrikh Yagoda]]
*[[Yakov Yurovsky]]

==Further reading==
* Pipes, Richard. ''Communism: A History'' (2003), by a leading conservative historian
** Pipes, Richard. ''History of Communism: A Brief History'' (2002)
* Priestland, David. ''The Red Flag: A History of Communism'' (2009)
*[http://www.archive.org/stream/100thingsyoushou1949unit#page/n3/mode/2up 100 Things You Should Know About Communism'']

==See also==
*[[List of Communist States]]
*[[Communist Party of the United States of America]]
*[[Cold War]]
*[[Capitalism]]
*[[Iron Curtain]]
*[[Progressives for Obama]]
*[[Socialism]]
*[[Social Effects of the Theory of Evolution]]
*[[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] for the connection of the shootdown by the Soviets of KAL 007, with 269 people aboard, on Sept. 1, 1983 with the heightened U.S./Soviet confrontations of 1983-4.
*[[The Soviet/ U.S naval confrontation]] over KAL 007
*[[KAL 007 and the Soviet Top Secret Memos]]

==Notes and references==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/communism/ What Liberals Say - Category: Communism], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:Communism]]
[[Category:Oppression]]
[[Category:Marxist terminology]]
[[Category:Forms of Government]]
[[Category: Anti-American]]
[[Category:Atheism]]

Recursion

2013-02-26T14:23:27Z

NKeaton: Add link, clarify, and remove silly sentence

'''Recursion''' is the repeated application of a procedure or definition through reference to itself.

===In Computing===

Recursion is a technique whereby a [[function]], in order to accomplish a task, calls itself to accomplish part of the task.

Every recursive solution involves two major parts or cases, the second part having three components:

* base case(s), in which the problem is simple enough to be solved directly, and
* recursive case(s). A recursive case has three components:
::1. divide the problem into one or more simpler or smaller parts of the problem,
::2. call the function (recursively) on each part, and
::3. combine the solutions of the parts into a solution for the problem.

These exercises are useful to see examples of recursion:

:1. Write a function to compute the sum of all numbers from 1 to n.
:2. Write a function to compute 2 to the power of a non-negative integer.
:3. Write a function to compute any number to the power of a non-negative integer.

==External links==
[http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-00sc-introduction-to-computer-science-and-programming-spring-2011/unit-1/lecture-6-recursion/ Unit on recursion in free online computer science course from MIT.]

[[Category:Computer Science]]

Recursiveness

2013-02-26T14:21:19Z

NKeaton:

'''Recursiveness''' is the quality of being defined in terms which include the whole. For example, in symbolic logic a well-formed formula (WFF) can be either:
#a predicate
#the negation of a WFF
#the combination of two WFF's with a binary operator

The LISP programming language uses a recursive data structure. Most programming languages permit recursion by allowing the programmer call a function within itself. Some have no syntax for making looping code other than by recursion. (''for its use in computer science see main article on [[recursion]]'')

A fascination with recursive definitions in the software development community ([[free software]] in particular) led to the invention of several recursive acronyms:
*[[PHP]] (originally Personal Home Page) => PHP Hypertext Pre-processor
*[[GNU]] (GNU's Not Unix)
*[[WINE]] (Wine Is Not an Emulator)
*YAML (YAML Ain't Markup Language)

==See also==

*[[Fractal]]
*[[Recursion]] (computer science)
[[category:logic]]

Recursiveness

2013-02-26T14:20:54Z

NKeaton:

Recursiveness

2013-02-26T14:18:26Z

NKeaton:

'''Recursiveness''' is the quality of being defined in terms which include the whole. For example, in symbolic logic a well-formed formula (WFF) can be either:
#a predicate
#the negation of a WFF
#the combination of two WFF's with a binary operator

The LISP programming language uses a recursive data structure. Most programming languages permit recursion by allowing the programmer call a function within itself. Some have no syntax for making looping code other than by recursion.

A fascination with recursive definitions in the software development community ([[free software]] in particular) led to the invention of several recursive acronyms:
*[[PHP]] (originally Personal Home Page) => PHP Hypertext Pre-processor
*[[GNU]] (GNU's Not Unix)
*[[WINE]] (Wine Is Not an Emulator)
*YAML (YAML Ain't Markup Language)

==See also==

*[[Fractal]]
*[[Recursiveness|Recursion]]
[[category:logic]]

==External links==
[http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-00sc-introduction-to-computer-science-and-programming-spring-2011/unit-1/lecture-6-recursion/ Unit on recursion in free online computer science course from MIT.]

Francis Arinze

2013-02-26T00:15:14Z

NKeaton: Did that work?

[[File:Card. Francis Arinze.jpg|right|180px]]
'''[[Cardinal]] Francis Arinze''' (b.1932) is a [[conservative]] leader in the [[Catholic Church]], and a favorite to become the next [[Pope]]. An Igbo [[Nigeria]]n, Cardinal Arinze was once the world's youngest [[bishop]].

Cardinal Arinze has been an outspoken critic of [[homosexuality]] and [[abortion]], comparing it to [[adultery]] and other [[sin]]s.

His credentials include spending 25 years in the [[Vatican]], enabling him to earn the respect of many other Cardinals.

Cardinal Arinze is over 80 years of age, and thus will not participate in the Papal [[conclave]] that will choose a successor to Pope [[Benedict XVI]]<ref>[http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19751001_romano-pontifici-eligendo_lt.html Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul XI, Romano Pontifici Elegendo, paragraph 7]</ref>. Due to his age, Cardinal Arinze is also unlikely to be elected Pope - the last Bishop of Rome to elected when he was over the age of 80 was Pope Gregory XII in 1406<ref>[http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1300765.htm]</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

== External links ==

*[http://www.catholicafricanworld.org/Arinze.htm Cardinal Francis Arinze.] BIOGRAPHY.
*[http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/barinze.html Francis Cardinal Arinze.] Catholic-Hierarchy.

[[Category:Cardinals]]
[[Category:Catholic Church]]
[[Category:Christians]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:Catholic Leaders]]
[[Category:Religious Leaders]]

Francis Arinze

2013-02-26T00:13:34Z

NKeaton:

[[File:Card. Francis Arinze.jpg|right|180px]]
'''[[Cardinal]] Francis Arinze''' (b.1932) is a [[conservative]] leader in the [[Catholic Church]], and a favorite to become the next [[Pope]]. An Igbo [[Nigeria]]n, Cardinal Arinze was once the world's youngest [[bishop]].

Cardinal Arinze has been an outspoken critic of [[homosexuality]] and [[abortion]], comparing it to [[adultery]] and other [[sin]]s.

His credentials include spending 25 years in the [[Vatican]], enabling him to earn the respect of many other Cardinals.

Cardinal Arinze is over 80 years of age, and thus will not participate in the Papal [[conclave]] that will choose a successor to Pope [[Benedict XVI]]<ref>[http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19751001_romano-pontifici-eligendo_lt.html Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul XI, Romano Pontifici Elegendo, paragraph 7]</ref>. Due to his age, Cardinal Arinze is also unlikely to be elected Pope - the last Bishop of Rome to elected when he was over the age of 80 was Pope Gregory XII in 1406<ref>.[http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1300765.htm]</ref>

== References ==

== External links ==

*[http://www.catholicafricanworld.org/Arinze.htm Cardinal Francis Arinze.] BIOGRAPHY.
*[http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/barinze.html Francis Cardinal Arinze.] Catholic-Hierarchy.

[[Category:Cardinals]]
[[Category:Catholic Church]]
[[Category:Christians]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:Catholic Leaders]]
[[Category:Religious Leaders]]

Francis Arinze

2013-02-25T23:56:30Z

NKeaton:

[[File:Card. Francis Arinze.jpg|right|180px]]
'''[[Cardinal]] Francis Arinze''' (b.1932) is a [[conservative]] leader in the [[Catholic Church]], and a favorite to become the next [[Pope]]. An Igbo [[Nigeria]]n, Cardinal Arinze was once the world's youngest [[bishop]].

Cardinal Arinze has been an outspoken critic of [[homosexuality]] and [[abortion]], comparing it to [[adultery]] and other [[sin]]s.

His credentials include spending 25 years in the [[Vatican]], enabling him to earn the respect of many other Cardinals.

Cardinal Arinze is over 80 years of age, and thus will not participate in the Papal [[conclave]] that will choose a successor to Pope [[Benedict XVI]]. Due to his age, Cardinal Arinze is also unlikely to be elected Pope - the last Bishop of Rome to elected when he was over the age of 80 was Pope Gregory XII in 1406.[http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1300765.htm]

== External links ==

*[http://www.catholicafricanworld.org/Arinze.htm Cardinal Francis Arinze.] BIOGRAPHY.
*[http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/barinze.html Francis Cardinal Arinze.] Catholic-Hierarchy.

[[Category:Cardinals]]
[[Category:Catholic Church]]
[[Category:Christians]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:Catholic Leaders]]
[[Category:Religious Leaders]]

Cafeteria Catholic

2013-02-09T19:30:25Z

NKeaton: That's embarrassing. I mean the Immaculate Conception. Add quotation

A '''Cafeteria Catholic,''' '''Catholic in name only,''' or '''C&E Catholic (Christmas & Easter only Catholic)''' is someone who self-identifies as a member of the [[Roman Catholic church]] and yet picks and chooses which of the Church's doctrines to believe. In particular, those terms are often used to refer to a self-identified Catholic who rejects the Vatican's instructions, Canon law and Papal Encyclicals directing Catholics to abhor [[abortion]] as murder.

Catholic [[Democrats]] may be associated with Cafeteria Catholics because their party ideology believes in [[abortion]] as a right and also in gay [[marriage]]. This is in direct opposition to what Catholics are taught.

The biggest peril to Cafeteria Catholics is to incur in automatic excommunication, or "latae sententiae" excommunication, which results in eternal damnation in hell. Among other reasons, abortion, heresy and apostasy are some that results in this kind of excommunication from the Church. According to encyclical "Divini Redemptoris" and edict "DECRETUM CONTRA COMMUNISMUM" by Pope Pius XII, it is declared that catholics that "openly declare the materialistic and anti-Christian doctrine of the communists, and especially (...) defend or propagate them" are to be considered apostates and incur in automatic excommunication, no longer being part of the Church. Pope John XXIII, in 1959, confirmed this position of the Church and further declared that "catholics are not allowed to (in elections) give their votes to parties or candidates that, even not proclaiming themselves communists, support this ideology".

Other examples of the pick-and-choose approach include Catholics who deny there is a [[Hell]]<ref>Matthew 5:29; 8:12; 10:28; 13:42; 25:41, 46; 2 Thessalonians 1:8; Revelation 21:8, [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, Existence of Hell]</ref>, deny any one the sacraments<ref>[http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html Council of Trent, Decree on the Sacraments, Canon One]</ref>, including the miracle of transubstantiation, that "in the sacrament of the eucharistic bread, the unity of all believers who form one body in Christ"<ref>[http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html Lumen Gentum, 3 and 11]</ref> and "all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it"<ref>[http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm Catechism of the Catholic Church 1324]</ref>, that [[Mary]] was Immaculate,<ref>[http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus 18.] "God, the King of the universe, has granted you favors that surpass nature. As he kept you a virgin in childbirth, thus he has kept your body incorrupt in the tomb and has glorified it by his divine act of transferring it from the tomb."</ref>, fundamental church teachings regarding the creation of the souls of men<ref>[http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html Humani Generis 36]</ref>, or deny other core teachings of the Church (apostasy).<ref>Encyclical Sapaentiae Christianae: "to refuse to believe in any one of [dogmas of the Church] is equivalent to rejecting all of them." See also, Council of Trent, Decree on the Sacrements, Canon One.</ref> By Canon law, a Catholic in a state of [[mortal sin]] should not take [[Holy Communion]] except where there is a grave reason and no opportunity to confess.<ref>[http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P39.HTM Code of Canon Law 916.] A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.</ref> These truths are not defined in a single teaching and may be difficult to discern, which is a false conundrum cafeteria Catholics rely on to deny faith rather than learn and explore. Some Cafeteria Catholics ignore this and take Communion anyway, which is a Mortal [[Sin]]. The Church believes that such a person is separated from the [[Holy Spirit]], even without direct [[excommunication]] from Church authorities. Alternatively, some cafeteria Catholics are very sensitive to the difficulty their compromised faith presents and in picking and choosing which sacraments and Canons to honor may abstain from defiling the eucharist by feasting in a state of sin.

An extreme form of a cafeteria Catholic is a '''cultural Catholic'''. A cultural Catholic is someone who has a strong emotional attachment to Catholic social and cultural identity, but who does not understand Catholicism and does not seriously follow its ethical teaching. The majority of Catholics in the world are believed to be cultural Catholics.<ref>[http://withchrist.org/catholic.htm#Cultural Who Is a Roman Catholic? Cultural Catholics]</ref> Divorce and abortion rates among Catholics are identical to the secular society as a whole, showcasing the effects of the Cultural Catholic.

==Examples==
*[[Joe Biden]]
*[[Geraldine Ferraro]]
*[[Michael Castle]]
*[[Chris Christie]]
*[[Stephen Colbert]]
*[[Rudy Giuliani]]
*[[Sean Hannity]]
*[[Joe Kennedy]]
*[[Ted Kennedy]]
*[[John Kerry]]
*[[Michael Moore]]
*[[George Pataki]]
*[[Nancy Pelosi]]
*[[Charles Rangel]]
*Dan Rooney
*[[Andrew Cuomo]]
*[[Martin Scorsese]]
*[[Chris Matthews]]

==References==
<references/>

==See also==
*[[Cafeteria Christianity]]
*[[Catholics for Obama]]
*[[Republican in name only]]

[[category:idioms]]
[[category:Catholic Church]]

Cafeteria Catholic

2013-02-09T19:26:38Z

NKeaton: Divinity of Mary

A '''Cafeteria Catholic,''' '''Catholic in name only,''' or '''C&E Catholic (Christmas & Easter only Catholic)''' is someone who self-identifies as a member of the [[Roman Catholic church]] and yet picks and chooses which of the Church's doctrines to believe. In particular, those terms are often used to refer to a self-identified Catholic who rejects the Vatican's instructions, Canon law and Papal Encyclicals directing Catholics to abhor [[abortion]] as murder.

Catholic [[Democrats]] may be associated with Cafeteria Catholics because their party ideology believes in [[abortion]] as a right and also in gay [[marriage]]. This is in direct opposition to what Catholics are taught.

The biggest peril to Cafeteria Catholics is to incur in automatic excommunication, or "latae sententiae" excommunication, which results in eternal damnation in hell. Among other reasons, abortion, heresy and apostasy are some that results in this kind of excommunication from the Church. According to encyclical "Divini Redemptoris" and edict "DECRETUM CONTRA COMMUNISMUM" by Pope Pius XII, it is declared that catholics that "openly declare the materialistic and anti-Christian doctrine of the communists, and especially (...) defend or propagate them" are to be considered apostates and incur in automatic excommunication, no longer being part of the Church. Pope John XXIII, in 1959, confirmed this position of the Church and further declared that "catholics are not allowed to (in elections) give their votes to parties or candidates that, even not proclaiming themselves communists, support this ideology".

Other examples of the pick-and-choose approach include Catholics who deny there is a [[Hell]]<ref>Matthew 5:29; 8:12; 10:28; 13:42; 25:41, 46; 2 Thessalonians 1:8; Revelation 21:8, [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, Existence of Hell]</ref>, deny any one the sacraments<ref>[http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html Council of Trent, Decree on the Sacraments, Canon One]</ref>, including the miracle of transubstantiation, that "in the sacrament of the eucharistic bread, the unity of all believers who form one body in Christ"<ref>[http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html Lumen Gentum, 3 and 11]</ref> and "all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it"<ref>[http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm Catechism of the Catholic Church 1324]</ref>, that [[Mary]] was Immaculate,<ref>[http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus 18]</ref>, fundamental church teachings regarding the creation of the souls of men<ref>[http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html Humani Generis 36]</ref>, or deny other core teachings of the Church (apostasy).<ref>Encyclical Sapaentiae Christianae: "to refuse to believe in any one of [dogmas of the Church] is equivalent to rejecting all of them." See also, Council of Trent, Decree on the Sacrements, Canon One.</ref> By Canon law, a Catholic in a state of [[mortal sin]] should not take [[Holy Communion]] except where there is a grave reason and no opportunity to confess.<ref>[http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P39.HTM Code of Canon Law 916.] A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.</ref> These truths are not defined in a single teaching and may be difficult to discern, which is a false conundrum cafeteria Catholics rely on to deny faith rather than learn and explore. Some Cafeteria Catholics ignore this and take Communion anyway, which is a Mortal [[Sin]]. The Church believes that such a person is separated from the [[Holy Spirit]], even without direct [[excommunication]] from Church authorities. Alternatively, some cafeteria Catholics are very sensitive to the difficulty their compromised faith presents and in picking and choosing which sacraments and Canons to honor may abstain from defiling the eucharist by feasting in a state of sin.

An extreme form of a cafeteria Catholic is a '''cultural Catholic'''. A cultural Catholic is someone who has a strong emotional attachment to Catholic social and cultural identity, but who does not understand Catholicism and does not seriously follow its ethical teaching. The majority of Catholics in the world are believed to be cultural Catholics.<ref>[http://withchrist.org/catholic.htm#Cultural Who Is a Roman Catholic? Cultural Catholics]</ref> Divorce and abortion rates among Catholics are identical to the secular society as a whole, showcasing the effects of the Cultural Catholic.

==Examples==
*[[Joe Biden]]
*[[Geraldine Ferraro]]
*[[Michael Castle]]
*[[Chris Christie]]
*[[Stephen Colbert]]
*[[Rudy Giuliani]]
*[[Sean Hannity]]
*[[Joe Kennedy]]
*[[Ted Kennedy]]
*[[John Kerry]]
*[[Michael Moore]]
*[[George Pataki]]
*[[Nancy Pelosi]]
*[[Charles Rangel]]
*Dan Rooney
*[[Andrew Cuomo]]
*[[Martin Scorsese]]
*[[Chris Matthews]]

==References==
<references/>

==See also==
*[[Cafeteria Christianity]]
*[[Catholics for Obama]]
*[[Republican in name only]]

[[category:idioms]]
[[category:Catholic Church]]

Cafeteria Catholic

2013-02-09T19:21:43Z

NKeaton: Catechism link

A '''Cafeteria Catholic,''' '''Catholic in name only,''' or '''C&E Catholic (Christmas & Easter only Catholic)''' is someone who self-identifies as a member of the [[Roman Catholic church]] and yet picks and chooses which of the Church's doctrines to believe. In particular, those terms are often used to refer to a self-identified Catholic who rejects the Vatican's instructions, Canon law and Papal Encyclicals directing Catholics to abhor [[abortion]] as murder.

Catholic [[Democrats]] may be associated with Cafeteria Catholics because their party ideology believes in [[abortion]] as a right and also in gay [[marriage]]. This is in direct opposition to what Catholics are taught.

The biggest peril to Cafeteria Catholics is to incur in automatic excommunication, or "latae sententiae" excommunication, which results in eternal damnation in hell. Among other reasons, abortion, heresy and apostasy are some that results in this kind of excommunication from the Church. According to encyclical "Divini Redemptoris" and edict "DECRETUM CONTRA COMMUNISMUM" by Pope Pius XII, it is declared that catholics that "openly declare the materialistic and anti-Christian doctrine of the communists, and especially (...) defend or propagate them" are to be considered apostates and incur in automatic excommunication, no longer being part of the Church. Pope John XXIII, in 1959, confirmed this position of the Church and further declared that "catholics are not allowed to (in elections) give their votes to parties or candidates that, even not proclaiming themselves communists, support this ideology".

Other examples of the pick-and-choose approach include Catholics who deny there is a [[Hell]]<ref>Matthew 5:29; 8:12; 10:28; 13:42; 25:41, 46; 2 Thessalonians 1:8; Revelation 21:8, [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, Existence of Hell]</ref>, deny any one the sacraments<ref>[http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html Council of Trent, Decree on the Sacraments, Canon One]</ref>, including the miracle of transubstantiation, that "in the sacrament of the eucharistic bread, the unity of all believers who form one body in Christ"<ref>[http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html Lumen Gentum, 3 and 11]</ref> and "all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it"<ref>[http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm Catechism of the Catholic Church 1324]</ref>, that [[Mary]] was Immaculate,<ref>Encyclical Munificentissimus Deus, etc.</ref>, fundamental church teachings regarding the creation of the souls of men<ref>[http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html Humani Generis 36]</ref>, or deny other core teachings of the Church (apostasy).<ref>Encyclical Sapaentiae Christianae: "to refuse to believe in any one of [dogmas of the Church] is equivalent to rejecting all of them." See also, Council of Trent, Decree on the Sacrements, Canon One.</ref> By Canon law, a Catholic in a state of [[mortal sin]] should not take [[Holy Communion]] except where there is a grave reason and no opportunity to confess.<ref>[http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P39.HTM Code of Canon Law 916.] A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.</ref> These truths are not defined in a single teaching and may be difficult to discern, which is a false conundrum cafeteria Catholics rely on to deny faith rather than learn and explore. Some Cafeteria Catholics ignore this and take Communion anyway, which is a Mortal [[Sin]]. The Church believes that such a person is separated from the [[Holy Spirit]], even without direct [[excommunication]] from Church authorities. Alternatively, some cafeteria Catholics are very sensitive to the difficulty their compromised faith presents and in picking and choosing which sacraments and Canons to honor may abstain from defiling the eucharist by feasting in a state of sin.

An extreme form of a cafeteria Catholic is a '''cultural Catholic'''. A cultural Catholic is someone who has a strong emotional attachment to Catholic social and cultural identity, but who does not understand Catholicism and does not seriously follow its ethical teaching. The majority of Catholics in the world are believed to be cultural Catholics.<ref>[http://withchrist.org/catholic.htm#Cultural Who Is a Roman Catholic? Cultural Catholics]</ref> Divorce and abortion rates among Catholics are identical to the secular society as a whole, showcasing the effects of the Cultural Catholic.

==Examples==
*[[Joe Biden]]
*[[Geraldine Ferraro]]
*[[Michael Castle]]
*[[Chris Christie]]
*[[Stephen Colbert]]
*[[Rudy Giuliani]]
*[[Sean Hannity]]
*[[Joe Kennedy]]
*[[Ted Kennedy]]
*[[John Kerry]]
*[[Michael Moore]]
*[[George Pataki]]
*[[Nancy Pelosi]]
*[[Charles Rangel]]
*Dan Rooney
*[[Andrew Cuomo]]
*[[Martin Scorsese]]
*[[Chris Matthews]]

==References==
<references/>

==See also==
*[[Cafeteria Christianity]]
*[[Catholics for Obama]]
*[[Republican in name only]]

[[category:idioms]]
[[category:Catholic Church]]

Cafeteria Catholic

2013-02-09T19:20:50Z

NKeaton: Breaking break in a state of mortal sin

A '''Cafeteria Catholic,''' '''Catholic in name only,''' or '''C&E Catholic (Christmas & Easter only Catholic)''' is someone who self-identifies as a member of the [[Roman Catholic church]] and yet picks and chooses which of the Church's doctrines to believe. In particular, those terms are often used to refer to a self-identified Catholic who rejects the Vatican's instructions, Canon law and Papal Encyclicals directing Catholics to abhor [[abortion]] as murder.

Catholic [[Democrats]] may be associated with Cafeteria Catholics because their party ideology believes in [[abortion]] as a right and also in gay [[marriage]]. This is in direct opposition to what Catholics are taught.

The biggest peril to Cafeteria Catholics is to incur in automatic excommunication, or "latae sententiae" excommunication, which results in eternal damnation in hell. Among other reasons, abortion, heresy and apostasy are some that results in this kind of excommunication from the Church. According to encyclical "Divini Redemptoris" and edict "DECRETUM CONTRA COMMUNISMUM" by Pope Pius XII, it is declared that catholics that "openly declare the materialistic and anti-Christian doctrine of the communists, and especially (...) defend or propagate them" are to be considered apostates and incur in automatic excommunication, no longer being part of the Church. Pope John XXIII, in 1959, confirmed this position of the Church and further declared that "catholics are not allowed to (in elections) give their votes to parties or candidates that, even not proclaiming themselves communists, support this ideology".

Other examples of the pick-and-choose approach include Catholics who deny there is a [[Hell]]<ref>Matthew 5:29; 8:12; 10:28; 13:42; 25:41, 46; 2 Thessalonians 1:8; Revelation 21:8, [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, Existence of Hell]</ref>, deny any one the sacraments<ref>[http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html Council of Trent, Decree on the Sacraments, Canon One]</ref>, including the miracle of transubstantiation, that "in the sacrament of the eucharistic bread, the unity of all believers who form one body in Christ"<ref>[http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html Lumen Gentum, 3 and 11]</ref> and "all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it"<ref>Catechism of the Catholic Church 1324</ref>, that [[Mary]] was Immaculate,<ref>Encyclical Munificentissimus Deus, etc.</ref>, fundamental church teachings regarding the creation of the souls of men<ref>[http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html Humani Generis 36]</ref>, or deny other core teachings of the Church (apostasy).<ref>Encyclical Sapaentiae Christianae: "to refuse to believe in any one of [dogmas of the Church] is equivalent to rejecting all of them." See also, Council of Trent, Decree on the Sacrements, Canon One.</ref> By Canon law, a Catholic in a state of [[mortal sin]] should not take [[Holy Communion]] except where there is a grave reason and no opportunity to confess.<ref>[http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P39.HTM Code of Canon Law 916.] A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.</ref> These truths are not defined in a single teaching and may be difficult to discern, which is a false conundrum cafeteria Catholics rely on to deny faith rather than learn and explore. Some Cafeteria Catholics ignore this and take Communion anyway, which is a Mortal [[Sin]]. The Church believes that such a person is separated from the [[Holy Spirit]], even without direct [[excommunication]] from Church authorities. Alternatively, some cafeteria Catholics are very sensitive to the difficulty their compromised faith presents and in picking and choosing which sacraments and Canons to honor may abstain from defiling the eucharist by feasting in a state of sin.

An extreme form of a cafeteria Catholic is a '''cultural Catholic'''. A cultural Catholic is someone who has a strong emotional attachment to Catholic social and cultural identity, but who does not understand Catholicism and does not seriously follow its ethical teaching. The majority of Catholics in the world are believed to be cultural Catholics.<ref>[http://withchrist.org/catholic.htm#Cultural Who Is a Roman Catholic? Cultural Catholics]</ref> Divorce and abortion rates among Catholics are identical to the secular society as a whole, showcasing the effects of the Cultural Catholic.

==Examples==
*[[Joe Biden]]
*[[Geraldine Ferraro]]
*[[Michael Castle]]
*[[Chris Christie]]
*[[Stephen Colbert]]
*[[Rudy Giuliani]]
*[[Sean Hannity]]
*[[Joe Kennedy]]
*[[Ted Kennedy]]
*[[John Kerry]]
*[[Michael Moore]]
*[[George Pataki]]
*[[Nancy Pelosi]]
*[[Charles Rangel]]
*Dan Rooney
*[[Andrew Cuomo]]
*[[Martin Scorsese]]
*[[Chris Matthews]]

==References==
<references/>

==See also==
*[[Cafeteria Christianity]]
*[[Catholics for Obama]]
*[[Republican in name only]]

[[category:idioms]]
[[category:Catholic Church]]

Cafeteria Catholic

2013-02-09T19:14:14Z

NKeaton: reference for existence of hell

A '''Cafeteria Catholic,''' '''Catholic in name only,''' or '''C&E Catholic (Christmas & Easter only Catholic)''' is someone who self-identifies as a member of the [[Roman Catholic church]] and yet picks and chooses which of the Church's doctrines to believe. In particular, those terms are often used to refer to a self-identified Catholic who rejects the Vatican's instructions, Canon law and Papal Encyclicals directing Catholics to abhor [[abortion]] as murder.

Catholic [[Democrats]] may be associated with Cafeteria Catholics because their party ideology believes in [[abortion]] as a right and also in gay [[marriage]]. This is in direct opposition to what Catholics are taught.

The biggest peril to Cafeteria Catholics is to incur in automatic excommunication, or "latae sententiae" excommunication, which results in eternal damnation in hell. Among other reasons, abortion, heresy and apostasy are some that results in this kind of excommunication from the Church. According to encyclical "Divini Redemptoris" and edict "DECRETUM CONTRA COMMUNISMUM" by Pope Pius XII, it is declared that catholics that "openly declare the materialistic and anti-Christian doctrine of the communists, and especially (...) defend or propagate them" are to be considered apostates and incur in automatic excommunication, no longer being part of the Church. Pope John XXIII, in 1959, confirmed this position of the Church and further declared that "catholics are not allowed to (in elections) give their votes to parties or candidates that, even not proclaiming themselves communists, support this ideology".

Other examples of the pick-and-choose approach include Catholics who deny there is a [[Hell]]<ref>Matthew 5:29; 8:12; 10:28; 13:42; 25:41, 46; 2 Thessalonians 1:8; Revelation 21:8, [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, Existence of Hell]</ref>, deny any one the sacraments<ref>[http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html Council of Trent, Decree on the Sacraments, Canon One]</ref>, including the miracle of transubstantiation, that "in the sacrament of the eucharistic bread, the unity of all believers who form one body in Christ"<ref>[http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html Lumen Gentum, 3 and 11]</ref> and "all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it"<ref>Catechism of the Catholic Church 1324</ref>, that [[Mary]] was Immaculate,<ref>Encyclical Munificentissimus Deus, etc.</ref>, fundamental church teachings regarding the creation of the souls of men<ref>[http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html Humani Generis 36]</ref>, or deny other core teachings of the Church (apostasy).<ref>Encyclical Sapaentiae Christianae: "to refuse to believe in any one of [dogmas of the Church] is equivalent to rejecting all of them." See also, Council of Trent, Decree on the Sacrements, Canon One.</ref> By Canon law, a Catholic believing contrary to certain truths taught by the Universal, Ordinary and Solemn Magisteria may be guilty of [[heresy]] or worse, apostasy, and should not take [[Holy Communion]]. These truths are not defined in a single teaching and may be difficult to discern, which is a false conundrum cafeteria Catholics rely on to deny faith rather than learn and explore. Some Cafeteria Catholics ignore this and take Communion anyway, which is a Mortal [[Sin]]. The Church believes that such a person is separated from the [[Holy Spirit]], even without direct [[excommunication]] from Church authorities. Alternatively, some cafeteria Catholics are very sensitive to the difficulty their compromised faith presents and in picking and choosing which sacraments and Canons to honor may abstain from defiling the eucharist by feasting in a state of sin.

An extreme form of a cafeteria Catholic is a '''cultural Catholic'''. A cultural Catholic is someone who has a strong emotional attachment to Catholic social and cultural identity, but who does not understand Catholicism and does not seriously follow its ethical teaching. The majority of Catholics in the world are believed to be cultural Catholics.<ref>[http://withchrist.org/catholic.htm#Cultural Who Is a Roman Catholic? Cultural Catholics]</ref> Divorce and abortion rates among Catholics are identical to the secular society as a whole, showcasing the effects of the Cultural Catholic.

==Examples==
*[[Joe Biden]]
*[[Geraldine Ferraro]]
*[[Michael Castle]]
*[[Chris Christie]]
*[[Stephen Colbert]]
*[[Rudy Giuliani]]
*[[Sean Hannity]]
*[[Joe Kennedy]]
*[[Ted Kennedy]]
*[[John Kerry]]
*[[Michael Moore]]
*[[George Pataki]]
*[[Nancy Pelosi]]
*[[Charles Rangel]]
*Dan Rooney
*[[Andrew Cuomo]]
*[[Martin Scorsese]]
*[[Chris Matthews]]

==References==
<references/>

==See also==
*[[Cafeteria Christianity]]
*[[Catholics for Obama]]
*[[Republican in name only]]

[[category:idioms]]
[[category:Catholic Church]]

Cafeteria Catholic

2013-02-09T19:10:25Z

NKeaton: fix problem with this reference error

A '''Cafeteria Catholic,''' '''Catholic in name only,''' or '''C&E Catholic (Christmas & Easter only Catholic)''' is someone who self-identifies as a member of the [[Roman Catholic church]] and yet picks and chooses which of the Church's doctrines to believe. In particular, those terms are often used to refer to a self-identified Catholic who rejects the Vatican's instructions, Canon law and Papal Encyclicals directing Catholics to abhor [[abortion]] as murder.

Catholic [[Democrats]] may be associated with Cafeteria Catholics because their party ideology believes in [[abortion]] as a right and also in gay [[marriage]]. This is in direct opposition to what Catholics are taught.

The biggest peril to Cafeteria Catholics is to incur in automatic excommunication, or "latae sententiae" excommunication, which results in eternal damnation in hell. Among other reasons, abortion, heresy and apostasy are some that results in this kind of excommunication from the Church. According to encyclical "Divini Redemptoris" and edict "DECRETUM CONTRA COMMUNISMUM" by Pope Pius XII, it is declared that catholics that "openly declare the materialistic and anti-Christian doctrine of the communists, and especially (...) defend or propagate them" are to be considered apostates and incur in automatic excommunication, no longer being part of the Church. Pope John XXIII, in 1959, confirmed this position of the Church and further declared that "catholics are not allowed to (in elections) give their votes to parties or candidates that, even not proclaiming themselves communists, support this ideology".

Other examples of the pick-and-choose approach include Catholics who deny there is a [[Hell]], deny any one the sacraments<ref>[http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html Council of Trent, Decree on the Sacraments, Canon One]</ref>, including the miracle of transubstantiation, that "in the sacrament of the eucharistic bread, the unity of all believers who form one body in Christ"<ref>[http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html Lumen Gentum, 3 and 11]</ref> and "all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it"<ref>Catechism of the Catholic Church 1324</ref>, that [[Mary]] was Immaculate,<ref>Encyclical Munificentissimus Deus, etc.</ref>, fundamental church teachings regarding the creation of the souls of men<ref>[http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html Humani Generis 36]</ref>, or deny other core teachings of the Church (apostasy).<ref>Encyclical Sapaentiae Christianae: "to refuse to believe in any one of [dogmas of the Church] is equivalent to rejecting all of them." See also, Council of Trent, Decree on the Sacrements, Canon One.</ref> By Canon law, a Catholic believing contrary to certain truths taught by the Universal, Ordinary and Solemn Magisteria may be guilty of [[heresy]] or worse, apostasy, and should not take [[Holy Communion]]. These truths are not defined in a single teaching and may be difficult to discern, which is a false conundrum cafeteria Catholics rely on to deny faith rather than learn and explore. Some Cafeteria Catholics ignore this and take Communion anyway, which is a Mortal [[Sin]]. The Church believes that such a person is separated from the [[Holy Spirit]], even without direct [[excommunication]] from Church authorities. Alternatively, some cafeteria Catholics are very sensitive to the difficulty their compromised faith presents and in picking and choosing which sacraments and Canons to honor may abstain from defiling the eucharist by feasting in a state of sin.

An extreme form of a cafeteria Catholic is a '''cultural Catholic'''. A cultural Catholic is someone who has a strong emotional attachment to Catholic social and cultural identity, but who does not understand Catholicism and does not seriously follow its ethical teaching. The majority of Catholics in the world are believed to be cultural Catholics.<ref>[http://withchrist.org/catholic.htm#Cultural Who Is a Roman Catholic? Cultural Catholics]</ref> Divorce and abortion rates among Catholics are identical to the secular society as a whole, showcasing the effects of the Cultural Catholic.

==Examples==
*[[Joe Biden]]
*[[Geraldine Ferraro]]
*[[Michael Castle]]
*[[Chris Christie]]
*[[Stephen Colbert]]
*[[Rudy Giuliani]]
*[[Sean Hannity]]
*[[Joe Kennedy]]
*[[Ted Kennedy]]
*[[John Kerry]]
*[[Michael Moore]]
*[[George Pataki]]
*[[Nancy Pelosi]]
*[[Charles Rangel]]
*Dan Rooney
*[[Andrew Cuomo]]
*[[Martin Scorsese]]
*[[Chris Matthews]]

==References==
<references/>

==See also==
*[[Cafeteria Christianity]]
*[[Catholics for Obama]]
*[[Republican in name only]]

[[category:idioms]]
[[category:Catholic Church]]

Cafeteria Catholic

2013-02-09T19:08:47Z

NKeaton: add to sacraments and Eucharist and fix some citations

A '''Cafeteria Catholic,''' '''Catholic in name only,''' or '''C&E Catholic (Christmas & Easter only Catholic)''' is someone who self-identifies as a member of the [[Roman Catholic church]] and yet picks and chooses which of the Church's doctrines to believe. In particular, those terms are often used to refer to a self-identified Catholic who rejects the Vatican's instructions, Canon law and Papal Encyclicals directing Catholics to abhor [[abortion]] as murder.

Catholic [[Democrats]] may be associated with Cafeteria Catholics because their party ideology believes in [[abortion]] as a right and also in gay [[marriage]]. This is in direct opposition to what Catholics are taught.

The biggest peril to Cafeteria Catholics is to incur in automatic excommunication, or "latae sententiae" excommunication, which results in eternal damnation in hell. Among other reasons, abortion, heresy and apostasy are some that results in this kind of excommunication from the Church. According to encyclical "Divini Redemptoris" and edict "DECRETUM CONTRA COMMUNISMUM" by Pope Pius XII, it is declared that catholics that "openly declare the materialistic and anti-Christian doctrine of the communists, and especially (...) defend or propagate them" are to be considered apostates and incur in automatic excommunication, no longer being part of the Church. Pope John XXIII, in 1959, confirmed this position of the Church and further declared that "catholics are not allowed to (in elections) give their votes to parties or candidates that, even not proclaiming themselves communists, support this ideology".

Other examples of the pick-and-choose approach include Catholics who deny there is a [[Hell]], deny any one the sacraments<ref>[http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html Council of Trent, Decree on the Sacraments, Canon One]</ref>, including the miracle of transubstantiation, that "in the sacrament of the eucharistic bread, the unity of all believers who form one body in Christ"<ref>[http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html Lumen Gentum, 3 and 11</ref> and "all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it"<ref>Catechism of the Catholic Church 1324</ref>, that [[Mary]] was Immaculate,<ref>Encyclical Munificentissimus Deus, etc.</ref>, fundamental church teachings regarding the creation of the souls of men<ref>[http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html Humani Generis 36], or deny other core teachings of the Church (apostasy).<ref>Encyclical Sapaentiae Christianae: "to refuse to believe in any one of [dogmas of the Church] is equivalent to rejecting all of them." See also, Council of Trent, Decree on the Sacrements, Canon One.</ref> By Canon law, a Catholic believing contrary to certain truths taught by the Universal, Ordinary and Solemn Magisteria may be guilty of [[heresy]] or worse, apostasy, and should not take [[Holy Communion]]. These truths are not defined in a single teaching and may be difficult to discern, which is a false conundrum cafeteria Catholics rely on to deny faith rather than learn and explore. Some Cafeteria Catholics ignore this and take Communion anyway, which is a Mortal [[Sin]]. The Church believes that such a person is separated from the [[Holy Spirit]], even without direct [[excommunication]] from Church authorities. Alternatively, some cafeteria Catholics are very sensitive to the difficulty their compromised faith presents and in picking and choosing which sacraments and Canons to honor may abstain from defiling the eucharist by feasting in a state of sin.

An extreme form of a cafeteria Catholic is a '''cultural Catholic'''. A cultural Catholic is someone who has a strong emotional attachment to Catholic social and cultural identity, but who does not understand Catholicism and does not seriously follow its ethical teaching. The majority of Catholics in the world are believed to be cultural Catholics.<ref>[http://withchrist.org/catholic.htm#Cultural Who Is a Roman Catholic? Cultural Catholics]</ref> Divorce and abortion rates among Catholics are identical to the secular society as a whole, showcasing the effects of the Cultural Catholic.

==Examples==
*[[Joe Biden]]
*[[Geraldine Ferraro]]
*[[Michael Castle]]
*[[Chris Christie]]
*[[Stephen Colbert]]
*[[Rudy Giuliani]]
*[[Sean Hannity]]
*[[Joe Kennedy]]
*[[Ted Kennedy]]
*[[John Kerry]]
*[[Michael Moore]]
*[[George Pataki]]
*[[Nancy Pelosi]]
*[[Charles Rangel]]
*Dan Rooney
*[[Andrew Cuomo]]
*[[Martin Scorsese]]
*[[Chris Matthews]]

==References==
<references/>

==See also==
*[[Cafeteria Christianity]]
*[[Catholics for Obama]]
*[[Republican in name only]]

[[category:idioms]]
[[category:Catholic Church]]

Cafeteria Catholic

2013-02-09T18:48:51Z

NKeaton: Opus Dei teaches intelligent design and many in the Vatican oppose creationism. The "origin of man" is not as simple as the article says.

A '''Cafeteria Catholic,''' '''Catholic in name only,''' or '''C&E Catholic (Christmas & Easter only Catholic)''' is someone who self-identifies as a member of the [[Roman Catholic church]] and yet picks and chooses which of the Church's doctrines to believe. In particular, those terms are often used to refer to a self-identified Catholic who rejects the Vatican's instructions, Canon law and Papal Encyclicals directing Catholics to abhor [[abortion]] as murder.

Catholic [[Democrats]] may be associated with Cafeteria Catholics because their party ideology believes in [[abortion]] as a right and also in gay [[marriage]]. This is in direct opposition to what Catholics are taught.

The biggest peril to Cafeteria Catholics is to incur in automatic excommunication, or "latae sententiae" excommunication, which results in eternal damnation in hell. Among other reasons, abortion, heresy and apostasy are some that results in this kind of excommunication from the Church. According to encyclical "Divini Redemptoris" and edict "DECRETUM CONTRA COMMUNISMUM" by Pope Pius XII, it is declared that catholics that "openly declare the materialistic and anti-Christian doctrine of the communists, and especially (...) defend or propagate them" are to be considered apostates and incur in automatic excommunication, no longer being part of the Church. Pope John XXIII, in 1959, confirmed this position of the Church and further declared that "catholics are not allowed to (in elections) give their votes to parties or candidates that, even not proclaiming themselves communists, support this ideology".

Other examples of the pick-and-choose approach include Catholics who deny there is a [[Hell]], deny the miracle of transubstantiation and the place of the eucharist as the most important of the seven sacraments,<ref>Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:14-20; John 6:53–58; Code of Canon Law of 1983 1396</ref>, deny that [[Mary]] was Immaculate,<ref>Encyclical Munificentissimus Deus, etc.</ref>, deny fundamental church teachings regarding the creation of the souls of men, or deny other core teachings of the Church (apostasy).<ref>Encyclical Sapaentiae Christianae: "to refuse to believe in any one of [dogmas of the Church] is equivalent to rejecting all of them."</ref> By Canon law, a Catholic believing contrary to certain truths taught by the Universal, Ordinary and Solemn Magisteria may be guilty of [[heresy]] or worse, apostasy, and should not take [[Holy Communion]]. These truths are not defined in a single teaching and may be difficult to discern, which is a false conundrum cafeteria Catholics rely on to deny faith rather than learn and explore. Some Cafeteria Catholics ignore this and take Communion anyway, which is a Mortal [[Sin]]. The Church believes that such a person is separated from the [[Holy Spirit]], even without direct [[excommunication]] from Church authorities. Alternatively, some cafeteria Catholics are very sensitive to the difficulty their compromised faith presents and in picking and choosing which sacraments and Canons to honor may abstain from defiling the eucharist by feasting in a state of sin.

An extreme form of a cafeteria Catholic is a '''cultural Catholic'''. A cultural Catholic is someone who has a strong emotional attachment to Catholic social and cultural identity, but who does not understand Catholicism and does not seriously follow its ethical teaching. The majority of Catholics in the world are believed to be cultural Catholics.<ref>[http://withchrist.org/catholic.htm#Cultural Who Is a Roman Catholic? Cultural Catholics]</ref> Divorce and abortion rates among Catholics are identical to the secular society as a whole, showcasing the effects of the Cultural Catholic.

==Examples==
*[[Joe Biden]]
*[[Geraldine Ferraro]]
*[[Michael Castle]]
*[[Chris Christie]]
*[[Stephen Colbert]]
*[[Rudy Giuliani]]
*[[Sean Hannity]]
*[[Joe Kennedy]]
*[[Ted Kennedy]]
*[[John Kerry]]
*[[Michael Moore]]
*[[George Pataki]]
*[[Nancy Pelosi]]
*[[Charles Rangel]]
*Dan Rooney
*[[Andrew Cuomo]]
*[[Martin Scorsese]]
*[[Chris Matthews]]

==References==
<references/>

==See also==
*[[Cafeteria Christianity]]
*[[Catholics for Obama]]
*[[Republican in name only]]

[[category:idioms]]
[[category:Catholic Church]]

Talk:Cafeteria Catholic

2013-02-09T18:41:28Z

NKeaton: adding a bit to support Greg's good edit

Are all catholics supposed to believe that the fish that weren't on board Noah's Ark drowned in the flood? That'd be kinda ... dumb. --[[User:DrHubertJNugz|DrHubertJNugz]] 14:27, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

I just saw this page on the recent changes pages. I was actually just about to remove what Greg did and so there is no dispute about it, Catholics must not necessarily be in favor of the death penalty. It is one thing to accept long-standing Church doctrine that the death penalty is appropriate in some circumstances but is so much more complicated than saying "it is mandatory for a <s>c</s>Catholic to be in favor of the death penalty." The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that the death penalty is RARELY necessary.

"Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."" [http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm]

The American Conference of Catholic Bishops has been campaigning to end the death penalty in the United States for a long time. [http://old.usccb.org/deathpenalty/] These men are not "Cafeteria Catholics." [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 13:41, 9 February 2013 (EST)