Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2010-05-18T01:23:35Z

NP: /* "The first president who is biracial" */ new section

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}
 

==Rense==
Jeff Rense may not be a such a good source. The Anti-Defamation League accuses him of promoting anti-Semitic views and 9/11 Conspiracy theories. OTOH, what is wrong with a Pravda article written in the post Soviet-censorship era when democratic Russia hungars to exercise a free press, open discussion and discernment of facts? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:39, 23 January 2010 (EST)

:See my talk page, Rob. I never noticed who added the Pravda cite, so if you say so, it is of course fine with me, and please add it back if you haven't already! I now suspect it was yet another vandal site troll stirring the pot, so feel free to deal with him as well. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:02, 24 January 2010 (EST)

== Terror Attacks ==
I have an issue with a claim made in the second paragraph. ''Since abandoning the "War on Terror" in Obama's first year, the United States has suffered more terrorist attacks with deadly intent on American soil than in the previous eight years combined.'' Since Obama replaced the 'Global War on Terror' with 'Overseas Contingency Operation', there have been only four domestic terrorist attacks, a far cry from the 19 that took place under Bush's tenure. This sentence should be reworded or removed in its entirety; it only makes the article look embarrassing. --[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 15:46, 25 January 2010 (EST)

:More [[liberal]] poppycock, Michael? Even the New York Times counts more, excluding 9/11, under Obama. Perhaps you should consider sources other than the Kos? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:29, 25 January 2010 (EST)

::A short time ago you gave me grief for making assumptions, yet here you are doing the same. I didn't get any information from Kos, it all came from legitimate news sources. Do you really believe that more terror attacks occurred on US soil from March 2009 to January 2010 than in the eight years of the Bush administration? I would really like to see all your references for making such a bold claim. And why would you want to exclude the WTC/Pentagon attacks?
::Some people have been making some really stupid claims lately about domestic terror. Dana Perino and Rudy Guiliani both claimed there was not a terror attack on the US when Bush was in office. The fact that these people could make such stupidly partisan claims is incredible. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kpfhGxJbLc] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tYoMoJHNDs] The claim made in this article reeks of the same idiocy of Perino and Guiliani, why not delete the sentence or at least make it factual? --[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 20:23, 25 January 2010 (EST)

:::The facts are undeniable that America was totally unprepared to protect itself from terrorist homeland attacks as Bush entered office, due to the total lack of focus of the Clinton Administration and Congress on the issue. Bush can in no way be blamed for the 9/11 attacks with any real credibility.

:::As I have stated many times before, as Mr. Schlafly has stated many times before, as several other Admins have as well, coming here to argue-without-end against our conservative point of view in all articles you come across, is silly. If you and others cannot bring yourselves to accept alternative points of view, so be it. If you want a place to argue against conservatism in general, make your own site or try the Kos or HuffPo; but CP isn't a debate forum, it is a conservative encyclopedia ''project''. Article talk pages are for suggesting ways to improve articles from a conservative point of view, not a liberal one. Is that a clear enough statement? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:29, 25 January 2010 (EST)

::::TK: The change you made is completely unacceptable from a moral and ethical standpoint because instead of correcting an error, you are now highlighting a lie. Three terror attacks occurred during Pres. Bush's last year in office. I sent you links to all three events but you are willing to over look such trivial matters as the truth. It's funny that a liberal who has been blocked twice for pointing out errors and outright falsehoods is vilified as a trouble-maker while the conservatives that knowingly mislead and lie are in charge of an alleged 'trustworthy encyclopedia'.
::::I'm trying to make these changes because I don't want Americans to look stupid, even the conservative ones. It's an uphill battle.

::::Gunman killed two people in a church. [http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-07-29-church-shooting_N.htm]
::::Suicide bomber attacked a Georgia law firm. [http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ga_law_firm_explodes_causing_multiple_injuries/]
::::Two police officers were killed by a bomb placed in a bank. [http://www.odmp.org/officer/19697-captain-thomas-paul-tennant]
::::--[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 01:25, 29 January 2010 (EST)

MichaelJB you cannot tell the difference between Muslim terrorists and someone with an ax to grind? Godspeed! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 06:36, 29 January 2010 (EST)v
:So Michael's point is that progressive liberal leftwing commie socialist (or whatever the flavor of the week) Prof. [[Amy Bishop]] conducted a domestic overseas contingency operation attack. It's beginning to make sense. How would we classify the guy who crashed the plane into the IRS building in Houston, a tax protester who railed against corporations. Dang, this is a tuff one.... [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 08:13, 12 March 2010 (EST)

== Middle name in article title? ==

----

::::<big>'''Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded.</big>'''

----

It strikes to me odd that the title of the article is Barach Hussein Obama. While there is nothing wrong with that by itself, looking at the [[President_of_the_United_States_of_America#Presidents_list|list of all the U.S. presidents]], it seems that all the other presidents' articles are titled either without their middle name, or just a middle initial. Wouldn't it make sense to rename the article to either Barack Obama or Barack H. Obama to follow suit? [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:19, 26 February 2010 (EST)
:There is a big difference between Walker or Jefferson and Hussein. My two cents. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:22, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::What about [[Ronald Wilson Reagan]]? [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 18:26, 26 February 2010 (EST)
:::This topic had been discussed before. He decided to be inaugurated with his middle name after not using it during the campaign. He is not ashamed of it and we are not ashamed to include it.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:29, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::::Ah, I see. Looking at some lists though ([http://www.ipl.org/div/potus/] and [http://www.apples4theteacher.com/holidays/presidents-day/past-presidents-of-usa.html]), it seems that many presidents were also inaugurated in a similar fashion. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:33, 26 February 2010 (EST)

::: I think that, as all encyclopedias and scholarly works try to do, we should try to decide on a particular set of rules and always follow it. In this case, these are the options:
:::1) Always cite the full name in the title, so "Barack Hussein Obama", "George Herbert Walker Bush" and "Ronald Wilson Reagan";
:::2) Always use initials for middle names, so "Barack H. Obama", "George H.W. Bush" and "Ronald W. Reagan";
:::3) Use the names in the way they most commonly used, using middle name initials only where they are necessary to distinguish one particular individual from another, therefore "Barack Obama", "George H.W. Bush" and "Ronald Reagan".

::: We are talking about titles of articles; the full name should always be cited in the body of the article. Personally, I would vote for solution n.3. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:34, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::::I like the idea. Either 2 or 3 seem best in my opinion; full names seem a bit to long for article titles. The name that the president was inaugurated with isn't bad either, but it would seem less formal, as some have middle names and others don't. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:38, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:::: I thought about that solution, but then I thought that we should better set very general rules; by this I mean that we should decide how to title page names referring to INDIVIDUALS, not to US PRESIDENTS. Deciding that "the name that the president was inaugurated with" is a rule that, naturally, can only be applied to presidents. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:41, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:::: Another good rule would be to use the name that is mostly used to refer to that individual; this has the disadvantage of not being objective, but it is also the most effective. So "Barack Obama", "George H.W. Bush" (to distinguish him from his son), "Ronald Reagan", "Eminem" instead of "Marshall Mathers", "O.J. Simpson" instead of "Orenthal J. Simpson"... --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:56, 26 February 2010 (EST)

There isn't any vote here, nor was one asked for. Since Obama tries to soft-pedal his Muslim roots and associations, our editorial policy is to call attention to that ''fact''. In addition you should note the [[Ronald Wilson Reagan|Reagan]] article, where well before anyone had an inkling Obama would run for President, Conservapedia used his full name, ''Ronald Wilson Reagan'' which Reagan himself preferred for formal use. So I submit President Obama isn't being singled out, contrary to the insistence of silly-minded liberals. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:06, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:But why call attention to that ''fact'' in the title of the article? The ''fact'' is never going to be denied. The introduction sentence would still say "Barack Hussein Obama". Italicize his middle name in the introduction or change the font color to bring out the ''fact'' if you wish. What I am trying to point at is, why should his middle name be used in the article title? Reagan may have preferred it for formal use, but does Mr. Obama say that same? He is commonly known as Barack Obama; I haven't seen it used in any other way (except Obama, of course). If he is commonly known as that, it would make sense to title the article like that, as should every article on people. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 21:05, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::Richard Milhous Nixon was commonly refered to as [[Milhous]] by his detracters. Indeed, googling milhouse brings up hundreds of thousands of hits on Nixon that dwarf most all other uses of the name. Now, googling [[Hussein]] presents a host of other problems. The [[Heshamite Dynasty]] of [[Hussein bin Ali]] had been the Islamic Keeper of the Holy places for 700 years until Western British Imperialist interests unseated them and installed the Saudi ruling clan thier place (visualize Islamists dethroning the Pope and installing thier own choice as successor). How does it look when Hussein bin Ali's namesake bows to tne Saudi puppet? Why not focus on how Obama ''is'' bringing real change to the whole planet, rather than argue about how things have traditionally been done? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:14, 27 February 2010 (EST)
Drop it. Further discussion is last-wordism. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:14, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:On the question of "''all the other presidents' articles are titled either without their middle name, or just a middle initial. Wouldn't it make sense ...to follow suit? ''"
:You will recall Barack Hussein Obama is the transformational president of change. Wouldn't it make sense to begin change right here, with his name? (assuming that is his name). [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:54, 26 February 2010 (EST)

<nowiki>:</nowiki>D 
--<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:58, 27 February 2010 (EST)

Pretty slick conservative trap there TK. despite the fact that you neglected to answer some massive holes in the arguments above, you declare the debate "ended" (even though its not) then decry anything else as last wordism to stifle any further debate. well done--[[User:DerikJ|DerikJ]] 11:58, 27 February 2010 (EST)
:What holes? We're implementing change. Let's find common ground and compromise. We've done just that. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:35, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::I like your comment on change, Rob, it made me laugh :) Anyway, I don't see how an argument that Obama's slogan being "change" is any reason to title his article to what he is less commonly known as/less traditional. It's pushing it, in a sense. Besides, being a conservative, I would think that you wouldn't want to follow Obama's way of thinking ;) [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 13:40, 27 February 2010 (EST)
:::Conservatives are for change, both economic and social. They want to change tax law and abortion rulings, for example. Above all, change public education. Being anti-change is just a vulgar stereotype held by closeminded and intolerant people. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:09, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::::I can agree with that. But ''why'' "change" how Obama's article is titled when others are titled either without their middle name or with their middle name if they are commonly known and identified by the name, in some cases. Simply changing something doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing, there has to be reason, and the reason has to be, well, reasonable. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 14:44, 27 February 2010 (EST)
:::::Call it the price of progress. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:17, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::::::In that case, would changing the titles of all the other peoples' articles to include their middle names sound all right to you? It would be progress, after all. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 17:29, 27 February 2010 (EST)
I have always wondered why the Obamabots get so upset with the name Obama's parents chose. Pretty silly. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:40, 27 February 2010 (EST)

:I actually like the name, it has a nice ring to it. It's more of just keeping a solid style of titling pages, a format if you want to call it that. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 17:29, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::Which brings us to the question of Barry Soetero. If Obama went by this name, then he may have lied to the Illinois Supreme Court when asked to provide former names, according to this Attorney’s Registration Record. [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2061988/posts] I'm not the sure what the resolution of this issue ever was, and we don't have a word about it in this article. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:49, 27 February 2010 (EST)

I know I am new here but there really needs to be a consensus amongst all Presidential and Vice President articles, actually this should probably extend to all US politicians. I know there is a specified conservative bias, however the lack organization and consensus has nothing to do with liberal or conservative bias, it has to do with disorganization and lazyiness by the admins.

If you want to leave the middle, that is fine, however, there would need to be a quick modification of all or the majority of the US Politian article so as not to look so disorganized.[[User:Solarguy17|Solarguy17]] 01:01, 10 March 2010 (EST)

:You hit the nail on the head. You are new here. Don't come in criticizing and such off the bat. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 01:12, 10 March 2010 (EST)

My criticization is to help the article(s) to be better as a whole. None of the above discussion explains the reasoning for leaving it as is. Just people saying he used it in his inauguration so we use it here, however, almost every pres does this so why not have it that way for everyone????[[User:Solarguy17|Solarguy17]] 01:15, 10 March 2010 (EST)

Not really discussion just more of a question. I just recently found this site and was looking through the religious articles and for the most part they seemed pretty good. However, when I come to the political articles, some of them seem a little crazy. I know it is to call more attention to the things that are being overlooked by the media. But I have ask about the middle name thing.

I read all of the information above and I still am not sure why it was decided to leave it as is. Can someone clarify this?
Please don't ban me, I noticed that basically everyone with discussion in this thread that isn't an admin now has banned accounts. I personally don't care, I am just confused. [[User:StevenS|StevenS]] 01:12, 12 March 2010 (EST)

: As it says up at the top of this section, "Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded." If you do have one, let's have it. But it sure seems like everyone who signs up to this site and immediately starts complaining has nothing new to say at all. Why don't you spend some time reading here with an open mind first, and complain later? [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 01:20, 12 March 2010 (EST)

Now, why would a single individual come here under several different user names all in an effort to get the word "Hussein" removed from the title of this article? It makes no sense at all unless that individual has a personal agenda to perform. The article title stays as it is. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:42, 12 March 2010 (EST)

:My only concern is that the title seems to exist in its current state for no purpose other than to further a bias. The arguments that "well he asked for it" seem to suggest that accuracy and fairness are non-valuable in this wiki. I sincerely hope this is not the case and that I may not be banned and able to start a fun future in helping this wiki grow in the impressive way it has so far. [[User:Vidihawk|Vidihawk]] 07:47, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

::'''"Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded."'''
I guess you missed the bold title at the top of this section? Also, see [[Ronald Wilson Reagan]] to see how silly your argument is. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:16, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
:I guess it wasn't as bright an idea as I had hoped. Heh... It still comes off as somewhat purposeful, though. Okie, I'll back away! - [[User:Vidihawk|Vidihawk]] 08:24, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
::Purposeful, as in done with the same horribly malevolent intent as ''my'' adding Reagan's middle name several years ago? You are giving away your intent in advance, good sir, by refusing to admit your already formed assumptions about us are wrong. I hope you prove me wrong, and turn out to be that rare U.K. denizen that turns out to be open-minded and as fair to us as you wish us to be to you. There have been precious few. And please do check out our editors guide and all of that. We differ quite a bit from Wikipedia. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:33, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

== I moved the material dealing with the present to the top ==

I moved the material dealing with the present to the top as I thought readers would be more interested in how Obama is screwing up the present. For example, I think Americans right now are very concerned about how Obama is screwing up the economy. Of course, he is also doing a poor job in other areas presently as well such as holding terrorists court cases in civilian courts, etc. etc. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:30, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

:That makes sense to me. I do appreciate letting me try the other timeline structure. However, I didn't really take into consideration the fact that because he is a high profile individual it may benefit readers to see more recent info before his earlier biography facts. At least while he's fulfilling his one failed term as president, your structure makes sense to me. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 12:42, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

::As the ==Maoism== section is being being built, we may eventually be able to free up space from the sections on the Ayers/Dohrn relationship by moving some of that material to Ayers own page, and/or creating a new separate page documenting Obama's rise with communist and terrorist assistance. An acceptable title for that page would be needed. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:23, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

==Citation==

"Any orders he gives to the American military are subject to being refused. Orders that Obama gives to America’s Joint Chiefs of Staff of the military can be refused." --http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/19-01-2009/106972-Barry_Soetoro-0

Do we really want to cite an article that makes this claim? Do any of us really support this opinion, or if we do, do we support the use of opinion articles as sources in addition to factual ones? --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 08:42, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

:Is the opinion piece backed by valid and factual citations from the United States Code, Ben, as opposed to a unsupported rant? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:47, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

== pronunciation of "Pakistan" ==

This is really considered evidence of anything? I've heard [[Mark Levin]] use the Spanish-inflected pronunciation of Sonia Sotomayor's name (''so tow my OR'' rather than ''so tow MY er''), but nobody would claim that proves he's Catholic or Hispanic. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 23:55, 9 April 2010 (EDT)
:Pronunciation shows an enormous amount about someone's views and history. Obama doesn't use the American pronunciation, and this is telling, since ''no one else in the public sphere'' pronounces it in the muslim way ''but'' Obama. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 00:15, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
[[David Petraeus]] does [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtCLp7siY7I]. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 00:50, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
And [http://www.forvo.com/word/pakistan/ numerous other languages] use a pronunciation closer to the native form. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 00:57, 10 April 2010 (EDT)

::"Golgaronok" (if that is your name), your quibbles with the entry have already been argued ad nauseum, [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama/archive4#.22Pokiston.22.3F.3F.3F.3F.3F here], for instance. If you've only come to argue on talk pages, you're wasting your own time. Try making substantive contributions to the project; excessive talk is disfavored here. [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 01:04, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
I don't see any responses to the points I raised. But it's y'all's funeral. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 01:13, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
:::Kind of interesting that Davis Petraeus was mentioned here. When that general was ordered to command US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, the liberal elites decided that his name should be pronounced "BETRAY US". [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:29, 10 April 2010 (EDT)

==Barry Soetoro = birth name?==
This may have already been discussed, so forgive me if this has been settled. I noticed that the article says ''"Barack Hussein Obama II (birth name Barry Soetoro..."'', however the articles cited do not support the idea that "Barry Soetoro" is Obama's birth name, in fact quite the opposite. My understanding, from reading the Newsweek article, is that "Barack" is his birth name, although he went by "Barry" when he was younger. His father's name, as I understand it, is Barack Hussein Obama, and he was named after his father. "Seotoro", if I remember right, was his stepfather's last name, so it is unlikely that it would have been part of Obama's birth name. To be clear, I do realize that he spent his younger years being known as "Barry Soetoro", and I think that should be included in the article, I just don't think it was actually his birth name. 
Please understand that I am not as knowledgeable in this kind of thing as many other contributors here, so I may have gotten it all wrong - that's why I didn't attempt to edit the article. Please correct me if I have gotten it wrong - I won't be offended and I am curious as to the truth of the matter. [[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 18:11, 1 May 2010 (EDT)

== Remove name repetition? ==

Would anyone mind if I removed some of the repetition of Obama's name in certain portions of the article? For example, in this paragraph:
{{cquote|
[[Barack Obama and uncharitableness|Barack Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving]] and [[Barack Obama and liberal elitism|Barack Obama's liberal elitism]] is consistent with Obama being a [[Narcissism|narcissist]] which is a charge that has often been made against Barack Obama. However, it is also true that Barack Obama is an [[evolution|evolutionist]]. Barack Obama told the ''York Daily Record'' that "I believe in [[evolution]]...". Barack Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving and liberal elitism is also in accordance with someone who has a certain degree of [[Social Darwinism|social darwinistic]] thinking. In addition to [[Liberals and uncharitableness|American liberals giving less to charity]], it is also true that [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|American liberals are also more likely to believe in evolution]].
}}

I think I could alter it to make it more readable with "Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving and liberal elitism is consistent with that of a narcissist, a charge that has often been made against him."

And so forth. In my linguistics class, we talked about semantic satiation, and I believe that paragraphs like these, along with the fact that it never seems to use pronouns, somewhat diminish the readability of the article. If I were to make this change, I would preserve every wikilink, reference, etc, but I believe it would become more readable. In Christ, [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 09:09, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

== Insults? ==

Does the entire beginning of the article have to be so laden with insults? Couldnt it simply say what the article will be about, and THEN express views? As it is it appears very unprofessional. 19:11, 6 May 2010 (EDT)
:We believe in the truth here, and the fact that [[liberals]] like yourself feign offense at the display of it speaks volumes about you. If you insist on closing your mind, at least take ownership of your [[deceit]]! Sign your comments with <nowiki> ~~~~ </nowiki> next time. Godspeed! [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 19:58, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

== "The first president who is biracial" ==

There have been other presidents of more than one race. Bush Jr. is has some German and English ancestry. [[User:NP|NP]]

Christopher Hitchens

2010-05-18T01:20:56Z

NP:

[[File:2550220591 17974b55b6.jpg|thumb|right|215px|Like [[Richard Dawkins]], Christopher Hitchens can also be likened to a clown. (photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/tjetjep/2550220591/ Flickr], see: [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/deed.en Creative commons license agreement])]]
'''Christopher Eric Hitchens''' (born April 13, 1949, in [[Portsmouth]], [[England]]) is a journalist, author and literary critic. Hitchens received degrees in philosophy, politics and economics from [[Oxford University|Balliol College]], [[Oxford]], in 1970. From 1971-1981, he worked in [[Britain]] as book reviewer for ''The Times'' newspaper. He emigrated to the United States in 1981, and has written regularly, or been a contributing editor for ''Harper's'', ''Vanity Fair'' and [[Nation (magazine)|''The Nation'']]. He is an avowed [[Atheism|atheist]] and [[Antitheism|antitheist]]. Hitchens has a younger brother, [[Peter Hitchens]], who is also a journalist, author and critic.

Christopher Hitchens was a member of the International Socialists and an active [[Trotskyist]] during his youth. Today he is "on the same side as the neo-conservatives," but does not consider himself a conservative. He supported [[George W. Bush|George W. Bush's]] foreign policy, but has a negative attitude towards Bush's support of [[intelligent design]].

He is a harsh critic of [[Ronald Reagan]], and considers [[Henry Kissinger]] a [[war criminal]].

==Opposition to Islam and Support of the War on Terror==

Christopher Hitchens became an activist against [[Islam]] when Ayatullah Kohmeini declared a [[fatwa]] against his personal friend [[Salman Rushdie]]. The event has led him to become very vocal in his support of the war in Iraq and heavily critical of Muslim society and ethics.

==Insults toward Jerry Falwell==
In a TV interview with Hannity and Colmes a day after [[Jerry Falwell]]'s death, Christopher Hitchens expressed his anger over Fawell's legacy, calling the media coverage of his death uniform in its "stupidity" and calling Fawell himself a "vulgar fraud and crook"<ref name=FAL>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doKkOSMaTk4</ref>. Hitchens went on to state such outrageous comments as "we have been rid of an extremely dangerous demagogue who lived by hatred of others and prejudice", "that it's a pity there isn't a hell for him to go to", "the evil he did will live after him", and "and I think his death is a deliverance" <ref name=FAL/>. [[Hannity]] said that such comments were "crude", "thoughtless", "mean", and "hateful."

==Interview with Todd Friel==
In a radio interview with Todd Friel on [[Wretched Radio]], a Christianity based radio broadcast, Christopher Hitchens repeatedly ignores Todd Friels line of questioning. At the end of the interview, Todd asks, 'Is it possible the reason you rage so much against god is because you just want to live your own autonomous way, living any way that you want to, living any lifestyle that you prefer without being accountable to your creator?' '''Hitchens replies, 'I think that is highly probable, yes.''''<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E01VPsdozSo</ref>

==Select bibliography ==
*''Callaghan: The Road to Number Ten'' (Cassell, 1976)
*''Hostage to History: Cyprus From the Ottomans to Kissinger'' (Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1989)
*''Imperial Spoils: The Case of the Parthenon Marbles'' (Hill and Wang, 1989)
*''Blood, Class and Nostalgia: Anglo-American Ironies'' (Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1990)
*''The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice'' (Verso, 1995)
*''Prepared for the Worst'' (Hill and Wang, 1989)
*''For the Sake of Argument: Essays & Minority Reports'' (Verso, 1993)
*''No One Left to Lie To: The Values of the Worst Family'' (Verso, 2000)
*''God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything'' - outside the US, published with the alternate subtitle ''The Case Against Religion'' (Atlantic, 2007)

==External links==
*[http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1662757,00.html "Why Christopher Hitchens Is Wrong About Billy Graham"], Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy, ''[[Time magazine]]'' Tuesday, Sep. 18, 2007

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Hitchens, Christopher}}
[[Category:Authors|Hitchens, Christopher]]

[[Category: Journalists]]
[[Category: Liberals]]
[[Category: Atheists]]
[[Category: Evolutionists]]

Ubuntu

2010-04-27T00:33:41Z

NP: /* Ubuntu Christian Edition */

Ubuntu is a community-developed, free, [[Linux]]-based operating system. The name, which comes from an [[African]] [[philosophy]], means '[[Humanity]] to others', or 'I am what I am because of who we all are'.
[[Image:Gnomesword large.png|right|thumb|250px|Screenshot of Ubuntu [[Christian]] Edition.]]

==Features==
Ubuntu is based on the [[free software|free]] [[Linux]] [[kernel]] and a snapshot of the Debian program tree. It focuses on ease of use.

Ubuntu comes by default with many useful programs, including [[OpenOffice.org|OpenOffice]], [[Bluetooth]], [[Mozilla Firefox]], and (new in version 9.10) [[Ubuntu One]], a free online data backup service. Ubuntu also offers users the Ubuntu Software Center, which allows them to easily download many free programs, ranging from [[solitaire]] games to [[Integrated Development Environments]]. It has an increasing number of device drivers which allow it to run on most computers.

While installing Ubuntu has traditionally required burning the program image to a [[CD-ROM]], a program called [http://wubi-installer.org Wubi] allows people to install it from inside their current operating system, just like a normal program.

Since [[Microsoft Windows]] has the dominant market share, most [[computer virus|computer viruses]] are written for Windows. Therefore, users of [[Linux]] operating systems like Ubuntu do not need [[antivirus]] software.

==History==
Ubuntu is written by Canonical Ltd., a company owned by [[Mark Shuttleworth]], a South African billionaire who invented [[SSL]]. The first version, called Warty Warthog<ref>https://wiki.ubuntu.com/WartyWarthog</ref>, was released in October 2004. Since then, Canonical has released a new version of Ubuntu every six months. The current version, Karmic Koala, can be downloaded for free from the Ubuntu website<ref>http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/download</ref>.

It is difficult to measure how many people use Ubuntu, because anyone can freely redistribute copies. However, it has become very popular for low-cost [[netbook]] computers.

==Ubuntu Christian Edition==
Ubuntu [[Christian]] Edition, an enhanced free version of Ubuntu, offers many features for devout Christians. The Christian Edition includes parental controls and a rich selection of [[Bible]] [[software]]. It also comes with office and productivity software, financial management programs, and inspiring Christian artwork.

The standard version uses the [[GNOME Desktop|GNOME desktop]] environment. Other official versions include "Kubuntu", which uses [[KDE]] and "Xubuntu", which uses [[XFCE]].

This edition may also serve as an alternative who don't want an atheistic Linux distribution, which might leave out Bible software, parental controls, and other moral features. ([[Richard Stallman]], one of the major Linux programmers, is an atheist and suspected communist.)

==References==
{{reflist}}

* [http://www.ubuntu.com/ Official Site]
* [http://ubuntuce.com/ Ubuntu Christian Edition]
* [http://wubi-installer.org/ Wubi installer]

[[Category:Computer Science]] [[Category:Operating Systems]]

GNU/Linux

2010-04-24T20:23:24Z

NP: C'mon. He's an atheist.

[[Image:Tuxie.jpg|thumb|right|"Tux", the Linux mascot|90px]]
The '''GNU/Linux''' operating system is [[free software]] created to replace the [[Unix]] operating system. The system aims towards POSIX compliance, though it is not officially compliant and therefore cannot bear the trademark "UNIX."
The GNU project was started by atheist programmer [[Richard Stallman]] and was the impetus behind the creation of the [[Free Software Foundation]]. Except for the small but essential [[kernel]] (called Linux after its creator [[Linus Torvalds]]), substantial components of the operating system code were created by Stallman and other FSF contributors. There's a dispute over whether the FSF should be credited when mentioning the use of Linux. The trade press refer to the overall system as "Linux", which annoys Stallman to no end. Essays on the FSF website promote the use of the term "GNU/Linux" when referring to a system with Linux kernel and GNU project core components.

The Linux [[kernel]] communicates with the hardware and provides for many complex and essential operations such as process scheduling, memory management and file system operation. This is required to support the needs of all applications run on the system (such as the graphical user interface, media players, and servers). Most of these applications are not part of the Linux kernel project, and are part of separate projects, including GNU, but those who are unaware of or not concerned about the history of the project commonly used "Linux" to refer to the whole operating system. The Linux kernel was initially developed by Finnish grad student [[Linus Torvalds]] as an experimental project to run a UNIX-like system on x86-based PC hardware.

At this point, a very substantial portion of the software commonly used on a desktop system are not GNU software projects, such as KDE (graphical desktop environment), Firefox, OpenOffice.org, and Python (high-level programming language). On the other hand, even these popular products rely on basic services provided by GNU, such as the C runtime library (libc), compiler framework (gcc), and core POSIX command line utilities. Additionally, the GNU project includes several more substantial applications, such as the graphical desktop environment GNOME, which compete heavily with their alternatives.

Linux distinguishes itself from other operating systems such as proprietary UNIX and [[Microsoft Windows]] in that the [[source code]] for a complete working system is distributed under various [[open source]] licenses. In essence, this means that anybody can modify the code to their needs, and that the development most components happens in an open community, rather than in a closed commercial environment. Any improvements to the code will be contributed to the community, and any software that is based upon viral licenses will be, in turn, licenses under these. The Linux kernel itself is licensed under the GNU [[General Public License]] (GPL).

Linux is also different to the closed source operating system vendors in that the software is distributed by many different companies. Major Linux distributions include [http://www.redhat.com/ Red Hat], [http://www.novell.com/linux/ SUSE], [http://www.debian.org/ Debian] and [http://www.ubuntu.com/ Ubuntu]. There are literally hundreds of Linux distributions as can be seen on [http://distrowatch.com DistroWatch.com].

Numerous sources<ref>[http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/index.php?p=210 Intellectual Property - Left?]</ref> <ref>[http://www.flickr.com/photos/daviderickson/718933691/]</ref>, including Steve Ballmer<ref>[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/07/31/ms_ballmer_linux_is_communism/ MS' Ballmer: Linux is communism]</ref>, one of the driving minds behind the success of Microsoft, have claimed that the Open Source movement is inherently Communist. Both Free Software and Communism shun the idea of personal property, instead favoring a communal ownership where no single entity has control or authority.

In 2005 [http://www.forbes.com/ Forbes.com] posted [http://www.forbes.com/2005/03/15/cz_dl_0315linux_print.html an article] estimating Linux ran 60% of the world's top supercomputers at that time. In 2003 the [[IBM]] Linux Technology Center [http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/l-rel/?ca=dgr-lnxw01LTP concluded] that Linux has enterprise class reliability. Linux servers can run without reboot for years as can usually be seen at the [http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html Longest uptimes] URL on [http://www.netcraft.com/ Netcraft.com]. Another location to check on Linux uptime statistics is the [http://counter.li.org/reports/uptimestats.php Machine uptimes] page at [http://counter.li.org/ Linux Counter].

Owing to the nature of open source software, many variants of a Linux distribution may be created by using the original code and making changes to it to suit a particular need. For example, there is also a [[Ubuntu]] [[Christian]] Edition.<ref>[http://www.whatwouldjesusdownload.com/christianubuntu/2006/07/about-ubuntu-christian-edition.html Ubuntu Christian Edition]</ref>

[[Image:Gnomesword large.png|right|thumb|250px|Screenshot of Ubuntu Christian Edition.]]

Linux is quite possibly becoming one of the most commonly adopted operating systems in the world. However, this is difficult to quantify with hard evidence since most Linux distributions are given away for "free" and there are few sales records or marketing numbers to review. While personal computers in the United States and other "first world nations" still overwhelmingly use [[Microsoft]] operating systems such as Windows XP, Linux is a common choice for web servers, file servers and embedded platforms, thanks to its perceived reliability, low/no cost, and the fact that modifications to the source code can readily be made by anyone. For example, Linux has seen widespread use in numerous mass produced consumer electronic devices such as broadband residential routers, Digital Video Recorders, and cellphones.

As an example, in March of 2007 the server hosting the the Conservapedia web site was running the Linux operating system<ref>[http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://www.conservapedia.com NetCraft site report for Conservapedia.com]</ref>

==Linux as the 'Best of the Public'==
The ongoing development of the Linux operating system represents perhaps the single most important example of the [[Best of the public| 'best of the public']] collaboration model in the field of technology. The excellent stability and security of Linux, both in server and consumer versions, provide a powerful example of the success of this model.

==Linux Pre-Installed==
From its inception, it has been difficult to find new computers outside of the server and market available with Linux pre-installed. Although specialty companies like [http://system76.com System76] and [http://www.zareason.com Zareason] do sell computers equipped with desktop versions of [[Linux]] (specifically [[Ubuntu]]), until recently, mainstream computer manufacturers like [[Dell]] and [[HP]] resisted this trend. Users typically need to download the Linux distribution of their choice and install it on a computer themselves. Because many home computer users find the installation of an operating system a difficult task, this added step hinders the increase in the number of computers using a desktop version of [[Linux]]. This situation drastically changed in 2007 when [[Dell]] started selling laptop and desktop computers to the general public with Linux pre-installed<ref>[http://www.dell.com/content/topics/global.aspx/alliances/en/linux?c=us&cs=555&l=en&s=biz Dell and Linux]</ref>.

During 2008, a new type of low cost laptop computer, the "netbook" was introduced by most of the major manufacturers. To keep costs down, Linux was offered on most of the lines as an alternative to Windows XP (Windows Vista being unable to run on the low powered computers), bringing Linux into the mainstream computer market for the first time.

== References ==
<references />

==External links==
*[http://www.kernel.org/ The Linux Kernel Archives]
*[http://www.linux-foundation.org/en/Main_Page The Linux Foundation]

[[Category:Operating Systems]]

Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2010-04-24T20:20:27Z

NP: /* Conservative Words Not Yet Recognized by the Dictionary */

[[Image:Tax-spend.jpg|thumb|480px|The "tax-and-spend" slogan stuck to Harry Hopkins like a well-fitted suit.]]Each year the English language develops about a thousand new words. The [[King James Version]] of the [[Bible]] contains only about 8,000 different words,<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8013859.stm</ref> and many good words have developed since then.

The inevitable triumph of conservatism over liberalism is apparent from comparing the rates of generation of new terms of each type, and the quality of the terms so generated. [[Conservative]] terms are being generated at a faster rate, and with much higher quality, than [[liberal]] terms are.

Powerful, insightful new conservative terms have grown at a [[geometric progression|geometric rate]], roughly doubling every century. For every insightful new conservative term originating in the 1600s, there are two new terms originating in the 1700s, four new terms in the 1800s, and eight new terms in the 1900s, for a pattern of "1-2-4-8". Implications of a geometric increase for new conservative terms include a more conservative future and a correlation between conservatism and truth. The year 1612 is our starting point: the King James Version of the Bible had just been published in 1611, and [[William Shakespeare]] had written virtually all of his plays.

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Century
!# New Conservative Terms
!Most Prolific Periods
|-
|1600s
|18
|period following publication of [[KJV]]
|-
|1700s
|36
|[[Great Awakening|Great Awaken.]], [[American Revolution|Am. Revol.]], [[Constitutional Convention|Const. Conv.]]
|-
|1800s
|72
|1820s - political transition and conflict
|-
|1900s
|143
|1940s - [[World War II|WWII]] and postwar transition
|-
|2000s
|11 (preliminary)
|
|-
|}

==Conservative words and terms==

{{clear}}
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!New Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|[[accountability]]
|1794
|
|-
|[[action-at-a-distance]]
|1693
|[[Newton]]'s acceptance of this concept -- which became fundamental to [[electrostatics]] and [[quantum mechanics]] and has a basis in Christianity<ref>''See, e.g.'', [[Jesus]]'s cure of the centurion's slave.</ref> -- was central to the development of his theory of gravity.<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton-philosophy/#ActDis</ref> Einstein criticized this concept as "spooky".
|-
|alarmism
|1867
|needless warnings
|-
|alcoholism
|1860
|excessive or addictive drinking of alcohol
|-
|algorithm
|1894
|an efficient and consistent step-by-step methodology for achieving a goal, the opposite of [[liberal style]]
|-
|altruism
|1853
|selfless assistance of others; this also occurs in the animal kingdom, and is a [[counterexample to evolution]]
|-
|ambulance chaser
|1896
|a lawyer who searches for victims to persuade them to sue for his profit
|-
|[[American dream]]
|1911<ref>1911 is the date given by the "OED", which refers to the Oxford English Dictionary. The Merriam-Webster dictionary gives a date of 1931.</ref>
|The idea that one’s work should be rewarding.
|-
|[[anti-Christian]]
|1900s
|thirty-three million sites turn up in a Google search, yet the Merriam-Webster dictionary doesn't recognize this important term
|-
|anticompetitive
|1952
|interfering with open competition and the enormous benefits that flow from it
|-
|antilife
|1929
|critical term describing a tendency to oppose life and lifesaving care
|-
|assimilate
|1880s<ref>Estimate only; this originated sometime in the late 1880s.</ref>
|the desired absorption of immigrant groups into the culture and mores of the resident population
|-
|attention span
|1934
|correlated with intelligence, the attention span is how long someone can concentrate on something. It is rapidly shortening; the Lincoln-Douglas debates 150 years ago lasted for hours, but none do today.<ref>http://www.help4teachers.com/ras.htm</ref> The average length of sentences in speech is another indication of attention span, and it has been shortening significantly.
|-
|bailout
|1951
|wasting taxpayer money to rescue, temporarily, a failing company
|-
|bedrock
|1840-1850
|an American term for unbroken solid rock underneath fragments or soil, which adopted the figurative meaning of strong values: "bedrock principles"<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bedrock</ref>
|-
|biased
|1649
|
|-
|Big Brother
|1949
|government constantly watching its citizens; [[George Orwell]] first coined this term in his classic, ''[[1984]]''
|
|-
|Blame America Crowd<ref>Or "Blame-America-First Crowd"</ref>
|1984
|Michael Barone quoted [[Jeane Kirkpatrick]] as saying that the "San Francisco Democrats" (site of the Democratic National Convention in 1984) "always blame America first."<ref>http://www.creators.com/opinion/michael-barone/the-blame-america-first-crowd.html</ref>
|-
|blank check
|1884
|irresponsibly giving someone unlimited spending authority or power, as in "a Con Con would be a blank check to destroy the nation"
|-
|[[Blue Dog Democrat]]
|1995
|A person who adheres to conservative principles within the Democratic party, once called a Boll Weevil; as of 2009 there are 45-50 Blue Dog Democrats in the [[House of Representatives]], which is enough to form a majority with [[Republicans]]
|-
|boondoggle
|1935
|"Popularized during the [[New Deal]] as a contemptuous word for make-work projects for the unemployed." <ref>http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=boondoggle&searchmode=none</ref> The term gained popularity in [[Canada]] following a corruption scandal tied to the [[Liberal]] government in 2000.
|-
|bootstrap
|1913
|Unaided effort, personal merit, hard work
|-
|bork
|1988
|coined by William Safire to refer to how Democrats savage a conservative nominee, such as their defeat of Supreme Court nominee Robert H. Bork.
|-
|born-again
|1961
|it takes an open mind and heart
|-
|brainstorm
|1894
|a burst of productive thought
|-
|brinkmanship
|1956
|the art of displaying a willingness to use military force in order to obtain a just resolution to a conflict between nations
|-
|[[bureaucracy]]
|1818
|
|-
|busywork
|1910
|meaningless activity under the pretense of accomplishing something
|-
|can-do
|1903 <ref> according to the Oxford English Dictionary. [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/can-do Miram-webster] gives the date of 1945 </ref>
|Phrase coined in a short story by [[Rudyard Kipling]] that has come to refer to an attitude that espouses individual ability and responsibility and not reliance on [[entitlements]]
|-
|[[capitalism]]
|1850-1855
|creating jobs and wealth based on a private invention, ownership and investments rather than state-controlled resources
|-
|catharsis
|1775
|facilitating forgiveness and spiritual renewal by expression, as in writing or teaching or confession
|-
|chaperone
|1720
|care and well-being of youths overseen by adults
|-
|citizen's arrest
|1941
|private enforcement of the law without the need of a taxpayer-funded police officer
|-
|claptrap
|1799
|pretentious, verbose, and often liberal nonsense; example usage: "the professor wasted the rest of the class on his liberal claptrap"
|-
|closed shop
|1904
|a business that requires membership in a union as a condition of working there; 22 conservative states prohibit this
|-
|Coasean
|1980s
|an efficient result or bargain based on market forces without the distortions caused by [[transaction costs]]
|-
|Columbian
|1757
|relating to Christopher Columbus ''or the United States''
|-
|[[comparative advantage]]
|1815<ref>http://www-personal.umich.edu/~alandear/glossary/orig.html</ref>
|developed by the classical economist [[David Ricardo]], this reflects the insight that each country should "do what it does best" in deciding which goods to produce
|-
|competitive
|1829
|
|-
|Con Con
|1980s
|popularized by [[Phyllis Schlafly]] to highlight the deception and risks inherent in proposed national constitutional conventions
|-
|conservation of charge
|1949
|overall charge does not change in an isolated system; it is neither created nor destroyed; the concept was first suggested by [[Benjamin Franklin]] but the date of origin for this term is surprisingly recent
|-
|[[conservative]]
|1831
|
|-
|constant
|1832
|(noun) something unchanging in value
|-
|constitutionality
|1787
|its date of origin is the year of the [[Constitutional Convention]] that proposed the [[U.S. Constitution]]
|-
|copacetic
|1890s<ref>Merriam-Webster officially lists its date of origin as 1919 and its source as unknown, but that is well after when Robinson says he developed it.</ref>
|Bill “Bojangles” Robinson, tap dancer extraordinaire, claimed the invention of this word; it was first popularized by African Americans
|-
|copyright
|1735
|extending private property to protect expressive works
|-
|correlate
|1742
|(verb) to show that one thing relates to another, such as [[atheism]] or [[homosexuality]] and selfishness or lack of charity; [[liberal]]s falsely rely on anecdotes to deny the general relationship
|-
|[[countability (Mathematics)|countability]]
|1874
|[[Georg Cantor]], loathed by the leading contemporary [[mathematicians]], developed this in proving that the real numbers are ''uncountable''
|-
|counterexample
|1957
|an example that is contrary to the proposition
|-
|crackpot
|1884
|crazy talk, lunacy, a person on the fringe of reality
|-
|[[creation science]]
|1970s
|A term coined by the anti-[[evolution|evolutionist]] [[Henry Morris]].<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/28/AR2006022801716.html</ref>
|-
|cross-examination
|1824
|the most effective tool against [[liberal]] [[deceit]], better than even the requirement of an oath
|-
|crystal clear
|1815
|liberals are the opposite
|-
|[[culture war]]
|1991
|widespread use after the book ''Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America'' by James Davison Hunter
|-
|cyberbullying
|2000s
|describes obnoxious and hurtful liberal behavior on the internet
|-
|[[deadweight loss]]
|1930s<ref>Confirmation of the first use is desired.</ref>
|the loss in overall wealth and efficiency imposed by monopolies and taxation, due to the loss in extra value that someone would have received beyond what he would have paid for a good at a free market price
|-
|death tax
|1989
|interestingly, the term was coined by Canadians opposed to the high estate tax on their assets held in the United States; Frank Luntz is credited with later popularizing this term in the United States.<ref>''See'' Dr. Frank Luntz, ''Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear''</ref>
|-
|decrypt
|1935
|military code-breaking, which played an instrumental role in World War II in deciphering enemy codes that many felt were unbreakable; illustrates the "can do" approach of conservatism in a patriotic way
|-
|deflation
|1891
|an increase in the value of savings
|-
|defund
|1948
|refers especially to termination of government funding of a wasteful or hurtful program
|-
|deliberative assembly
|1774<ref>''Introduction to Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised'' (19th Ed. 2000), xxv.</ref>
|used by Edmund Burke in describing the British parliament during a speech to voters in Bristol; he meant a body of persons meeting to discuss and decide common action under parliamentary law
|-
|demagogue
|1648
|
|-
|[[deregulation]]
|1963
|Reagan won in 1980 by campaigning on this.
|-
|design by committee
|before 1958
|Pejorative directed against collective production by a group
|-
|despotism
|1727
|a ruler with unlimited powers
|-
|[[deterrence]]
|1861
|
|-
|devalue
|1918
|describing an unwelcome attitude or act, as in "devaluing human life"
|-
|disinformation
|1950s
|false information spread (and sometimes manufactured) by groups with a strong political agenda
|-
|division of labor
|1776
|increasing productivity through specialization of labor, as in a husband working in manufacturing while his wife cares for children
|-
|domino effect
|1966
|how the fall of one nation to communism can result in its harmful spread to neighboring nations
|-
|double standard
|1894
|applying harsher criticism against one group, such as churchgoers or conservatives, than against another group, such as atheists or liberals; recognition of a double standard by the [[Prodigal Son]] led him to repent and convert
|-
|doublethink
|1949
|[[George Orwell]] first coined this term in ''[[1984]]''; it means simultaneously holding contradictory beliefs, which is a characteristic of [[status worship]]
|-
|doubting Thomas
|1883
|someone who believes only what he can see and touch, and doubts all else
|-
|dumb down
|1933
|
|-
|Eagle Scout
|1913
|the highest rank in the [[Boy Scouts]], the term also means "a straight-arrow and self-reliant man."<ref>Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (1994).</ref>
|-
|editorialize
|1856
|"to introduce opinion into the reporting of facts"<ref>Merriam-Webster (1994).</ref>
|-
|[[efficiency]]
|1633
|Ultimately from the Latin ''efficientem'', meaning ''"working out, or accomplishing"''<ref>[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=efficient Online Etymological Dictionary]</ref>
|-
|egotism
|1714
|the root of atheism, as explained by Paul in Romans 1:21-22; the root of depression and anxiety also
|-
|[[elementary proof]]
|1865
|a mathematical proof based on the minimum assumptions associated with real analysis; term probably does not predate [[complex analysis]] and its first use may have been the English mathematician James Joseph Sylvester's paper, "On an elementary proof and generalisation of Sir Isaac Newton's hitherto undenionstrated rule for the discovery of imaginary roots."<ref>http://www.archive.org/stream/circular129johnuoft/circular129johnuoft_djvu.txt</ref>
|-
|[[elitism]]
|1950
|
|-
|[[entitlement]]
|1944
|
|-
|entrepreneur
|1852
|
|-
|[[ethnic voting]]
|1900s
|widely recognized and even advocated by some,<ref>http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/5/2/3/4/p152345_index.html</ref> yet the dictionary doesn't yet recognize it
|-
|Eurosceptic
|1970s
|someone who opposes joining the super-socialist [[European Union]]; some prefer the term "Eurorealist" to express this opposition, and sometimes "Eurosceptic" is used to criticize opponents of the EU
|-
|exculpatory
|1781
|often used in the phrase "exculpatory evidence," it took nearly 50 years to develop this term after origination of the legal term suggesting guilt: "incriminate"
|-
|faith healing
|1885
|
|-
|[[falsifiability]]
|1934
|first emphasized by Karl Popper in 1934, this helps define science: if a proposition is false, then it can be shown to be false. If not, then the proposition is not scientific.
|-
|[[family values]]
|1916
|widespread use after a speech by Vice President [[Dan Quayle]], 1992
|-
|father figure
|1934
|someone who fulfills the essential role of a father
|-
|[[federalism]]
|1789
|the unique system of dual sovereigns, state and federal (national), established by the [[U.S. Constitution]]
|-
|feedback
|1920
|an all-important element of accountability and improvement, and a key consideration in good engineering design
|-
|[[fellow traveller]]
|1925
|May have existed earlier, but popularized in 1924 by Trotsky. Describes a sympathizer of a cause but who does not formally belong to the cause, such as a [[communist]] sympathizer who is not part of the communist party.
|-
|[[Flip flop (politics)|flip-flop]]
|1976
|''verb'', meaning to change political position, typically due to [[liberal]] pressure. First used by the Republican S.I. Hayakawa campaign to describe California Democratic incumbent U.S. Senator John Tunney, whom Hayakawa defeated in an upset.
|-
|force-feed
|1901
|what liberals do to students in [[public schools]] today in training them to be [[atheist]]ic socialists
|-
|forward-looking
|1800
|planning for the future rather than dwelling on the past
|-
|[[free enterprise]]
|1820
|
|-
|free market
|1907
|
|-
|free world
|1949
|areas of the world free of communism
|-
|galvanize
|1802
|as in, "the liberal proposals ''galvanized'' the grassroots in opposition"
|-
|gateway drug
|1982
|abuse of alcohol/marijuana eventually leads to harder drugs cocaine/heroin
|-
|gerrymandering
|1812
|coined by a newspaper editor to criticize the manipulation of the lines of a new district into a salamander shape<ref>http://www.allbusiness.com/information/publishing-industries/251259-1.html</ref> that favored election of a liberal politician
|-
|globalism
|1997
|MW states it was first used in 1943<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/globalism</ref> and the OED gives a date of 1965 for the exact term 'globalism'<ref>http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50095613/50095613se2?single=1&query_type=word&queryword=globalism&first=1&max_to_show=10&hilite=50095613se2</ref> the term "globalization" was first used in the mid-1980s in a different, complimentary sense.
|-
|godsend
|1820
|
|-
|go-getter
|1921
|
|-
|gold standard
|1831
|the highest standard; in currency, when money could be exchanged for a fixed amount of gold
|-
|Good Samaritan
|1640
|how genuine charity is the best approach
|-
|goon
|1926
|a dim-witted thug, espec. one who intimidates on behalf of a union
|-
|[[grade inflation]]
|1975
|the tendency by Liberal educationalists and public schools to increase marks, irrespective of merit or actual achievement.
|-
|[[grassroots]]
|1901
|
|-
|Great Awakening
|1730-1740
|Christian spiritualism recurs periodically. See [[Essay:The Coming Fifth Great Awakening in America]].
|-
|Gresham's law
|1858
|the tendency in a free market for bad money (which loses its value) to drive out (be used more often in transactions) than good money (which retains its value), because people want to horde the good money while getting rid of the bad money; a similar effect can be seen when profanity drives out intelligent discussion
|-
|groupthink
|1952
|a style of thought consisting of conformity to a manufactured consensus and self-deception; coined by [[George Orwell]]
|-
|hallmark
|1721
|purity, authentic, official seal, distinguishing feature
|-
|hardworking
|1774
|
|-
|harmless error
|1861
|an insignificant violation of a duty or procedural rule; first used in ''Western Ins. Co. v. The Goody Friends'', 29 F. Cas. 764 (S.D. Ohio 1861) (referring to a duty)
|-
|hatchet job
|1944
|still looking for the context of its first use; today it means an article, typically by a liberal, that misleadingly smears someone, typically a conservative
|-
|Hawthorne effect
|1962
|the increase in achievement resulting merely from being observed; this was demonstrated by experiment at the Hawthorne Works of Western Electric in Cicero, Illinois
|-
|heckler's veto
|1965
|Coined by University of Chicago Law Professor Harvey Kalven, Jr., a strong supporter of free speech in politics, this term has been used in [[Supreme Court]] decisions by Justices [[Sam Alito]],<ref>''See'' ''Pleasant Grove City v. Summum'', 129 S. Ct. 1125 (2009); ''see also'' ''Child Evangelism Fellowship of N.J., Inc. v. Stafford Twp. Sch. Dist.'', 386 F.3d 514 (3rd Cir. 2004).</ref> [[Antonin Scalia]], and [[Clarence Thomas]].<ref>''Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch.'', 533 U.S. 98 (2001)</ref>
|-
|Hobson's choice
|1649<ref>This has the entertaining history of originating with an English liveryman who required customers to "choose" the horse closest to the door.</ref>
|an ostensible choice that disguises a lack of freedom, because each alternative is completely unacceptable. This term is invoked to criticize an illusory freedom of choice. This term has been used in 48 cases by Supreme Court Justices, more often by conservatives than by liberals.
|-
|honor system
|1903
|an approach to discipline that emphasizes and encourages trust, honesty and personal responsibility rather than constant supervision
|-
|[[homeschool]]
|1980<ref>The OED assigns a date of origin of 1850 to "homeschool".</ref>
|
|-
|[[homosexual agenda]]
|1989
|used to promote the agenda in the book ''After the Ball'', but then used to criticize the movement by Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] in his dissent in''Lawrence v. Texas'' (2003)''
|-
|human rights
|1766
|rights of all peoples, fighting for those less fortunate- justice for humanity
|-
|hysteria
|1801
|From the Latin ''hystericus'', from Greek ''hystera '' meaning ''"womb"''<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hysteria Meriam Webster Dictionary]</ref> (an old notion that hysteria was caused by the [[womb]]).
|-
|identity politics
|1988
|exploiting politics for racial, ethnic, gender equality.
|-
|illiteracy
|1660
|liberals seek to produce illiterate voters who lack independence, and many graduates of the [[public schools]] are illiterate today
|-
|incidental inequality
|2009
|inequalities that result as side effects of an objectively just system
|-
|incoherent
|1626
|the term often applies to liberal [[double standard]]s
|-
|incompleteness
|1931
|a system of logic or mathematics that includes propositions that are impossible to prove or disprove; term coined as a result of [[Kurt Godel]]'s work in 1931
|-
|incrementalism
|1966
|imposing bad political or social change slowly
|-
|independence
|1640
|free will
|-
|individualism
|1827
|values, rights and duties arise from the individual
|-
|inflationary
|1920
|policies causing inflation of the monetary supply
|-
|informed consent
|1967
|consent to surgery is meaningful only if informed, a requirement that should apply to abortion
|-
|initiative
|1793
|self-starting first step toward improvement
|-
|insightful
|1907
|what conservatism is about: gaining insights into the truth, and bettering individuals and society with them
|-
|intangible
|1914
|something valuable that cannot be seen or touched, such as goodwill
|-
|intellectual property
|1845
|"[W]e [should] protect intellectual property, the labors of the mind, productions and interests as much a man's own, and as much the fruit of his honest industry, as the wheat he cultivates, or the flocks he rears." ''Davoll v. Brown'', 7 F. Cas. 197 (Cir. Ct. Mass. 1845) (Woodbury, federal judge).
|-
|interventionism
|1923
|"governmental interference in economic affairs at home or in political affairs of another country"<ref>Merriam-Webster (1994).</ref>
|-
|invisible hand
|1776
|Coined by Adam Smith in the ''Wealth of Nations'' and widely used today.
|-
|Iron curtain
|1945
|coined by Winston Churchill in a speech in Missouri just after World War II, to describe the communist's figurative wall against freedom
|-
|ivory tower
|1910
|a description of the pampered culture of liberal [[professor values|professors]], and how far out of touch with the truth it is
|-
|[[judicial activism]]
|1947
|First coined in an article in ''Fortune'' magazine by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.,<ref>http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/278089</ref> and repeatedly used in U.S. Supreme Court opinions since 1967,<ref>''United States v. Wade'',
388 U.S. 218 (1967).</ref> yet as of 2009 [[Merriam-Webster]] dictionary still fails to recognize this widely used term.
|-
|judicial prejudice
|2009
|The bias of a judge in favor of a political correct identity group intended to rig outcome equality in favor of that group based on subjective bias rather than objective justice.
|-
|judicial restraint
|1942
|"Assuming that this court has power to act, it does not necessarily follow that it should act. ... In a number of situations, and in a number of cases, it has been held that courts should voluntarily refrain from using or asserting power. Where the use or assertion of power might be destructive of a well defined purpose of law or of a declared public policy such voluntarily imposed '''judicial restraint''' may be commendable."<ref>Osage Tribe of Indians v. Ickes, 45 F. Supp. 179, 184-85 (D.D.C. 1942) (emphasis added).</ref>
|-
|judicial supremacist
|2004
|One who advocates that the courts should be supreme over the other branches of government for certain legal issues; first coined in a book by [[Phyllis Schlafly]]; first used by the judiciary by the Michigan Supreme Court in ''Paige v. City of Sterling Heights'', 476 Mich. 495 (2006).<ref>A similar yet different concept, "judicial supremacy," was coined by [[conservative]] Supreme Court Justice [[Robert H. Jackson]] as the title of his book,'' The Struggle for Judicial Supremacy: A Study of a Crisis in American Political Power'' (New York: Knopf, 1941).</ref>
|-
|judicial taking
|1982
|Deprivation of private property due to a court decision; this concept was introduced by conservative Justice [[Potter Stewart]] in 1967, and the term was used for the first time independently by the Michigan and Hawaii Supreme Courts in the same month (!) in December 1982, and then used often in law review articles and Circuit Court decisions in the 2000s, and then the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] [[granted cert.]] on this issue in 2009.
|-
|[[junk science]]
|1962<ref>http://rated.com/dir/Society/Issues/Environment/Opposing_Views/Junk_Science</ref>
|the corruption of the scientific method to advance other, often political, goals
|-
|jury nullification
|1948
|the power of a jury to overrule the law and acquit an ostensibly guilty defendant; the power was established in the colonies in 1735 in the trial of [[John Peter Zenger]], but this term was first used in state court by Pfeuffer v. Haas, 55 S.W.2d 111 (Tex. Civ. App. 1932) and in federal court by ''Skidmore v. Baltimore & O. R. Co.'', 167 F.2d 54 (2nd Cir. 1948)
|-
|kiss of death
|1943
|from Judas's betrayal of Jesus with a kiss, Mark 14:44-4
|-
|kowtow
|1826
|obsequious, unthinking obedience to someone or something, used especially in the context of dictatorships and liberal belief systems
|-
|Kremlinology
|1958
|the study of the otherwise indecipherable behavior of the government of the [[communist]] [[Soviet Union]]. Refers to the Kremlin, the traditional seat of Russian government (Soviet or not).
|-
|labor camp
|1900
|forced work prison
|-
|laissez-faire
|1825
|opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond what is minimally necessary
|-
|lame duck
|1761
|one falling being in achievement, especially a public official whose power is limited because his term in office is set to expire without possibility of reelection.
|-
|leftism
|1920
|principles and doctrine of leftists
|-
|leverage
|1830
|
|-
|local
|1824<ref>This date refers to its first usage as a ''noun'', which is an estimate of its adoption as a concept.</ref>
|common usage: "all politics is local"
|-
|lone wolf
|1909
|a person who prefers to work, act, or live alone. <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lone%20wolf Lone wolf, Merriam-Webster]</ref> synonymous with self-sufficiency
|-
|loose cannon
|1973
|an undisciplined person or program that dangerously lacks forethought; used in mid-November 1976 to describe $11 billion in unspent appropriations by the Ford Administration: "'That money,' says Arnold Packer, a senior Senate Budget Committee economist who is helping Carter draw up his shadow budget, 'is like a loose cannon rolling around the deck' because a sudden reappearance of the funds could be inflationary." (''BusinessWeek'')
|-
|man-hater
|1970s<ref>This was during the epic struggle -- and defeat -- of the so-called [[Equal Rights Amendment]].</ref>
|William Safire wrote in the ''New York Times'' in 1983, "Misandry, from the Greek misandros for 'hating men,' is in the 1961 Merriam-Webster New International Dictionary, and the Oxford Dictionary Supplement traces it to 1946. The word is pronounced as 'Ms. Andry,' but I wonder why we need the Greek word for it. What's wrong with good, old-fashioned man-hater?"<ref>Sunday, Oct. 30, 1983, Section 6, Page 12, Column 3.</ref>
|-
|make-work
|1923
|inefficient or useless activity that has the false appearance of being productive; a favorite endeavor of liberals
|-
|manifest destiny
|1845
|Providential design over future events, which originated in the context of expanding the United States to the Pacific Ocean
|-
|materialism
|1748
|the view of life that physical matter is all that exists; as an "ism", the term criticizes such view
|-
|melting pot
|1912
|requires "social and cultural assimilation" for successful immigration<ref>Merriam-Webster dictionary (1994)</ref>
|-
|[[meritocracy]]
|1958
|
|-
|[[microeconomics]]
|1947
|the study of the economics of the individual person or business
|-
|mindset
|1926
|close-minded point-of-view, typically in adherence to a liberal falsehood and often to the exclusion of Christ
|-
|missile defense
|1980s
|popularized by President Ronald Reagan as part of [[SDI]]
|-
|missionary
|1625
|someone sent on a mission, typically a religious mission
|-
|mobocracy
|1754
|rule by a mob, as at Wikipedia
|-
|monogamy
|1612
|this has the same date of origin as "productive", and that may not be a coincidence!
|-
|motivation
|1873
|can you believe the word did not exist before 1873?!
|-
|muckety–muck
|1912
|a pejorative term for an arrogant person who holds a title or position considered to be important by others
|-
|Murphy's Law
|1958
|if something can go wrong, then it will go wrong: this was a conservative insight by an engineer Edward Murphy
|-
|muscle car
|1967
|placing a powerful engine in a classic two-door car for highly efficient performance; also celebrate masculine style against erosion by feminism
|-
|myopic
|1752
|originally a term in optometry, 1990's used to describe liberals' lack of foresight
|-
|negativism
|1824
|mental attitude that tends that is skeptical about almost everything, except one's own views
|-
|newspeak
|1949
|political or media expressions using circumlocution and euphemisms to disguise or distract from the truth; first coined by [[George Orwell]] in ''[[1984]]''
|-
|non-justiciable
|1922<ref>Used by the state attorneys for West Virginia (including Philip Steptoe, founder of Steptoe & Johnson) in ''Pennsylvania v. West Virginia'', 262 U.S. 553 (1923): "It is not the 'subject of judicial cognizance,' Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 15; Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U.S 1, 15; Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U.S. 208, 233, or 'susceptible of judicial solution.' Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U.S. 1, 18, 22; Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U.S. 208, 233, 234."</ref>
|a difficult issue that the courts should not attempt to resolve, often because it is too political in nature
|-
|non-locality
|1920s
|[[action at a distance]] at the atomic level; even though proven, it is still opposed by those who believe in [[relativity]] and still not recognized by Merriam-Webster
|-
|Old Glory
|1862
|The ''United States of America'' flag, Stars & Stripes
|-
|one-size-fits-all
|1996<ref>Was there an earlier conservative use? Frank Zappa's album cover in the 1970s does not count!</ref>
|Lee Wishing, director of communications for Grove City College, in criticism of how the government administers student loans: "Unfortunately, with government programs, it's one size fits all."<ref>http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/1996/dec96/er-dec96.html</ref> The 2008 Republican platform states, "We reject a one-size-fits-all approach and support parental options, including home schooling, and local innovations such as schools or classes for boys only or for girls only and alternative and innovative school schedules."<ref>http://platform.gop.com/2008Platform.pdf</ref>
|-
|open-minded
|1828
|See [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness]]
|-
|[[opportunity cost]]
|1911
|
|-
|optimism
|1759
|
|-
|originalism
|1985
|taken from original intent, The belief that the United States Constitution should be interpreted in the way the authors originally intended it
|-
|Orwellian
|1960s
|terminology or style that advances the power of big government but is hurtful or nonsensical<ref>http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=604</ref>
|-
|ostensibly
|1765
|having an outward appearance that may not reflect the underlying truth; good potential use is Luke 3:23 in describing Jesus as the son of Joseph
|-
|parenting
|1958
|Children raising
|-
|Parkinson's Law
|1955
|how bureaucracies expand regardless of the productivity, and how inefficient work expands to fill the time available for its completion
|-
|[[patent troll]]
|2001
|a company that obtains or buys up patents for the sole purpose of asserting infringement claims, and without any intention of actually manufacturing the invention; the term was first coined by Peter Detkin, in-house counsel to Intel
|-
|patriotism
|1726
|
|-
|Pavlovian
|1926
|a conditioned, automatic and unthinking response to a signal; it has been used twice by [[conservative]] Supreme Court Justices. "It is well established that this Court does not, or at least should not, respond in Pavlovian fashion to confessions of error by the [[Solicitor General]]." ''De Marco v. United States'', 415 U.S. 449, 451 (1974) ([[Rehnquist]], J., dissenting); "'[[Incorporation doctrine|Incorporation]]' has become so Pavlovian that my Brother BLACK barely mentions the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] in the course of an 11-page opinion dealing with the procedural rule the State of [[Florida]] has adopted for cases tried in Florida courts under Florida's criminal laws." '' Williams v. Fla.'', 399 U.S. 78, 144 (1970) ([[Potter Stewart|Stewart]], J., dissenting and concurring).
|-
|[[personhood]] <ref>[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/personhood Personhood] Dictionary.com</ref>
|1955
|Inherent rights guaranteed to all human beings from the beginning of their biological development, including the pre-born, partially born. Also, the state or fact of being a person.
|-
|Philadelphia
|1682
|Coined by [[William Penn]] and meaning "city of brotherly love," the concept captures the "[[best of the public]]" approach
|-
|[[phonics]]
|1684
|conservatives have long championed phonics to promote literacy, Bible-reading, and informed voters; liberals take the opposite position
|-
|phony
|1900<ref>This surprisingly recent origin appears to be derived from a British confidence game.</ref>
|needed to address [[liberal deceit]]
|-
|[[politically correct]]
|1983
|This term originated among radicals at the [[University of Wisconsin-Madison]] to enforce radical orthodoxy, but immediately flipped in usage to become a term of mockery of radicals.<ref>For an early different usage of the word, see 1793 J. WILSON in U.S. Rep. (U.S. Supreme Court) 2 (1798) 462 Sentiments and expressions of this inaccurate kind prevail in our..language... ‘The United States’, instead of the ‘People of the United States’, is the toast given. This is not politically correct.</ref> The term may have come from Chairman Mao in 1936.
|-
|politicize
|1846
|seeking political gain at the expense of truth or quality<ref>The Merriam-Webster definition (1994 ed.) is incomplete and unclear: "to give a political tone or character to"</ref>
|-
|potential
|1817<ref>Usage here refers to "promise", not "possibility".</ref>
|
|-
|privatize
|1940
|to return a business or enterprise from state to private control; to de-nationalize.
|-
|proactive
|1933
|
|-
|productive
|1612
|
|-
|productivity
|1810
|the gap of about 200 years between the creation of "productive" and "productivity" is astounding
|-
|[[pro-life]]
|1960
|
|-
|property right
|1853
|
|-
|provocateur
|1919
|someone who spends more time causing unproductive conflicts rather than advancing knowledge, accomplishing legitimate goals, or helping anyone
|-
|quantify
|1840
|
|-
|race card
|1995<ref>This is the date of its widespread familiarity.</ref>
|"Playing the race card" consists of relying on racial emotions or charges of racism in order to overcome the truth and logic in politics, legal proceedings, or otherwise; this term became familiar in the criticism of the defense and acquittal of O.J. Simpson for the murder of his ex-wife and her friend.
|-
|rapture
|1629
|Spiritual ecstasy[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=rapture]
|-
|[[recidivism]]
|1886
|the tendency for people lacking in [[faith]] and determination to revert to prior patterns of harmful behavior, such as repeat criminal offenders
|-
|recuse
|1949
|self-removal by a decision-maker (especially a judge) because of possible bias with respect to the pending issue
|-
|red tape
|1736
|excessive bureaucracy and procedural complexity which frustrate meaningful activity and progress
|-
|[[relativism]]
|1865
|the view that ethical truths are not absolute, but depend on the person or group that holds them
|-
|[[responsibility]]
|1737
|1787 HAMILTON Federalist No. 63 II. 193 Responsibility in order to be reasonable must be limited to objects within the power of the responsible party.
|-
|reverse discrimination
|1969
|the use of quotas or affirmative action to use race or gender to discriminate against a better qualified person
|-
|revisionism
|1903<ref>The first use of this term, now obscure, refers to a Marxist movement that preferred evolutionary rather than revolutionary change.</ref>
|distortions of history to promote liberal bias
|-
|riot act
|1715<ref>Its colloquial use, as in "read them the riot act," began in 1819.</ref>
|the Riot Act was a law passed in England in 1715 to authorize officials to disperse riots
|-
|salutary neglect
|1775
|coined by the [[conservative]] [[Edmund Burke]] in his 1775 speech to the British [[House of Commons]] entitled "On Moving His Resolutions for Conciliation with the Colonies"<ref>http://www.archive.org/stream/burkesspeechonco00burkuoft/burkesspeechonco00burkuoft_djvu.txt</ref>
|-
|school choice
|1980
|popularized by Milton Friedman in his book, ''Free to Choose''
|
|-
|Segway
|2001
|Dean Kamen's trademark spelling of "segue" for use of Yankee Ingenuity to improve efficiency, to refer to a form of battery-powered transportation.
|-
|[[self-defense]]
|1651
|
|-
|self-destruct
|1968
|often the tragic result of liberal falsehoods
|-
|[[Discipline|self-discipline]]
|1838
|
|-
|self-reliant
|1848
|
|-
|separation of powers
|1748
|the fundamental insight underlying the [[U.S. Constitution]]
|-
|skullduggery
|1867
|underhanded or unscrupulous behavior
|-
|slippery slope
|1900s
|term has been widely used for decades to expose the fallacy of "it doesn't hurt to try"
|-
|smoking gun
|1974
|a law-and-order term, "smoking gun" was first used as figurative term in a reported judicial decision in ''Rodgers v. United States Steel Corp.'', 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12775 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 20, 1975), and many literal uses of the term in court decisions before that!
|-
|[[socialist]]
|1827
|someone who advocates government control over the economy, and particularly state control of the means of production
|-
|social justice rhetoric
|2009
|Language and rhetorical ploys equating equality of outcome with justice.
|-
|spend-and-tax
|2009<ref>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/02/morning-bell-the-obama-tax-and-spend-economy-is-here/</ref>
|a variation on "tax-and-spend" (see below), "spend-and-tax" consists of spending the money first and then trying to justify raising taxes based on the deficit created by the spending
|-
|stalking horse
|1788
|a candidate or issue that serves to increase the chances that ''another'' will win, as in "antifederalists attempted to win elections by using 'the stalking horse of amendments.'"<ref>''Centinel'', 1788 (quoted in ''The Federalist party in Massachusetts to the year 1800'', By Anson Ely Morse).</ref>
|-
|[[statism]]
|1919
|advocates for centralized government and government ownership
|-
|straightforward
|1806
|
|-
|straw man
|1896
|an imaginary argument or example set up for the purpose of easily knocking down, while distracting from valid arguments
|-
|Stupaked
|2010
|hurt by someone who reassured everyone he would do the right thing, but then switched at the last minute to do the opposite (refers especially to [[abortion betrayal]]s)<ref>Columnist Kathleen Parker is credited with first coining this term.</ref>
|-
|supply-side
|1976
|the economic theory that reducing taxes expands economic activity by encouraging greater earnings and investments; proven successful during the Reagan Administration in the 1980s
|-
|takeover
|1917
|as in the takeover of government by the communist revolution in that year
|-
|tax-and-spend
|1937
|Not yet recognized by Merriam-Webster, it is included in dictionary.com and it means the liberal policy of raising taxes and increasing government spending
|-
|taxpayer
|1816
|the word highlights who is really paying for things
|-
|[[term limits]]
|1861
|can you believe this is not in the dictionary yet? Merriam-Webster omits it, but dictionary.com has it<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/term+limit</ref>
|-
|terrorism
|1795
|this was during the French Revolution
|-
|[[textualism]]
|1952
|first used by Justice [[Robert Jackson]] in his influential concurrence in ''[[Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer]]'', 343 U.S. 579 (1952), it now describes the legal philosophy of Justice [[Antonin Scalia]]
|-
|top-notch
|1900
|the highest quality, which requires respect for merit to recognize
|-
|tour de force
|1802
|a feat of skill
|-
|trademark
|1838
|extends the concept of private property to the marks used by business
|-
|traditionalist
|1856
|"adherence to the doctrines or practices of a tradition...the beliefs of those opposed to modernism, liberalism, or radicalism"<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/traditionalist</ref>
|-
|[[transaction cost]]
|1961
|Economist [[Ronald Coase]] won a [[Nobel Prize]] for this.
|-
|[[transistor]]
|1948
|named by John R. Pierce and developed at the [[conservative]] [[Bell Labs]], this invention epitomized Yankee ingenuity; Pierce was a critic of claims of [[artificial intelligence]] and was the future developer of [[Telstar]], a precursor to the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]]
|-
|tree huggers
|1970s
|still not recognized by the dictionary, this term criticizes extreme environmentalists, but they proudly use the term also to describe what they literally do
|-
|trivia
|1920
|insignificant detail, which can sometimes obscure what is important and distract people from the Bible; liberal [[Wikipedia]] is filled with trivial junk
|-
|Trojan horse
|1837
|describes a type of liberal [[deceit]]: subversion from within
|-
|trust but verify
|1980s
|popularized by President Ronald Reagan as the approach to use towards communist [[deceit]]
|-
|ugly duckling
|1883
|an unpromising appearance but often with great unseen potential
|-
|ultra vires
|1793
|beyond the authority, especially of a government or corporate official
|-
|underemployed
|1908
|having less than full-time or suitable employment
|-
|vandalism
|1798
|malicious destruction of someone else's property
|-
|veracity
|1623
|devotion to truthfulness
|-
|vet
|1904<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2199254/?from=rss</ref>
|a verb meaning to screen for flaws
|-
|[[victimization]]
|1840
|-
|volunteer
|1618
|someone who freely offers to help
|-
|wannabe
|1981
|a word that criticizes liberal [[status worship]]
|-
|War on Terror
|2001
|no listing at Merriam-Webster February 2, 2009 Obama ends use of the conservative lexicon. <ref>[http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=17455 Obama administration drops 'war on terror' phrase] Pew Forum, February 2, 2009</ref>
|-
|wildcatter
|1883
|a pro-energy term that describes someone who drills for oil in fields not known to have oil
|-
|word poverty
|2001<ref>http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/summer2001/lang_gap_moats.html</ref>
|popularized by President [[George W. Bush]]
|-
|work (physical sense)
|1826
|a physical measure<ref>force times distance</ref> of effort used to increase energy
|-
|work ethic
|1951
|a habit of working as a moral good
|-
|worldview
|1858
|a comprehensive way of looking at life and the world; sometimes used to criticize a liberal's irrational belief system
|-
|yellow journalism
|1898
|the practice, started by newspaper publishers Joseph Pulitzer and his rival William Randolph Hearst, of sensationalizing and biasing newspaper headlines and articles in order to influence public opinion
|-
|}

'''Rate of Generation of Conservative Terms'''

__TOC__ 

== Conservative Words Not Yet Recognized by the Dictionary ==

A thousand new words are developed in English each year. Here is a growing list of conservative concepts, each of which is not yet defined by a single word or two.

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Not Yet Recognized Terms
!Suggestions
!Comments
|-
|pre-9/11 thinking
|9/10 mindset
|terror is jurisdiction of the courts
|-
|anti-family
|tradition opposer, familiopathic
|
|-
|causing harm by spreading falsehoods
|deceit
|e.g., denying or concealing disease and infertility caused by promiscuity
|-
|cradle to grave <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/spanish/from%20cradle%20to%20grave cradle to grave- no entry found] Merriam-Websters</ref>
|sanctity of life, conception to natural death
|pro-life stance, also can mean socialist entitlement programs
|-
|cut and run
|surrender advocates
|when the going gets tough, run away from the problem
|-
|[[deliberate ignorance]]
|mind-locked, self-centered pride obscuring the truth
|the term exists; the dictionary does not yet include it
|-
|denial that [[Hell]] exists
|Hell-denier? Antinfernal? (Should be "antihadessic" so as not to mix Hellenate and Latinate roots)
|
|-
|[[abstinence denial|denier of the effectiveness of abstinence]]
|abstinence-denier?
|
|-
|drive-by media
|partisan slander
|liberal mainstream media assault on the GOP or conservative principles, deceitful attacks for opposing viewpoints
|-
|easily amused by [[deceit]]
|dolophile
|from Greek/Latin root ''dolo-'' meaning guile, deceit, deception [http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/664]
|-
|family-friendly
|wholesome
|describes TV programming, websites, social events that are not offensive
|-
|Hatred of one's country, refusal to recognize the good elements of it, or unreasonably critical of it
|Misopatria, misopatrist
|From Greek ''misein'', to hate, and Latin ''patria'', nation or homeland
|-
|heavenly body
|celestial body
|natural objects visible in the sky
|-
|hellbound
|
|recognized by over 1.3 million sites in a Google search and no substitute term is available, yet dictionaries refuse to recognize it
|-
|Hoax and Chains
|[[Keynesian economics]]
|A phonetic play on the rhetoric slogan of Hope and Change. Hope replaced by unemployment and Change represents obsessive tax burdens.
|-
|hoax plant
|fake townhall, kkk teaparty
|a term to describe a deceitful method of placing an operative that appears to be part of a group in order to push an agenda or to make a competing agenda look ridiculous.
|-
|[[Illegal Alien|illegal alien]]
|
|widely used in court decisions and political discourse for years, Merriam-Webster still does not recognize it is as a term.
|-
|infotainment
|tabloid news, dramacast
|mainstream media presents drama fluff stories as news, e.g. 20/20 - Dateline
|-
|lamestream media
|liberal news media
|coined by Bernie Goldberg and used by Sarah Palin to describe the corrupt [[Mainstream media]]
|-
|[[Limited government]]
|we the people democracy
|first testament to this was the [[U.S. Constitution]], defining [[Reagan]]s presidency, can't be found in Merriam-Websters. <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/limited%20government Limited government - Not found] Merriam-Webster's</ref>
|-
|[[limousine liberal]]
|hypocrite
|rich promoting causes which they themselves don't adhere to
|-
|merit pay
|performance bonus
|Doing your job better with perks as a reward. The typical liberal union teacher avoids merit pay at all costs, self before students.
|-
|[[militant gays]]
|intimidating homosexual
|
|-
|modern idolatry
|"media idolatry"; "money idolatry"; "celebrity idolatry"
|idolatry conjures images of golden calves, and a modern version is needed
|-
|moral fabric
|domestic tranquility
|ethics and virtues united for the common good of all
|-
|morally bankrupt
|[[atheism]], self-void
|ethically and spiritually challenged souls
|-
|opposite of [[materialism]]
|spiritualism and idealism have been its philosophical opposites, historically
|[[dualism]] has been suggested, but it is not the ''opposite'' of [[materialism]]; "spiritualism" is not a common term and is the "opposite" of materialism
|-
|[[peer pressure]]
|
|can you believe that isn't recognized by Merriam-Webster?
|-
|proven wrong, a refusal to admit it
|mulism; heel-digger?
|cf. mulish. This refusal is what promoted the [[Parable of the Good Samaritan]].
|-
|religious right
|Christian conservatives
|Religion in America almost exclusively a conservative institution, no religious left term in existence.
|-
|reward failure
|TARP
|too big to fail, bailout bankrupt, mismanagement subsidized
|-
|rewrite history <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/rewrite%20history rewrite history not found, Merriam-Websters]</ref>
|[[deceit]], mislead
|Commonly used term describing liberal deceit to hide, defraud others about factual history.
|-
|rogue states
|rogue nations
|nations defying international law, only rogue is listed in Merriman-Websters
|-
|runaway jury
|The term has existed for decades, but Merriam-Webster has not recognized it yet.
|
|-
|Rule of Law
|
|
|-
|[[schlockumentary]]
|propaganda film
|documentary films based falsehoods and half-truths
|-
|[[Second generation atheist|second-generation atheist]]
|cradle atheist
|
|-
|selective outrage
|partisan hypocrisy, bipolar
|to be against something to further a cause and reject, stay silent, ignore or discount something similar.
|-
|strict constructionism
|
|an important term for over 200 years to describe adherence to the text of the Constitution, Merriam-Webster still does not recognize it.
|-
|[[Conservative| Traditional Values]]
| principles of Conservatism
|much the same as family values but incorporating all aspects society; family, religion, self-sufficiency, the truth, hard work. Only listed in Merriam-Websters to describe what Nilihism is against.
|-
|true emergency
|life support
|meaning a high probability of serious injury or death to an individual or property. Emergency has been watered down, e.g. to be locked out of one's car.
|-
|Unaffected by, or impervious to, the media
|mediaproof
|cf. bulletproof. ''Once John became aware of the extent of [[liberal deceit]], he set about mediaproofing his mind''.
|-
|probort
|supborter?
|A clear, concise, and conservative contraction for "pro-abort", someone who supports taxpayer-funded abortions.
|-
|}

== New Liberal Terms ==

New liberal words often have deceptive, or nonsensical, meanings. Here are some new words created by liberals to combat [[conservatism]]:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!New Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|[[Agnosticism|agnostic]]
|1860
|Someone who claims to not know whether [[God]] exists but still lives like an [[atheist]]
|-
|[[Atheism|atheist]]
|1571
|useful and often deceptive alternative name for an anti-Christian
|-
|[[Big Bang theory|big bang]]
|1948
|term invented by the leading [[British]] physicist Sir [[Fred Hoyle]] to ''mock'' this suggestion of how the universe was formed, but later accepted as a serious term rather than mockery;<ref>Compare this migration with that of "politically correct," which started out as a serious term but then adopted a sense of mockery</ref> it's liberal because it trivializes the beauty and the [[faith]] of the moment
|-
|bilingual education
|1972
|a euphemism describing a costly and hurtful program that hinders the learning of English by foreign-born children in American [[public school]]s, which hurts their future opportunities
|-
|[[carbon footprint]]
|1999<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/carbon%20footprint</ref>
|term indicates an individual human's effect on the environment by production of carbon dioxide
|-
|chairperson
|1971
|Even Alice Sturgis, the leading parliamentarian of the 20th century, rejected this cumbersome form of political correctness.
|-
|check-off
|1911
|automatic deduction of union dues by the employer from the employee's paycheck, so he has no choice
|-
|[[class warfare]]
|
|first entered the political lexicon primarily as an attack by liberals against conservatives. <ref>[http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030115.html The art of "class warfare"], Ben Fritz, Spinsanity.org, January 15, 2003</ref>
|-
|[[communism]]
|1840
|
|-
|compassionate-care clinics
|2008
|a term describe pot-shops that dispense medical marijuana <ref>[http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/11/magazines/fortune/medical_marijuana_legalizing.fortune/?postversion=2009091116 How marijuana became legal, CNN, September 11, 2009]</ref>
|
|-
|compassion fatigue
|1968
|Liberals, driven by materialistic self-interest, are likely to suffer from this.
|-
|[[condescension]]
|1647
|Treating another person as though they are inferior
|-
|[[creationism]]
|1880
|like most "isms", creationism is a derogatory term coined preferred most by opponents of it.
|-
|[[Dark Ages]]
|1730
|A term coined in the so-called [[enlightenment]] to disparage the period between the fall of the [[Roman Empire]] and c.1000, when the Christian faith, and its learning and culture, spread across Europe.
|-
|[[Dead white males|dead white males]]
|
|a disparaging term used of significant figures from previous generations by those who wish to undermine [[Cultural Literacy|cultural literacy]]
|-
|deconstruction
|1973
|a style of interpretation of texts that looks beyond the plain meaning of the text in order to infer or accuse the writers of social bias
|-
|diva
|1883
|modern use to describe female Hollywood/media personalities
|-
|[[Détente|detente]]
|1970s
|A euphemism referring to pacifist policy re. the Soviet Union
|-
|distributive justice
|
|A term used to redefine socialist abridgment of rights as "just"
|-
|[[enlightenment]]
|1669
|
|-
|[[Environmentalist|environmentalism]]
|1922
|a mixture of [[pseudoscience]] and neo-[[paganism]] used to justify the imposition of [[socialist]]ic controls.
|-
|[[exclusionary rule]]
|1964
|an invented rule that requires censoring and withholding from the jury certain incriminating evidence about a criminal defendant, simply based on how the evidence was obtained.
|-
|[[family planning]]
|1939
|planning intended to determine the number and spacing of one's children through birth control <ref>[http://mw1.m-w.com/dictionary/family%20planning Family Planning, Merriam-Webster]</ref>
|-
|freethinker
|1692
|the euphemism "free" hides the hostility towards faith, which is not free
|-
|[[fundamentalism]]
|1922
|"a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching"<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fundamentalism</ref> From a series of pamphlets called "The Fundamentals" which outlined the movement. Perjorative usage started when the liberal [[Harry Emerson Fosdick]] began using the term in a straw man attack against [[Conservative Christianity]].
|-
|[[feminism]]
|1895
|notionally, "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes"; in reality, the attempt to destroy traditional family, societal and religious values by erasing or undermining natural gender differences.
|-
|[[gay rights]]
|1969
|The movement for civil rights for homosexuals
|-
|glass ceiling
|1984
|the notion that an invisible barrier prevents women and ethnic minorities from reaching high office; an excuse for [[feminist]]s and others to demand [[affirmative action]]
|-
|[[global warming]]
|1969
|The baseless [[environmentalist]] mantra that the earth's temperature is rising, and that human intervention is the cause.
|-
|[[goth]]
|?
|"A style of rock music, noted especially for somber or ethereal tones and lugubrious lyrics", or someone who performs or listens to this style of music.<ref>Dictionary.com, ''goth'' [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/goth]</ref> Goths often "dress in black with heavy jewelry".<ref>Dictionary.com, ''goth rock'' [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/goth%20rock]</ref> The term is taken from the name of "a Germanic people who invaded the Roman Empire in the early centuries of the Christian era".<ref>Dictionary.com, ''goth'' [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/goth]</ref>
|-
|gun control
|1969
|a euphemism for restricting the right to keep and bear arms
|-
|[[homophobia]]
|1969
|used by Liberals to describe a failure to subscribe 100% to the [[homosexual agenda]].
|-
|[[humanism]]
|1808 <ref>http://newhumanist.org.uk/1740</ref>
|
|-
|[[imperialism]]
|1851
|a clever term later used by liberals to interfere with Christian missionaries and stopping anti-Christian tyranny
|-
|[[isolationism]]
|1922
|a pejorative term that is critical of American politicians putting America first in priorities
|-
|Keynesianism
|1946
|advocacy of 'tax and spend' policies as elaborated by the economist [[John Maynard Keynes]]; a [[euphemism]] for back-door [[Socialism]].
|-
|[[Living Constitution]]
|2000
|a continually evolving Constitution (first used by presidential candidate Al Gore, title of a 1936 book by Howard McBain)
|-
|main squeeze
|1968
|one's romantic partner, typically in an unmarried relationship
|-
|McCarthyism
|1950
|Originally, investigations by Sen. Joe McCarthy of Communists working in sensitive USA government jobs. Later, it more broadly refers to holding radical leftists accountable for their beliefs and loyalties.
|-
|[[metrosexual]]
|1994
|fashion and glamour man
|-
|moderate
|late 1900s
|the original term dates from the French Revolution, but its meaning today is a euphemism for someone who favors abortion and/or supports censorship of Christianity in some ways.
|-
|[[moving the goalposts]]
|late 1980s
|a sports analogy designed to avoid answering a logical follow-up question; this is a favorite term of evolutionists to avoid addressing obvious deficiencies in their theory
|-
|nationalize
|1800
|a euphemism for the government taking over ownership and control of a large company or entire industry, as in socialism
|-
|natural selection
|1857
|a misleading and euphemistic term for the theory that genetic advantages and conflict dictate survival
|-
|[[Nihilism]]
|1817
|a rejection of the values system, independently anarchist from society norms.
|-
|[[population control]]
|1968
|the issue of population dates back to Confucius. Liberals promoted the term after the book The Population Bomb by Paul R. Ehrlich
|-
|[[pro-choice]]
|1975
|a euphemism for insisting on taxpayer-funded [[abortion]]; people who claim to be pro-choice typically oppose ''informed'' choice, which makes the "choice" meaningless
|-
|[[progressivism]]
|1892
|the progressive movement was not entirely liberal; it was started by a Republican and shared some goals with conservatives, and still does
|-
|[[psychoanalysis]]
|1906
|contributed to de-spiritualization of human beings
|-
|public option
|2009
|obfuscate rewording of government control
|-
|[[quote mining]]
|non-existent
|a term used by [[evolutionists]] to describe taking quotes out of context in order to damage the position of the quoted party.
|-
|[[Sexual Discrimination|sexism]]
|1968
|That which is practiced by those who do not give total support to [[feminism]].
|-
|shovel-ready <ref>[http://skylineviews.typepad.com/skyline_views/2009/04/is-it-time-to-add-shovelready-to-the-dictionary.html Is it time to add shovel-ready to the dictionary? Skyline Views, April 24, 2009]</ref>
|2008
|jobs and people ready to work if funded
|-
|situation ethics
|1955
|a euphemism for denying fixed ethical standards
|-
|strict liability
|1869
|court-imposed liability even when there is no evidence of any fault by the defendant
|-
|sustainability
|1727
|[[environmentalism|environmentalist]] buzzword
|-
|Swift-Boating
|2004
|Allegations of unfair campaign tactics.
|-
|transforming society
|2008
|Obama, Rahm and Axelrod use this term. It dates to [[Saul Alinsky]] and Chicago politics. <ref>[http://marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930# Mark Levin Show, July 7, 2009]</ref>
|-
|transnationalist
|2006
|popularized by Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh in a 2006 law review article: "The transnationalists view domestic courts as having a critical role to play in domesticating international law into U.S. law ...."<ref>Penn State Law Review (2006).</ref>
|-
|undocumented immigrant
|2000
|a [[politically correct]] replacement for illegal alien.
|-
|unfair
|1700
|
|-
|union shop
|1904
|
|-
|[[Unitarian]]
|1687
|
|-
|will to power
|1907
|[[Nietzsche]]'s concept of the drive of a superman to perfect himself by exercising creative power; it didn't catch on
|-
|woman's rights
|1833
|women equal to men; the defining movement to justify aborting babies in the 20th century
|-
|}

== Rate of Generation of Liberal Terms ==

The rate of generation of liberal terms is increasing, but not with the enduring value of the conservative terms and not with their geometric rate of increase. A remarkably high percentage of new liberal terms originated in the 1960s, suggesting that new liberal terms arise in a sporadic manner heavily influenced by culture:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Century
!# New Liberal Terms
|-
|1600s
|4
|-
|1700s
|2
|-
|1800s
|11
|-
|1900s
|30 (9 in the 1960s)
|-
|2000s
|5
|-
|}

== Terms Difficult to Classify ==

These new terms are difficult to classify:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|[[Affirmative Action|affirmative action]]
|1961
|first used in [http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal6/eo10925.htm JFK's Executive Order 10925] in 1961 and subsequently promoted by [[LBJ]].
|-
|American exceptionalism
|1980<ref>An estimate; it originated no later than 1983.</ref>
|Coined by sociologist Daniel Bell, its meaning today is unclear; it is used to urge exporting American-style elections to the rest of the world as urged especially by [[neoconservatives]].
|-
|Americanism
|1781
|Originally, a phrase unique to American English, later, loyalty to America and its principles
|-
|bipartisan
|1909
|emphasized by liberals when they are in the minority in power, but ignored by liberals when they are the majority in power
|-
|Cold War
|1947
|open hostilities and ideological driven differences between nations
|-
|compartmentalize
|1925
|compartmentalizing the Bible away from knowledge and education leads to ignorance and despair
|-
|eclectic
|1683
|taking the best from among different styles or ideas; compare [[best of the public]]
|-
|evangelism
|1620-30
|"isms" are usually pejorative, though this acquired a positive meaning over time, and perhaps from the outset
|-
|genetics
|1905
|perhaps this should be on the conservative list?
|-
|inane
|1662
|refers to comments, often made by liberals, that are utterly devoid of substance
|-
|junk legislation
|1980s
|used initially by liberals to complain about the lack of meaningful legislation
|-
|missionary
|1635-1645
|conservative?
|-
|Multitasking
|1966
|multiple tasks all at once
|-
|polar coordinates
|1694
|Newton may have used it earlier
|-
|republican
|1685
|
|-
|scrooge
|1843
|the main character in Charles Dickens' ''A Christmas Carol''; the story is based on materialism and is often used as a substitute for the Biblical account, but charity is a conservative value
|-
|smoke and mirrors
|1982
|describes the use of deceit, particularly in politics; probably a conservative term, but will await more etymology about it
|-
|soapbox
|1907
|now used pejoratively, but probably not initially when it was a way for the public to participate
|-
|states' rights
|1790
|liberals often invoke this too; Democrats were its biggest champions in the 1800s (in connection with slavery), and even today on issues like legalizing drugs and same-sex marriage
|-
|technocrat
|1932
|technical expert
|-
|telecommute
|1974<ref>This first use was in the British magazine ''The Economist''.</ref>
|a combination of a Greek root ("tele", which means "far off") and a Latin root ("commutare", which means "to exchange")
|-
|tomfoolery
|1812
|playful or foolish behavior
|-
|traditionalism
|1856
|"beliefs of those opposed to [[modernism]], [[liberalism]], or [[radicalism]]"
|-
|[[twilight zone]]
|1949
|the realm of imagination that seems impossible but is difficult to disprove, and which challenges ordinary views of reality; also the terminator between night and day on a planetary body
|-
|underdog
|1887
|conservative or liberal?
|-
|}

== Downgraded Conservative Terms ==

These conservative terms are less significant:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|byzantine
|1794<ref>The usage here -- in sense of complex governmental rules -- probably developed later.</ref>
|
|-
|eleemosynary
|1616
|relating to charity
|-
|[[entropy]]
|1868
|
|-
|[[filibuster]]
|1851
|
|-
|incandescent
|1794
|bright and radiant, conquering darkness, precursor to the invention of the incandescent lamp (light bulb)
|-
|Luddite
|1811
|one who opposes and even destroys technological advances
|-
|media
|1923
|
|-
|[[milquetoast]]
|1933
|timid and unassertive; easily persuaded or exploited
|-
|normalcy
|1920
|related to the election of [[Warren G. Harding]] by the largest margin yet in history
|-
|ne'er-do-well
|1736
|"an idle worthless person" - Merriam-Webster
|-
|reticent
|1834
|restrained in expression, presentation, or appearance
|-
|self-indulgence
|1753
|
|-
|smart aleck
|1856
|an obnoxiously conceited and self-assertive person with pretensions to being superior to others. Etymology: Aleck, nickname for Alexander <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/smart%20alec Smart Aleck Merriam-Websters]</ref>
|-
|}

== Sources ==

*[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ Merriam-Webster dictionary]

== See also ==

*[[Essay:Conservapedia's Law]]
*[[Essay:Surprising Dates of Origin for Terms]]
*[[Linguistic Analysis of Candidates]]
*[[Conservative Bible Project]]

{{Conservatism}}
{{Conservapedia}}

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category:Essays]]
[[Category:Conservative Bible]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]

Probort

2010-04-24T20:15:53Z

NP: Nice, concise, conservative contraction for "pro-abort".

#redirect[[pro-abort]]

Bart Ehrman

2010-03-25T00:59:42Z

NP:

'''Bart D. Ehrman''' (born c. 1955) an [[agnostic]] (former Evangelical) Bible scholar and writer who writes about [[Christianity]].

{{DEFAULTSORT:Ehrman, Bart}}
[[Category:Agnostics]]
[[Category:Authors]]

Talk:New Revised Standard Version

2010-03-25T00:54:17Z

NP: Created page with '== Isaiah 7:14 == The Hebrew word "Almah", "עלמה" actually translates to a young, marriageable woman who is still under the protection of her family. So, the NRSV translators…'

== Isaiah 7:14 ==
The Hebrew word "Almah", "עלמה" actually translates to a young, marriageable woman who is still under the protection of her family. So, the NRSV translators seem to actually be translating Isaiah 7:14 more accurately. But I'm no expert. [[User:NP|NP]]

New English Translation

2010-03-25T00:43:21Z

NP:

The '''New English Translation''' (NET) is a free online translation of the Bible that came from the best currently available Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew texts. It contains over 60,000 notes made by over twenty scholars. This Bible translation has been endorsed by students and scholars alike.<ref>http://bible.org/article/what-others-are-saying-about-net-bible</ref>
== References ==
<references/>
[[Category:Bible Versions]]

NET

2010-03-25T00:42:10Z

NP: Redirected page to New English Translation

#redirect [[New English Translation]]

New English Translation

2010-03-25T00:41:53Z

NP: Created page with 'The '''New English Translation''' is a free online translation of the Bible that came from the best currently available Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew texts. It contains over 60,000 …'

The '''New English Translation''' is a free online translation of the Bible that came from the best currently available Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew texts. It contains over 60,000 notes made by over twenty scholars. This Bible translation has been endorsed by students and scholars alike.<ref>http://bible.org/article/what-others-are-saying-about-net-bible</ref>
== References ==
<references/>
[[Category:Bible Versions]]

User talk:JacobB

2010-03-22T02:45:23Z

NP: /* Hypocrisy */ new section

For older discussions, see the archives: [[User talk:JacobB/Archive 1|1]], [[User talk:JacobB/Archive 2|2]], [[User talk:JacobB/Archive 3|3]].


== Congratulations! ==

Congratulations on your very well deserved promotion to Sysop and other privileges!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:48, 28 February 2010 (EST)
:Oh wow! Thank you so much! I'm very excited about this, and I hope I can continue to build our courses here for a long time. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 13:49, 28 February 2010 (EST)
::Perseverance and hard work are conservative values, and they pay off! Congrats, Jacob. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:19, 28 February 2010 (EST)
:::Super job, welcome to the top.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:20, 28 February 2010 (EST)
Thank you all! [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 15:59, 28 February 2010 (EST)

== Blocked? ==

I really don't understand why you blocked me for "last wordism." Is that basically a way to prevent further discussion as to result in not moving the article, as you favor? Or, if it really was for last wordism, I'm not the only one who's guilty of such.

It's not like great reasons were given for having Obama's middle name in the article title, anyway. All the reasoning I've read so far for having Obama's middle name in the article:
*Obama tries to soft-peddle his Muslim roots, so let's bring attention to that fact
*Something about [[Hussein bin Ali]] and 700 years
*Obama likes change, so let's move away from tradition (?)
*There's a big difference between Hussein and Jefferson, which, quite honestly...so?
*He was inaugurated with the name (but so were many other presidents)

I don't see anything on how his name should be formatted differently, leaving a "hole" in the argument as DerikJ pointed out.

On a sidenote, why 497 minutes? Seems like an odd number.

Don't expect me to reply here; I wouldn't want to be blocked for "last wordism" again. But I probably will be for "trouble making." [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 19:23, 28 February 2010 (EST)

*Noticing this post of yours, I think you are correct, Kayvan. Your mistake, in case you want to know, was belaboring the point and declaring your intent on your user page. Godspeed to you! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:16, 28 February 2010 (EST)

== Corvidae ==

Hi there. The link at the bottom of the article provides the required evidence for the mirror test. I will reinsert it as a reference instead of further reading. Additionally, the study in question was on magpies I believe, which are still Corvids. God bless, [[User:Myrobi|Myrobi]] 12:58, 1 March 2010 (EST)
:When sourcing a statement, use <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tags. Additionally, I gotta say, for me, this does more to raise doubts about the mirror test than convince me birds are self-aware. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 13:01, 1 March 2010 (EST)
:: Me too. On the one hand, it is fairly illogical that such a small-brained creature could be self-aware. On the other hand, it would be a wonder and testament to God's greatness. [[User:Myrobi|Myrobi]] 13:14, 1 March 2010 (EST)

== Very nice translation ==

Very nice translation in Luke 22! We're on track to complete "the most beautiful book ever written" by Easter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:44, 1 March 2010 (EST)

== Can we finish by Easter? ==

I did some estimates and figure that we have translated over half the New Testament. With Easter over a month away, I wonder if can complete by Easter.

MBack has been doing the Gospel of John and seems to contribute every 10 or so days. Translating John runs the risk of being overwritten by MBack. Perhaps we should carve up the other books between you, Douglas, Chris, me, and any others? I'll ask TerryH to return from the Old Testament in the spirit of finishing the New Testament by Easter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:33, 3 March 2010 (EST)
:That's a good idea. Just the Gospels is a huge accomplishment. What division do you suggest? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 22:44, 3 March 2010 (EST)

::It think every can just add wherever they like. Perhaps less structure will mean more productivity. Tomorrow I'll announce it on the front page (or you can, since you have privileges now to do so!). I'll rouse TerryH also to return to the New Testament.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:53, 3 March 2010 (EST)
:::This is an excellent sort of challenge. Leaving aside John for MBack (or we could contact him to prevent conflict), we should be able to translate an enormous amount, if not succeed at completion. Personally, less structure seems like a good idea, as we can learn from other people's approaches and possibly get a bit of overlapping insight on difficult sections, rather than working alone. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 00:14, 4 March 2010 (EST)

== Superb blocks and reverts! ==

Superb blocks and reverts, Jacob!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:07, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

== Welcome back! ==

Welcome back!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:42, 21 March 2010 (EDT)

== Hypocrisy ==

On the "hypocrisy" thing, I wanted to let you know I wasn't talking saying Conservapedia was hypocritical, I was saying that we can't stoop down to [[Liberal hypocrisy]]. [[User:NP|NP]]

Liberal hate speech

2010-03-22T02:36:17Z

NP: Didn't Rush do this too? We can't stoop to their level of hypocrisy.

'''Liberal hate speech''' is [[hate speech]], that is, widely provocative speech to denigrate a legally protected class or group of citizens defined by legislation, employed by [[liberals]]. Liberals claim to support [[tolerance]], but their use of liberal hate speech tends to put the lie to this claim.

==Against the disabled==

*Former Vice President, Nobel Prize winner, and senior [[Democratic Party]] elder statesman [[Al Gore]] mocked children with Down syndrome by referring to his political critics as having "an extra chromosome."<ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/miller200406010833.asp</ref>
*Liberal pundit and columnist [[Maureen Dowd]] referred to "extra chromosome conservatives" in an interview with [[Bill Maher]]'s on HBO. The [[National Down Syndrome Society]] issued a statement saying use of the term "extra chromosome" as a negative descriptor "is insensitive and demeaning to the more than 350,000 people in the United States who have Down syndrome, which occurs when there is an extra copy of the 21st chromosome. Regardless of who originally coined the term... Ms. Dowd has perpetuated it as a slur against hundreds of thousands of Americans who are contributing members of society and who deserve the same respect that we all expect."<ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1195999/posts</ref>
*On March 3 2009, President [[Barack Hussein Obama|Obama]] ridiculed children with disabilities on [[Jay Leno]]'s program when answering a question about his bowling prowess. Obama said "It was like Special Olympics." <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vb-ZSZNaCc0</ref><ref>[http://weblogs.newsday.com/entertainment/celebrities_blog/2009/03/barack_obama_jay_leno_and_the.html Barack Obama, Jay Leno and the Special Olympics line] Newsday.com, March 20, 2009</ref> <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs3aRxTTgaI&annotation_id=annotation_900911&feature=iv</ref> The CEO of the Special Olympics defended the program noting the President had "set us back decades with his comments."<ref>http://www.necn.com/Boston/Politics/2009/03/20/Obamas-comment-sets-us-back/1237552251.html</ref> Gov. [[Sarah Palin]], whose youngest son Trig was born with Down syndrome, observed, "This was a degrading remark about our world's most precious and unique people, coming from the most powerful position in the world." In her resignation speech as Governor of [[Alaska]], Palin stated:
<blockquote style="font-style: italic">[T]his decision comes after much consideration, and polling the most important people in my life - my children, where the count was unanimous. In response to asking: 'Want me to make a positive difference and fight for ALL our children's future from OUTSIDE the Governor's office?' It was four "yes's" and one "hell yeah!" ... much of it had to do with the kids seeing their baby brother Trig mocked by some pretty mean-spirited adults ..."<ref>http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/2009/07/full-text-of-palins-resignation-speech.php</ref></blockquote>
*News24 of South Africa has on its website an obituary for [[Ronald Reagan]] entitled, ''Gay about Reagan's death''. <ref>[http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1538744,00.html ''Gay about Reagan's death''], News24, 07/06/2004.</ref> and quotes Jon Beaupre, a gay journalist and Los Angeles radio talk show host as saying, "I have a feeling that an awful lot of [[gay]] people are going to be cheering, that 'Ding-dong! The wicked witch is dead'."
*Actor [[George Clooney]] is unapologetic about tasteless ridicule of an [[Alzheimer's]] sufferer:

<blockquote style="font-style: italic">
:'''KURTZ:''' O'Reilly also criticized you for making a joke about [[Charlton Heston]], the former NRA chief, having Alzheimer's.

:'''CLOONEY:''' Yes.

:'''KURTZ:''' Was that in poor taste in retrospect?

:'''CLOONEY:''' Yes, oh, yes. It was in poor taste. It was a funny joke. It was in a room of 100 people. Yeah, (UNINTELLIGIBLE). I have a lot of good friends who -- in fact, I have a very good friend who is dying of Alzheimer's. And it was just a funny joke. <ref>[http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0310/26/rs.00.html Interview With George Clooney], Transcript CNN Reliable Sources, October 26, 2003.</ref></blockquote>

*Multi-billionaire Democratic Party donor [[George Soros]], on [[CNN]], groundlessly compared President [[George W. Bush]], who may suffer from dyslexia,<ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=Wty3o92hyigC&pg=PA43&dq=George+Bush%2Bdyslexia#v=onepage&q=George%20Bush%20dyslexia&f=false</ref> to [[Nazi]]s.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DuafAqAHrc</ref>

*[[Democratic]] Senator [[Al Franken]] of Minnesota peddled a book entitled ''[[Rush Limbaugh]] is a Big, Fat, Stupid Idiot'', viciously ridiculing a person struggling with obesity and deafness.

* In 2007, [[White House]] Press Secretary Tony Snow announced his cancer had returned. Commentators on the left-wing [[Daily Kos]] website remarked, "the world would be better off without him".<ref>http://www.dekalb-chronicle.com/articles/2008/10/30/opinions/national_columnists/doc4906535aad7b3848499949.txt</ref>

*[[Liberal]] talk radio host [[Mike Malloy]] lashed out at [[conservative]] commentator [[Glenn Beck]], a recovering [[alcoholic]], told his radio audiend "I have good news to report. Glenn Beck appears closer to suicide. I'm hoping that he does it on camera....given his alcoholism and his tendencies towards self-destruction, I am only hoping that when Glenn Beck does put a gun to his head and pulls the trigger, that it’s on television, because somebody will capture it on YouTube and it will be the most popular little piece of video for months."<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=52109</ref>

*Congressional [[Democrats]] wrote into the so-called "[[health care reform]]" bill of 2009, the outdated and offensive language, "A hospital or a nursing facility or intermediate-care facility for the ''mentally retarded'' . . ." (emphasis added).<ref>http://www.nypost.com/seven/07262009/news/nationalnews/retarded_house_bill_181448.htm</ref> Families of the learning-disabled, mental health experts, and advocates were outraged at the insensitivity of the proposed language in the new law (a rare example of liberals criticizing their own, albeit hypocritically).<ref>http://patterico.com/category/political-correctness/</ref>

==Against women==

*In August 2007, former [[Democratic]] Presidential, Vice-Presidential candidate and amateur [[pornographer]]<ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/29/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5122267.shtml CBSNews.com], June 29 2009.</ref> Senator [[John Edwards]] viciously attacked social commentator [[Ann Coulter]], calling the petite embodiment of women's aspirations for equality in the marketplace of ideas a "she-devil" <ref>[http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/08/edwards-calls-c.html Edwards Calls Coulter 'She-Devil'], ''ABC News'', August 17, 2007.</ref>
*Liberal "comedian" and "entertainer" [[Sandra Bernhard]] made extraordinary offensive, vicious, despicable and threatening remarks to Gov. [[Sarah Palin]] during a so-called "comedy performance" before a paying audience.<ref>http://beltway.blips.com/video/sandra_bernhard_dishes_sarah_palin_at_theater_j/</ref>
*During the 2008 Presidential election campaign season, Barack Obama compared Sarah Palin to a pig. <ref>http://video.yahoo.com/watch/3473318/9666330</ref>
* 'Alternative' comedian [[Ben Elton]]'s repeated references to [[Margaret Thatcher]] as 'a mad old cow', a sexist jibe that belied his supposed pro-feminist stance. <ref>http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/feature/44</ref>
*Dana Milbank hosted a comedy sketch matching various politicians to types of beer; [[Sarah Palin]] was matched to "Arctic Devil" and [[Hillary Clinton]] to "Mad B****."<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YArTpukehYY</ref> This caused the [[feminist]] group, the ''Center for New Words'', to demand that the sketch's sponsor, the ''Washington Post'', fire everyone involved with it.<ref>http://www.centerfornewwords.org/wam/wapoletter.php</ref>

==Against African-Americans==

*The tell-all book ''Game Change'' reports that Senate Democratic Majority Leader [[Harry Reid]] said America would vote for Barack Obama because he was a "light-skinned" African-American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."<ref>http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=35188</ref>

*Former Democratic President [[Bill Clinton]], when asking Sen. [[Ted Kennedy]] for his endorsement of [[Hillary Clinton]], said of Obama: "A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee."<ref>http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=35188</ref>

*[[U.S. Supreme Court]] Justice [[Clarence Thomas]] has been the relentless target of the most vile liberal hatred since his appointment, being viewed as a "race traitor" on account of his [[conservative]] views.

*[[Colin Powell]] is a respected and popular statesman who rejected offers to be drafted for President in 1996. In an interview, [[liberal activist]] Harry Belafonte, who is also African-American, stated, "There are those slaves who lived on the plantation, and there were those slaves who lived in the house. You got the privilege of living in the house if you served the master to exactly the way the master intended to have you serve him. That gave you privilege. Colin Powell is permitted to come into the house of the master, as long as he will serve the master according to the master's dictates." <ref>[http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/30/157217&mode=thread&tid=25 Interview with Harry Belefonte], ''Democracy Now'', January 30th, 2006.</ref> In a highly visible action reminiscent of the [[Maoist rectification]] campaign, Powell later admitted to errors and his reputation partially rehabilitated among [[leftist]]s by endorsing Barack Obama for President in 2008.

*Former [[Vermont]] [[Governor]] and current DNC chairman, [[Howard Dean]] joked during a speech, “You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room? Only if they had the hotel staff in here.” <ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17718-2005Feb11.html], The Special-Interest Group Hug, Feb 12th, 2005 </ref>

*Leftist "entertainer" [[Sandra Bernhard]] described what in her view is stereotypical of the behavior of African American men in Manhattan.<ref>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2008/09/19/sandra-bernhard-palin-would-be-gang-raped-blacks-manhattan</ref>

*Senator [[Barbara Boxer]] ([[Democratic Party|D]]-[[California|CA]]) made racially condescending remarks to the CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce during a Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee hearing on [[Global warming]].<ref>http://www.breitbart.tv/god-awful-black-chamber-of-commerce-ceo-rips-sen-boxer-for-condescending-racial-remarks/</ref>

==Against Hispanics==

*[[Alberto Gonzales]], the first Hispanic U.S. Attorney General, was consistently mocked on liberal websites as "Alberto 'Speedy' Gonzales" <ref>[http://boards.historychannel.com/thread.jspa?threadID=800028910&start=0 ''Speedy Gonzales to Resign''], Aug 27, 2007. Retrieved from History.com message boards August 30, 2007.</ref> during his tenure. Speedy Gonzales is a reference to a disparaging stereotypical cartoon character of Hispanics that Hollywood attempted to popularize in the 1950s and 60s. Upon his retirement, ''[[NBC News]]'' anchor [[Matt Lauer]] called Gonzales "a piñata" for the Democrats.<ref>http://newsbusters.org/static/2007/08/2007-08-28-NBC-TDYpinata.rm</ref>

==Against Jews==

*Rev. [[Jesse Jackson]] said on January 25, 1984, "all Hymie wants to talk about, is Israel; every time you go to Hymietown, that's all they want to talk about." <ref>[http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=187440 Jesse and the Jews], Michael W. Hirschorn, ''The Harvard Crimson'', March 05, 1984.</ref>

*[[People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals]] (PETA) equated the victims of [[National Socialism]] with slaughterhogs and broiler chickens in a fundraising effort.
[[Image:PETAHolocaust plate.png|thumb|400px|right|Image from a PETA fundraising effort. The group claimed, "Six million Jews died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughterhouses." [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/12/21/INGH63PBJ81.DTL]]]

*Anti-war activist [[Cindy Sheehan]] said "Casey was killed for lies and for a [[PNAC]] Neo-Con <ref>[http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-antisemitism&month=0304&week=&msg=4zdiWX1EuCVzeRLDdQySKA&user=&pw= 'Neo-conservative' is a codeword for Jewish], Dr. Barry Rubin, director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Institute, Interdisciplinary Center of Herzliya, H-Net discussion April 6, 2003.</ref> agenda to benefit Israel", <ref>National Review, [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2FjYjA3NDU2NThiZjI4YzFkYTdkZmViY2M5M2U4MTE= ''Dear Useful Idiot''], Catherine Seipp, May 26, 2006. </ref> accusing members of a vast right-wing Jewish conspiracy of being responsible for her son's death to benefit Israel.

*Former First Lady and Secretary of State [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]] referred to a campaign subordinate as a "Jew bastard."<ref>[http://www.amazon.com/State-Union-Complex-Marriage-Hillary/dp/0060193921]</ref><ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200007/ai_n8910772 Did Hillary commit a hate crime?], Human Events, July 28, 2000. </ref><ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/US_election_race/Story/0,,344475,00.html Hillary faces voters' wrath for alleged ethnic slur], Michael Ellison, London Guardian, July 18, 2000.</ref><ref>[http://www.sobran.com/columns/1999-2001/000718.shtml Hillary’s Manners], Joseph Sobran, July 18, 2000.</ref><ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15015 I agree with Clinton!], Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily, July 20, 2000.</ref>

*[[Richard Dawkins]] claimed that Jews "more or less monopolize American foreign policy." His comments have been criticized by the Anti-Defamation League as "classic Anti-Semitism."<ref>[http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/134346 Dawkins: Jews Control US Policy], Israel National News, October 8, 2007.</ref>

*[[Ward Churchill]] was referring to the victims of the 9/11 attacks as "little Eichmann’s", comparing them to the infamous Nazi leader.<ref>http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1835</ref>

*[[Barack Obama]]'s pastor and mentor [[Jeremiah Wright]], being asked a question about Obama, said, "Them Jews aren't going to let him talk to me." The story was buried by the liberal-aligned [[MSM]].<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/10/wright-suggests-jews-white-house-wont-let-speak-obama/</ref>

*Rev. [[Al Sharpton]] picketed a Jewish store in Harlem, NY over a landlord dispute. Sharpton personally incited the protesters chanting 'bloodsucking Jews.' When it was all over, a protester ran into the store shooting people and set the place on fire. <ref>[http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004192 Democrats Embrace 'Impresario of Hatred'] Wall Street Journal, October 20, 2003</ref> Sharpton also played a part in inciting the [[Crown Heights riot]] by referring to the Jews of the area as "diamond dealers."

==Against South Asians==

*[[Michael Moore]] affecting a mock Indian accent live on air and ridiculing CNN Chief Medical Correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta's name. <ref>[http://www.racewire.org/archives/2007/07/moore_attacks_cnn_network_spew.html Moore attacks CNN network, spews anti-South Asian sentiments], ''RaceWire.org'', July 10, 2007.</ref>

==Against Christians==

*[[Extremist]] [[Katherine Yurica]] stated the [[Republican Party]] gained power through "[[Hitler]]ian tactics", that [[evangelical]] leaders from [[Billy Graham]] to [[Jerry Falwell]] "had to have read Hitler’s [[Mein Kampf]]," and that [[Christian]]s have "[[fascist]]ic tendencies."<ref>[http://www.ird-renew.org/site/apps/s/content.asp?c=fvKVLfMVIsG&b=494491&ct=928973 ''President Bush Called “Evil,” Evangelicals Equated With Nazis at NCC-Supported Conference''], John Lomperis, The Institute on Religion and Democracy. </ref><ref>[http://the-fourth-world.blogspot.com/2006/11/apocalypse-no-christian-fascism-and.html Apocalypse No! Christian Fascism and the Nazi Legacy], Apocalypse No! An Indigenist Perspective, by Juan Santos, November 01, 2006.</ref><ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Pravknight#POV_editing Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Pravknight/POV editing], Retrieved from Wikipedia October 22, 2007.</ref>

*[[Richard Dawkins]] in his 2006 book ''The God Delusion,'' states fundamentalist religion "saps the intellect,"<ref>[http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2006/Oct/hour2_100606.html Sciencefriday.com page on Dawkins]</ref> and refers to belief in [[God]] as a "mind-virus."<ref>[http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/47052/ The Dawkins Delusion] by Alistair McGrath</ref>

*Liberals and [[liberal Christian]]s regularly promote their [[theory of Fundamentalist anti-Semitism]], a long-standing hoax falsely accusing [[Conservative Christian]]s of anti-Semitism. In reality, a 30 year study of the [[liberal Christian]] magazine ''[[The Christian Century]]'' concluded that it was in fact consistently anti-Semitic.

*In his latest book ''The Resilience of Conservative Religion'' (2002), [[liberal]] professor of sociology [[Joseph B. Tamney]] puts Christian conservatives into the same religious category as one of the most radical and most hate-filled Islamic figures of the late 20th century: [[Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini]].

==Against prominent conservatives==

* A written response about [[Vice President of the United States of America|Vice President]] Dick Cheney's trip to [[Afghanistan]] and an attempt against his life "Better luck next time" <ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/14164 , Newsbusters.com Bill O’Reilly Disgusted, July 17, 2007</ref>

* Actor [[Alec Baldwin]] urged a television audience of approximately 3 million viewers to [[murder]] Congressman [[Henry Hyde]]. <ref>[http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/1998/cyb19981215.asp#5]</ref>

*[[Clark Clifford]], a high level trusted confident, cabinet secretary, and Ambassador-at-Large to [[Democratic]] Presidents [[Truman]], [[Lyndon Johnson]], and [[Jimmy Carter]] referred to President [[Ronald Reagan]] while in office as "an amiable dunce." Clifford was at the time caught up in the notorious [[BCCI]] scandal.

==Homophobia==

Although [[conservative]]s do not consider opposition to homosexuality to be "hate speech," liberals do, and thus it is notable that several liberals have made homophobic remarks.

*[[HBO]] ''[[Real Time]]'' host [[Bill Maher]]'s on-air [[homophobic]] comments about Republicans were [[censor]]ed by CNN. <ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/11/08/censored-by-cnn-bill-mah_n_33701.html Censored by CNN : Bill Maher Suggest RNC Chair Mehlman is Gay], ''The Huffington Post'', November 8, 2006.</ref>
*[[Democrat]] [[Fred Phelps]] is known for notorious inflammatory anti-homosexual rhetoric.<ref>[http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21229 The "God Hates Fags" [[Left]],] By Mark D. Tooley, FrontPageMagazine.com, February 09, 2006.</ref> (Although Phelps is universally condemned for his remarks in very strong terms by both conservatives ''and'' liberals, liberals tend to hold him up as a [[straw man]] example of the homophobe.)

==Race baiting==

*An anonymous editor at the ''New York Times'' attacked Rep. [[Tom DeLay]] with the most vile [[hate speech]] in DeLay's [[Wikipedia]] biographical entry.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_DeLay&diff=prev&oldid=85320018</ref><ref>[http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/name2ip.php?orgname=New+York+Times&location=</ref>

==Against others==

*[[U.S. Supreme Court]] Justice [[Sonia Sotomayor]] has stated, "gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging....a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male."<ref> Sotomayor, "A Latina Judge’s Voice," (2002), [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all online edition]</ref>

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

==External links==
*[http://hq.protestwarrior.com/?page=/featured/PHS/PHS.php Bryan Henderson's attempts to balance socialist political science teacher], a civil libertarian come face to face with leftist hate.
*[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29414 Liberal hate speech], Judith Reisman, ''[[WorldNetDaily.com]]'', October 25, 2002.
*[http://www.godhatesfredphelps.com/ God Hates Fred Phelps], Retrieved from http://www.godhatesfredphelps.com/ October 25, 2007.

{{liberalism}}
[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Liberal Traits]]

Liberal pressure

2010-03-22T02:08:08Z

NP:

'''Liberal pressure''' is pressure imposed on someone that disagrees with them for political advantage. One example is death threats made against [[George Bush]].<ref>[http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621 Death Threats Against Bush at Protests Ignored for Years]</ref> Liberal pressure is also what made "pro-life" [[Bart Stupak]] cave in to the [[pro-aborts]] and make his healthcare vote a "Yes".
== References ==
<references/>
== See Also ==
*[[Liberal style]]
{{liberalism}}

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2010-03-22T01:26:40Z

NP: /* "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." */

For older discussion, see [[Talk:Conservative Bible Project/Archive 1|here]].

(continuing from archive)

== Comment Here ==
Liberals would have to read the Bible? As a pagan moderate, I've actually schooled conservatives in their knowledge of the Bible. The accusation should be made as a whole. I talked to someone that considered themselves a Christian conservative who once told me he needed to read the Bible. Go to Bass Pro Shops and hang out for a bit. Those people carry camo bibles but don't know what it says in it, other than homosexuals being wrong. This accusation that anyone, liberals, moderates, or conservatives as a whole haven't read the Christian bible should be taken out. - JaffaLycosa

Agreed, from a Christian who sees enough other Christians at church to know the above person is largely correct. -Jones

:Folks, you're not fooling anyone here. "JaffaLycosa" has made 12 edits here, but I haven't seen an intelligent one by him about the Bible yet. Check out the finalists and winners of this years National Bible Bee - virtually all are likely conservatives. Out of 300 million people, might a few "pagans" know the Bible better than a few conservatives? Yes, just as there might be someone who lives 100 years despite smoking several packs of cigarettes a day. But those are rare exceptions, not the rule.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:35, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:You know, whenever you see a high-profile liberal talk about the Bible, they always, always display their profound ignorance of it. They misquote passages out of context, invent new passages either out of whole cloth or via bastardization of one or more passages, get books in the wrong Testament, or conveniently ignore passages with some excuse or another. (Now expecting the obligatory and predictable "I know you are, but what am I?" responses from liberals here or ''elsewhere''- i.e. claiming that everything I mentioned is what conservatives do.) [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 13:14, 12 December 2009 (EST)

::In furtherance of your observation, I doubt the average liberal spends more than 1% of his spare time on the Bible, and he is unlikely to be able to answer the most basic questions about this book, which is the most logical and influential in history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:23, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:It seems unfair to call the Bible the most logical book in history, given that many books have been written that do not include any contradictions and do not rely on non-physical entities to explain physical phenomena.

::Really? Name some examples. Also, back up your suggestion that the Bible contains contradictions. Sounds like you've been misled by liberals, and I urge you to reconsider with an open mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:36, 12 December 2009 (EST)

Homosexuals are the main cause of people not wanting to read the bible. It is the most sacred literary work ever. The homosexuals think they can do whatever they want and not follow the teachings of the bible. Good thing we have Prop 8 and things of that nature to keep marriage between a man and a woman.

: Getting rid of the Bible, or having it labeled as "hate speech," is a predicable goal of the homosexual movement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:36, 12 December 2009 (EST)

: Here's one of my personal favorites:
GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
The chronological order of creation isn't even consistent. Even if you can explain this to yourself with a mystical reconsideration of non-linear time, it's still a problem that makes a straight read-through of the Bible an experience isolated from logic. You've claimed that this is the most logical book in history - it appears that any book that doesn't say the same two things happened both before and after each other would be more logical.

:Your objection is what is illogical. Are you saying merely that a verse is out of order? The Bible quotes are fine, but I can't make sense of your objection. I hope you can come up with something more substantive to back up your claim. Also, you were going to give examples of alternatives that you think are so much better.

:I urge, beg, plead with you to open your mind and realize that liberals may have misled you, and rethink your position for yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:19, 12 December 2009 (EST)

Who did the Mark translation, and where did the term "Divine Guide," instead of the quite literal and direct "Holy Spirit" come from? I was gonna ask this question on the CBP google board, but write access was restricted (I believe in order to avoid such pesky questions). "Divine Guide" carries so much potential theological baggage that I don't understand HOW it could be considered a more acceptable translation.

== CBP in church ==

Just want to mention that I'm a priest (apparently the only one Conservapedia, according to one administrator!), and I'm planning on using portions of the Conservapedia Bible translation in church. In fact, I've already done this once already (on December 6th - with passages from Mark) with great success. I plan on doing it again this Sunday (with the Gospel of Matthew).
If anyone has suggestions for specific passages where you think the Conservapedia translation really brings out insights not seen in other translations, please let me know. God bless, --[[User:FatherJoseph|FatherJoseph]] 19:05, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:I'm working on the 6th Chapter of Luke, [[Luke 1-8 (Translated)]], and the translation of the Beatitudes (starting around verse 20) create some stark differences with other modern versions. For starters, Jesus directed the Beatitudes to his own disciples, not the public, if the figurative translation of a word is used rather than the literal one. Not all his disciples were "poor" (Matthew wasn't, for example), but all were "powerless", which makes for a possibly superior word choice. In fact, I'm going to check now if the [[ESV]] ever uses the term "powerless".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:16, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:: Excellent example! I'll be sure to use these passages in a few weeks, once more of Luke is translated. Very intriguing about the word "powerless", which I think fits in perfectly. I did a search of the NRSV, and it doesn't use this word anywhere in the New Testament (although it does a few times in the Old). --[[User:FatherJoseph|FatherJoseph]] 19:29, 12 December 2009 (EST)

...

:::I'm curious: about how many Masses, if any, have you said in Latin?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:11, 15 December 2009 (EST)

:::: Very few - after the Second Vatican Council, Latin Mass has been heavily disfavored, and few churches hold Mass in Latin nowadays. --[[User:FatherJoseph|FatherJoseph]] 22:57, 15 December 2009 (EST)

:::::"Very few"??? The odds of that being true are, let's say, "very small" indeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:21, 15 December 2009 (EST)

:::::: I don't understand. Why is this so surprising to you? --[[User:FatherJoseph|FatherJoseph]] 23:30, 15 December 2009 (EST)

::::::: You should understand if you were who you say you are. Ha ha, ask your bishop and he'll explain it to you!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:34, 15 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::I'm not sure what this is all about. Vatican II did not forbid priests from doing mass in Latin, indeed there are still some that do special masses in Latin. Latin is also used by those giving mass in Vatican City. Even if Vatican II did ban Latin from being used in mass, Vatican II was opened in 1962, around 20 years after Father Joseph started his ministry. --[[User:JAiken|JAiken]] 00:46, 16 December 2009 (EST)

==Renaming the Epistles==

I would be interested to hear anyone's thoughts on whether the "Epistle to the Corinthians" etc should be renamed as "Letter to the Corinthians". I feel that this would be more in keeping with the intention of the books. They are, after all, first and foremost letters from Paul to distinct peoples. I think we should drop the rather archaic word epistle and change it to letter; or perhaps to advice. Any thoughts?--[[User:PThomson|PThomson]] 21:48, 15 December 2009 (EST)

I would go with "Letter" or "Epistle" but not "Advice". [[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 18:32, 16 December 2009 (EST)

==Possibility of Printing this?==
I am the owner of a small, successful religious printing press in Illinois, and I'm wondering if you have considered submitting this to printers for a print run? I'm relatively confident I could sell a few hundred thousand copies of the Conservative Bible nationally and internationally, and would be glad to talk about a profit participation programme? [[User:DaveSand|DaveSand]] 18:40, 16 December 2009 (EST)

:Really, Dave ... you're from Illinois yet you use English spellings ("programme")??? That's funny, because I grew up in Illinois and never saw anyone else there spell "program" in such an inefficient way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:40, 16 December 2009 (EST)

==Translation of Timothy 1==

I have just completed the first draft of the translation of Timothy. I would very much value any comment and suggestion for improvement.
A few verses have specific issues which I would like to address:
*I took the liberty to translate "godless" with "atheist", which I think conveys nicely the original meaning.
*I translated 'whoremonger' with 'pimp', which appears to be the definition of the job. I have second thoughts about including such a word in a translation of the Bible, though.
Could a respected editor share his opinion on these matters? Regards, --[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 08:48, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:I'll review now. Thanks so much for providing your insights on this. I look forward very much to seeing your work. Your points above look excellent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:57, 17 December 2009 (EST)

== Lost Gospels ==

Has there been any consideration to including lost Gospels in this project, for example, the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Thomas, or the Gospel of Judas? After all, wasn’t the selection of the Gospels we read today and the exclusion of others the first form of censorship or bias the bible received? I think it would be interesting to see what can be done with these other lost Gospels and how they can be integrated into a new, more complete version of the bible. --[[User:Smclean|Smclean]] 19:08, 21 December 2009 (EST)

:Presenting the authentic material is not censorship, but honesty. No, we're not going to pretend that something fake is real.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:24, 21 December 2009 (EST)

== Reply to Liberal Talk ==

Several liberal comments were inserted, and then reverted, in the content page. One claimed that the word "war" is conservative (??), and that references to "war" in the Bible are examples of conservative translation. First, "war" is not a conservative word (conservatives virtually never start wars). Second, there is no other way to translate the word!

The liberal comments also claimed that because the narrative about Jesus's infancy in Luke does not appear in the other Gospels, then we should accept the also-not-referenced verse about forgiving those who crucified Jesus. That's obviously a non sequitur, because the other Gospels ''do'' recount Jesus's words during the Passion and this verse was not recorded by eyewitnesses. Luke, who was not an eyewitness, would not add a quotation that the eyewitnesses omitted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:25, 25 December 2009 (EST)

== Mark Done? ==

I'm surprised to read that the translation of Mark is considered "finished." In my opinion, reading over the gospel of Mark, as it stands right now, it does not read as a finished translation at all! Reading over the talk pages, it seems that a consensus was never really reached about using the term "Divine Guide" for "Holy Spirit" (a term that still strikes me as New Age-y and liberal). The discussion over the term "grape juice" seems to have been tabled indefinitely. Overall, even though some of the translation choices are decent, this book looks very unfinished. --[[User:Caspianrex|Cory Howell]] 13:52, 7 January 2010 (EST)

FWIW, i vote for using 'Holy Spirit' and wine. --[[User:SondraH|SondraH]] 14:25, 7 January 2010 (EST)

: Cory, you put quote marks around "finished", but I could not find any use of that term by us. Mark has been "completed" in the obvious sense of the word: a translation has been proposed for all of the verses. But discussion is ongoing and welcome, though comments more substantive than the above would obviously be more appreciated.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:07, 7 January 2010 (EST)

== Could someone take a look at Ecc? ==

I'm nearly done with Ecclesiastes but haven't gotten anyone to take a look at it, could someone go tell me what they think? --[[User:SamF|SamF]] 17:43, 20 January 2010 (EST)
:I'll be glad to. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 17:57, 20 January 2010 (EST)

== Why use KJV? ==

Im sure this was an earlier discussion, however why is it being on using the KJV as the baseline or comparator?
It seems that using a more literally accurate version as the baseline would be better, NASB for example.

And why not have charts comparing the most common versus between the most common versions to see the supposed liberal bias, exp. KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, CBP?

Also, what I am not clear on is why when it stated that original translation did not include a verse (exp. Father, forgive them, they no not what they do), why is the original translation not listed. And besides if some of these were true and in the oldest texts didn't include the stories or the verses then most translation would now have them bracketed (exp of Ethoiopian eunich being taken into the water to be baptized).[[User:Solarguy17|Solarguy17]] 01:17, 10 March 2010 (EST)

KJV is in public domain. But it is still a rather poor choice. The translators of KJV added in some extra verses, and who knows, they may have had a liberal bias themselves! I think to avoid any bias we should work from the Greek like the professionals do. Always handle the Word of God with care. [[User:NP|NP]]

== "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." ==

This quote is probably authentic because scribes probably wouldn't edit the manuscripts to have sympathy for the ones who crucified Jesus. After all, the crucified the Lord! Also the fact that it doesn't appear in any other Gospel doesn't mean anything. "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." doesn't appear in any other Gospel, but it isn't denounced as false and omitted from the translation, is it? [[User:NP|NP]]

:But the phrase conflicts with much of what Jesus did say; Luke was not an eyewitness and yet this is purportedly a quote by Luke; and the phrase has obviously liberal connotations: do whatever you like because even those who crucified Jesus were forgiven. Essentially the quote is a denial of [[Hell]], when in fact Jesus emphasized the existence of Hell more than Heaven.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:01, 21 March 2010 (EDT)
::They didn't know that they were crucifying the Messiah, did they? If those who crucified Jesus became born again and lived a life following what Jesus taught, I'd think they would go to heaven. Oh, and probably none of the gospel writers are eye-witnesses. The names were later attributed to the books. If we were to say anything made by a non-eyewitness is false then you might as well not listen to all four Gospels. [[User:NP|NP]]

:::This may be a tangent, but what percent of Christians believe that [[Jesus came to die]] and that therefore those who "betrayed" or condemned or crucified him were doing a good deed? I don't mean this as a trick question, and I certainly don't intend to start a debate on a talk page. I just ask as a [[Unificationist]], since [[Unification Church|my church]] believes that [[Jesus did not come to die]], and that everything he accomplished by willing going the way of the cross could have been done just as effectively if he had been accepted by the Israelites. Should I elaborate on this somewhere? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:43, 21 March 2010 (EDT)
::::I have to respectfully disagree with you. Maybe we can create a debate topic on this? (I don't believe his betrayers were doing a good deed, though) [[User:NP|NP]]
:::::Fair enough. It takes two to have a debate, and maybe we can meet at [[Debate:Did Jesus come to die?]] (Or some other title, if you prefer a different wording.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:27, 21 March 2010 (EDT)

NP, three of the four gospels were plainly written by eyewitnesses. You've fallen for liberal deceit to argue otherwise. And if an unrepentant crucifier of Jesus does not go to Hell, then who do you think does?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:52, 21 March 2010 (EDT)
:Well, I most certainly think the unrepentant people who crucified Jesus did to go hell. But where do you get your sources from that 3/4 Gospels were written by eyewitnesses? As far as my understanding, 4/4 were written anonymously. And even if you think they were written by the attributions, it would be 2/4 (Mark and Luke weren't disciples). [[User:NP|NP]]

::You've fallen for the [[liberal deceit]], and I encourage you to revisit the issue with an open mind. The Gospels are filled with quotations, and Matthew and John were both Apostles. Mark was a young boy who accompanied her mother as she followed Jesus. Luke, a Gentile, was the only non-eyewitness.

::There is no other possible authorship of the Gospels that is even remotely plausible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:09, 21 March 2010 (EDT)
:::And Luke makes it clear in 1:1-4 that he has interviewed and relies upon eyewitnesses in order to create his history. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 15:25, 21 March 2010 (EDT)
:DouglasA: That means Luke would be a credible source, right? Then the "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." quote would be authentic, right, as it is in Luke? [[User:NP|NP]]

Liberal pressure

2010-03-21T19:24:14Z

NP:

'''Liberal pressure''' is pressure imposed on someone that disagrees with them for political advantage. One example is death threats made against [[George Bush]].<ref>[http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621 Death Threats Against Bush at Protests Ignored for Years]</ref>
== References ==
<references/>
== See Also ==
*[[Liberal style]]
{{liberalism}}

Template talk:Liberalism

2010-03-21T19:22:15Z

NP: /* Liberal pressure */ new section

It seems that there are so many terms and articles related with liberal characteristics that there is a need for a navbox to link them all together. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 06:04, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:Hrm. I would say take out the ones which don't have "liberal" in the title, like global warming and gun control, as there's nothing inherently liberal about them. They are topics which have liberal and conservative viewpoints. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:10, 27 February 2008 (EST)
::HelpJazz, I added them as they are categorized under things like "Liberal Bias" or "Liberal Falsehoods". I know that this could be perceived as some sort of parody so I have refrained from using the template as I think it needs some discussion first. However, there are so many topics on Liberal-related issues that I think it is useful to unite them through a navbox. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 17:23, 28 February 2008 (EST)
:::Oh I didn't realize that! I should probably head over to the talk pages of those articles and petition for the removals of the categories.... I didn't think there was anything wrong with your navbox itself though, it looks very nice. It would be very helpful to keep track of all the liberal articles. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 09:07, 29 February 2008 (EST)

== Template name ==

Shouldn't this be renamed/moved to Template:Liberal or Template:Liberals instead? Liberalism is a much specific subject and is not necessarily relevant to these subjects. [[User:Hammet|Hammet]] 18:54, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== Use of the template ==

Since this is being added to several pages and disputed on those same pages, it seems the best place to discuss the use would be here, instead of on every page where it is used. I'll start this discussion. (No need to follow my formatting, btw).
*'''Pro''': handy link to "liberalism traits" on all liberal topics
*'''Con''': is it really needed on all liberal topics? Does the ACLU espouse Hollywood values, or liberal grading, for example?
*'''Suggest''': use this the same way we use every other link template on CP (see, e.g., {{tl|Nb mythology greece}} or {{tl|Scientology}}, or {{tl|Nb_US_universities}}
Discuss. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:08, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
: Navigation boxes such as these are designed to be put on the pages with the terms or names in the box, not in other pages. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:29, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
::I agree with Philip. Its use on [[Richard Dawkins]], for example, looks just silly. The list of terms in the template has nothing to do with Dawkins. Its inclusion there looks like an attempt to make the subject of the article look as bad as possible by chucking in a load of other hate-topics (a slur-by-association), rather than an honest attempt to lead the reader to other relevant topics. Use only '''where appropriate'''. Unless of course this encyclopedia really has redefined "liberal" to mean "any viewpoint I disagree with". [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 10:35, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Thank you, HelpJazz, for inviting me. I absolutely agree with PJR/HumblPi's assessments, too. I'd also like to state that [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Philip_J._Rayment&diff=418351&oldid=418334 this] statement by TK, on the matter, was RIDICULOUSLY inappropriate, and I'm offended ''for'' PJR for having to suffer through an insult like that.-[[User:DParker|DParker]] 11:29, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Gentleman, I add the template to pages having to do with well-known liberal organizations and people because the template is informative! It directs users to other pages having to do with how and why a liberal thinks, and do what they do. For example, adding the "liberalism" template to Obama and Clinton, users can then use the links in the template to read more, and discover the "tools" or "tricks of the trade" liberals use to obfuscate and shape the public dialog. Adding it to the [[ACLU]] allows users a handy "go to" where they can read more about things that explains the tactics and agenda of the ACLU. Now I am not going to be drawn into yet another non-productive argument made by liberals, who hate the articles the template directs users to, and will seek any means they can to modify or change the POV CP has. You knew what that was coming here, and unless you wish to argue CP has no right to have a conservative voice and POV, you are on shaky ground.

What I see is a very few people not agreeing with CP's point of view, and doing whatever they can to hide it. First and foremost, this is meant to be an instructional wiki. It is also a Conservative and Christian POV friendly one. Our "job" is to teach! We provide tools to users that lead them to discovery, IMO. The template in question can put into context what is read on the pages involved. It acts exactly like a "which-see", helping to explain and expound on what the user reads. It also helps call attention to other CP articles, linking to them, and that is a good thing. So, I reject the reasoning above, as having none. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:02, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

:TK - You say that those who disagree with you are trying to '''hide''' CP's point of view. In my case, not at all. I am trying to '''defend''' it by not letting it turn into self-parody. Slapping that template on all sorts of tangentially relevant articles like [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[The God Delusion]] makes the encyclopedia look silly, and risks making a mockery of it, as if the aim was to indulge every half-opportunity to take a swipe at liberals, rather than to produce a reliable and family-friendly encylopedia. It's unfocused, evidence of sloppy thinking, and ultimately self-defeating. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 07:47, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

::I disagree that the template makes us look like a parody of ourselves, or that it's necessarily being used to try to take a swipe at liberals. However, I agree that it shouldn't be used, and not because I don't like it, but because it's being improperly used. Navboxes are used to connect articles within said navbox (see the examples above, along with {{tl|2008_presidential_candidates}}, which is another one I just remembered), not as a "see also". I wouldn't be against adding [[conservative links]] to the See Also section of these articles, since that article has on it all these liberal traits as well as many other resources which serve the same purpose that TK is trying to serve by adding this template to the page.

::Two other minor things: would it be possible to discontinue adding this template until we have decided here what's to be done? Additionally, if the template is added, I think it should be added at the very bottom of the page, not in the middle. Since it takes up the whole screen, if it's placed in the middle it cuts the article in two. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:18, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Ed Poor has created {{tl|Atheists}}, apparently as a replacement for using this on articles about atheists. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:53, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

== Request for sysop ==

Philip (or any sysop who reads this), since TK's talk page is protected, can you please direct him to this conversation? He has made no comment in this discussion and is adding this template to every page which involves a liberal. Thanks. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:42, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
:Done. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:58, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

== How is this to be used? ==

I thought we had decided the use of this template, but it's being used inapropriately again. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:34, 15 November 2008 (EST)

:I asked for the templates creation, so I know why I asked for it. But of course I could be wrong. The idea for making and using it, was to put on an article, about people or things, similar traits that all liberals share. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:39, 15 November 2008 (EST)

:::In the interest of historical accuracy I should point out that I created the template entirely of my own volition on 26 February during a period (14 January - 23 March when TK was not contributing to Conservapedia). [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 00:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
Was this on your trip to Mexico, Genghis, or your later motorcycle accident recovery? Inquiring minds want to know! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:25, 17 November 2008 (EST)
::*Let's all avoid discussing other contributors' personal lives. No one need be blocked for this, as it is not vandalism. There has been a lot of gossip on the board of late, and it's not an easy habit to break (for any of us). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:27, 17 November 2008 (EST)
::Are you joking about a motorcycle accident which could have taken his life?! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:30, 17 November 2008 (EST)
::::Huh. I hadn't noticed that. That changes things, doesn't it? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:08, 17 November 2008 (EST)
::Then fix it like you agreed to offline. Navtemplates are to be used to link together the articles on the template, not to be plastered on any marginally related topic. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:42, 15 November 2008 (EST)

:::Sorry, I reject your opinion as to NavTemplates needing to be used in only one way. Ease of use trumps your idea of how it must be used. When that template is put on an article of a liberal person or institution/organization, it enables our readers to easily find and read information on liberal traits. Why would anyone object to that, unless they are trying to hide liberal traits? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:46, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:::::: Whilst it's true that just because something has been done one way we don't have to stick with that (i.e. how navigation boxes are used), there is also the argument that it saves confusion if we use them consistently, and that includes consistently with other encyclopaedias. So I would suggest that we change how they are typically used only if there is an overriding reason to do so. I haven't seen that reason yet. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::<s>Then I'll do it myself.</s> Are we to add this template to every single liberal or liberal act described on Conservapedia? That's a big job, not a very easy use. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:48, 15 November 2008 (EST)

*I hardly think anyone needs to be dogmatic about it, or slavish in its application. Isn't common sense enough? In the case of Dawkins, it is entirely reasonable to expect that not everyone will know who he is, or be familiar with what liberal means in America. By adding that template to his article, it will enpower users to click the examples listed on the template, and understand what qualities he exhibits make him a liberal. That make sense? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:43, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::Can't the same be said for [[Barack Obama]] or [[Ted Kennedy]] or [[FDR]] or the [[ACLU]] -- where do we stop? You don't have to be dogmatic about it, but in a community website you need to at least have some consistency. You can't just make up new uses for things -- how is a new editor supposed to know what to do? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:26, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:::HelpJazz, the only people I see making up uses is you and Brianco. I requested the template to be made. I discussed it before asking for it, with Andy, Ed Poor and a couple of others. As I have repeated several times, my intent was to place it on the article for everyone/thing, that is identified as being a liberal in the article. Period.

:::And I did not intend to link all articles with each other, as you insist a nav template must be used. ''I respectfully submit that there isn't just one way to use such a vehicle.'' The intent was to allow users to easily look up those qualities that caused whatever person/institution to be labeled a liberal in the article. It isn't such a big job as compared to the thousands of articles where a persons liberal nature has been obfuscated. One simply adds it whenever one comes across an article about a liberal. It allows a reader to easily click the links included in the template to read in more depth what makes a liberal a liberal:

<blockquote>
'''Bias • Deceit • Denial • Evolutionary Ideology • Friendship • Global warming • Globalism • Gun control • Hate speech • Hollywood values • Homosexual agenda • Hypocrisy • Ideology • Liberals • Logic • Media elite • Myths • Obfuscation • Quotient • Redefinition • School grading • Style • Values
'''
</blockquote>
:::What I cannot fathom is why anyone would go to the lengths you and BrianCo have gone to not use it, complain about it. Oh, wait, neither one of you is a conservative! I forgot. So neither one of you like calling out liberals, or making them, and their qualities transparent and easily identified by others. So be it. If you are not interested in showing liberals for what they are, my suggesting would be to edit Wikipedia. Here, the decision was made long before you, Brianco or me came here, to showcase liberal attributes, [[liberal values]], identify [[liberal]] people and institutions, and clearly show their [[deceit]]. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:36, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::: It is not "making up uses" to be using them they way they are typically used.
:::: One reason for ''not'' using it on pages of "liberals" is that "liberal" and "conservative" are not black-and-white categories, but extremes on a linear scale, which linear scale doesn't reflect reality in any case. So you'll get, for example, someone who is anti-evolution but pro-feminism (and yes, I have met such a person). So putting a box on a "liberal"'s page to indicate what they believe can be misleading. If they want to know more about what makes a liberal a liberal, then they click the link to "[[liberal]]" which would no doubt already exist in such articles.
:::: And please stick to the issue, and don't resort to ''ad hominem arguments'' about other editor's beliefs. What they believe has no bearing on the validity of their arguments.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)

At Wikipedia, they pay lip service to the idea of "assuming good faith". But then, once they find out you're on to them, the gloves come off. Well, the gloves are off here too.

Some people tell the truth; others lie. Liberals tend to do this much more than conservatives, although they don't have a monopoly (not any more than Bill Gates has a monopoly on operating systems. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:16, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:First of all, TK, you are the one who added "this might be an unorthodox use for a navigation template", so Brianco and I are not the one chenging the rules, you are. (If, as you claim, you invented this template, can you please show me where? Not that that actually makes a difference in how a navtemplate is supposed to be used, but it would be nice to finally see what the original intent of this template was).
:Secondly, stop saying that I'm out to destroy this wiki because I'm a liberal. It's a stupid argument and it makes no sense: "HelpJazz and Brianco want to use a navtemplate in the way that every single other navtemplate is used because they are dirty liberals". You know I'm not a liberal (as you have told me numerous times on IM), and you are only saying it here in order to discredit me. If you continue your disruptive behavior I will block you, just like I would any other editor who does the same.
:<Deep breath>
:Now that that's out of the way, thank you for finally explaining the use of this template. Are you going to take up the project of adding it to every liberal? Of so the [[:category:liberals|liberals category]] is a good place to start. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:32, 16 November 2008 (EST)
'''
::I would not be adding it to yet another template, as this one is informational in nature, and not intended to be linked to all other articles about liberals. '''Nice try, using a Red Herring, Jazz. ''I didn't call you a liberal'', I stated a fact, that you are, self-admittedly so, a libertarian, and not a conservative.''' Do I need to provide links to where you posted that fact? What several of us are wondering is, why you would take this fight to public postings, instead of your usual contact via AIM? To many it appears it is done to better coordinate with others who agree with you. As I said, if you have a problem calling out liberals, Wikipedia is the place for you and anyone else who has trouble doing that. Our job here is to identify [[liberals]], [[liberal deceit]] and [[Liberal myths]] wherever it/they exists. Ours is an educational mission, to educate the public about what makes a liberal a liberal, and clearly show their deceitful methods of obfuscation, deflection and arguing-without-end to ensure liberal deceit is not exposed. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:23, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::: This page, not somewhere private such as AIM, is the appropriate place to discuss this matter. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::I didn't say you should add another template, I'm not sure what you are talking about. You said "One simply adds it whenever one comes across an article about a liberal"; I was pointing out that many such articles can be found in the liberals category.
:::"Red hearing", yeah right. First of all, you were the one who started the red herring by bringing up ideologies at all. You are correct, you didn't call me a liberal, you called me a non-conservative. (You didn't call me a libertarian). Either way, your implication that the only reason I want to use the template in the manner discussed back in April is because I am a "non-conservative" and I have trouble identifying liberals or liberal deciet is patently false, and is only being used to derail this conversation. I have already stated, in the above discussion, back in April, that your line of reasoning has no bearing on why I want to use the navtemplate as a navtemplate. If you would please read that discussion and stop using the same faulty line of reasoning it would be greatly appreciated.
:::Lasty, AIM is ''not'' my usual contact, it's yours. Ask any other editor if I ever contact them through AIM. I used to contact you over AIM only because you did it, not because I wanted to. The reason I'm not using AIM now is because I'm tired of you saying one thing in AIM and then doing something else online. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:59, 16 November 2008 (EST)

*Well thanks for coming out of the closet and exposing yourself for the deceitful liar you are. What on AIM, did I say I was going to do, and didn't? When I sign into AIM, and it shows you there, that is a clear indication, since I have been gone from CP for 7 months, that you are indeed on it for reasons other than me. This case and matter is now closed. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:09, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::What makes you think that I only use AIM for CP? I have friends, you know, and my friend list doesn't overlap with the people I interact with on CP. So, I'm not a deceitful liar when I say that you are the only editor I talk to about CP, and it's because you want to, not because I want to. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:55, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Can we stick to the point? Liberals are related to Liberalism. It helps educate our readers to use templates that are chock full of links.

I don't think we have to put every article, that uses a template, in that template. But if it's a major article, go ahead.

We can also split this template up into [[Template:Liberalism]] and [[Template:Liberalism]] if it gets too big to be useful. We can start with [[Teddy Kennedy]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:10, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::Did you mean to say [[Edward Kennedy]] ? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:14, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:::So since Ed has protected it, are you going to be in charge of adding major articles to the template? TK doesn't seem to want to do it, so I'll start adding the template to every page we have about a liberal. I'll need Ed's help, though, because some of them will probably be protected. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:55, 16 November 2008 (EST)

*HelpJazz, it is not up to you, nor is it up to you to organize how it will be done. Let me repeat one final time. You were given blocking rights to fight off vandals, not to decide policy. I know that to be a fact, because I was one who pushed for your blocking rights, for months. You inserting yourself into something, and arguing your POV endlessly, without an end, isn't exactly wanted. Not everyone can just drop what they are doing, and jump into doing what you suggested immediately. I think Ed is trying to finish some code. I am trying to finish off two articles and dealing with a horrible backlog of emails, so please forgive us for not getting it done when you demand it to be. I previously posted that one shouldn't be dogmatic, and we can add it catch-as-catch-can, a few at a time, as we see pages it would benefit. Jeeze. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:02, 16 November 2008 (EST)
: It's not up to you to organise or decide policy either. Stick to the subject and stop insulting other editors. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Ok, I see a problem off the bat. The template adds the category "liberals" to the page, but clearly the category can be applied to more than just liberal ''people''. I think the category should be removed, and the "liberals" or "liberalism" or "liberal organizations" category can be added to the article, as appropriate.

TK: I'm not arguing POV, I don't know how many different ways I can tell you that you are wrong. Secondly, you keep calling things "dogmatic" when you really mean "consistent". I'm sorry if I want things to be applied equally across equal cases. If we added it on just willie-nillie then clearly pages will be missed. So, I volunteered to do it systematically (not "dogmatically"). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:07, 16 November 2008 (EST)

*Do what you will, HelpJazz. Ed has a bot than can do/undo anything in minutes, not hours. It is a simple matter to change the Cat to Liberal not Liberal'''s''' no? That way it would fit people and institutions, right? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:14, 16 November 2008 (EST)

== Switching auto-tag for category ==

Seems fine to me, but would it not be far less work to simply re-name category Liberal'''s''' to Liberal? As I understand it, Jazz's objection was that Liberal'''s''' didn't fit with some article names, and simply dropping the "S" seems to be easier. I might be wrong. Adding yet another new category name seemed silly. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:40, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:The first part is correct (Liberals, with an s, doesn't fit many of the pages this template is to be used on). However I suggested that the category be removed from the template entirely, so that we can add categories on a case to case basis, instead of adding one category across the board. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:42, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:If it makes a difference to the final decision, [[:category:liberal]] does not exsist, so if we chose to add it to the tempate, we would have to port over everything that's currently in a more descriptive category. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:44, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::We are talking past one-another. I was talking about two issues. One, my suggestion was to change the name of the Category, make it non plural, so it would be appropriate for people and organizations. The other was to have the Template add pages it was applied to the non-plural Liberal category. '''I am assuming one can actually change the category name instead of repopulating all the articles.''' --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:48, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:::You can't change the category name, you have to manually change the category on each article. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:53, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::::Ahh. But I think an admin can do that, through the database. Still.....the rush is? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:56, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::I don't think an admin can. There's no rush, except that I'd like to continue what I was doing. The longer it waits the less likely it is to be done well, and the more likely it is to become a mess. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:00, 16 November 2008 (EST) <-- well, we will have to wait an hour, because Dexter is on :)
::::::LOL! You were only doing what you were because you were angry and trying to bludgeon a point. When you decide to communicate, you can be in the loop. Until then, don't get upset when decisions are made, and you are not included. Pretty simple. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:07, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::That's helpful. Putting words in my mouth and thoughts into my head. I communicate (see, oh I don't know, all over this talk page as well as my user talk), and yet, now I'm going to be kept out of the loop for not communicating. Then next time, you can chastise me for not following a rule I didn't see because you kept me out of the loop. Clever. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:56, 16 November 2008 (EST)

== Liberal propaganda ==

Could I please petition to [[liberal propaganda]] to the template? I have a feeling that with Obama's ascent, we're going to have to deal with a LOT more of it.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 23:10, 14 December 2008 (EST)

== [[Network abuse]] ==

[[Network abuse]] is either a tool or trait of liberalism. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 15:17, 17 February 2010 (EST)

== Liberal whining ==

Someone needs to add newly created article [[liberal whining]] to the template. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 21:03, 18 February 2010 (EST)

== [[Liberal pressure]] ==

Perhaps [[liberal pressure]] would make a good addition? [[User:NP|NP]]

Liberal pressure

2010-03-21T19:21:16Z

NP:

Liberal pressure

2010-03-21T19:18:24Z

NP: Created page with ''''Liberal pressure''' is pressure imposed on someone that disagrees with them for political advantage. One example is death threats made against George Bush.<ref>[http://www…'

Bart Stupak

2010-03-21T19:09:03Z

NP:

{{Officeholder
|name=Bart Stupak
|image=Bartstupak.jpg‎
|party=[[Democrat]]
|spouse=Laurie Ann Stupak
|religion=Roman Catholic
|offices=
{{Officeholder/representative
|state=Michigan
|district=1st
|terms=January 3, 1993 – Present
|preceded=[[John Conyers]]
|former=
|succeeded=
}}
}}

'''Bartholomew Thomas "Bart" Stupak''' (born February 29, 1952) has served as a [[Democrat]]ic U.S. Representative from [[Michigan]]'s 1st congressional district since 1993. He is a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation.

He is a graduate from Northwestern Michigan College, Saginaw Valley State University, and earned a [[Juris Doctor]] from Thomas Cooley Law School. Stupak served as a Michigan State Trooper from 1973 to 1984. After being injured in the line of duty he retired, and was elected to the Michigan House in 1988. In 1990 he lost a race for the State Senate. He was elected to the [[House of Representatives]] in 1992 and has been easily reelected ever since.

Stupak is strongly [[pro-life]] regarding [[abortion]], although he caved in to [[liberal pressure]] by the [[pro-aborts]] and agreed to vote yes. In 2006, he received a 100% rating from the [[National Right to Life Committee]]. <ref>http://www.ontheissues.org/MI/Bart_Stupak.htm</ref> He voted for banning [[partial-birth abortion]]s and supported [[President George W. Bush]]'s veto of embryonic-stem-cell-research.

Stupak endorsed [[John Edwards]] in the 2008 Democratic primaries. <ref>http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Bart_Stupak</ref>

==ObamaCare==
In 2009, Stupak co-wrote the Stupak–Pitts Amendment, which prohibits funds from being "used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury,
or physical illness." <ref>http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2009_record&page=H12921&position=all</ref> He led a small group of twelve prolife representatives in the House to thwart legislation unless abortion was removed. It was removed, the group voted for reform and the bill was sent to the Senate.

The Senate would strip the bill of abortion limitations while claiming abortion funding was not included. The bill must again be approved by the House for the changes made by the Senate. Stupak is sticking to his original request for no abortion funding. Obama and the [[Senate]] want Stupak to sign off on the bill through [[reconciliation]] whereby they vote for the legislation and then go back and make changes, such as abortion terms. Since the administration will stop at nothing to pass their bill, it is expected that Stupak will be the deal-clincher or deal-breaker yet again. He stated, "I'm more optimistic than I was a week ago" that abortion will be removed form healthcare reform legislation. Stupak would reiterate, "Everyone’s going around saying there’s a compromise—there’s no such thing." He will not agree to a promise to fix the bill in the future. Stupak emphasized, "My numbers remain firm at 12. These are 12 who voted for it [in November] who will not vote for it unless we resolve this issue." <ref>[http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/stupak Stupak: There's No Deal, And I Won't Agree to a Promise to Fix the Bill in the Future, Weekly Standard, March 9, 2010]</ref>

==See Also==

*[[Stupak Amendment]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.house.gov/stupak/ Official Website]
*[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=s001045 Biography at the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]

== References ==
<references/>
{{DEFAULTSORT:Stupak, Bart}}
[[Category: 111th United States Congress]]
[[Category: United States Representatives]]
[[Category: Democratic Party]]

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2010-03-21T19:00:43Z

NP: /* "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." */

For older discussion, see [[Talk:Conservative Bible Project/Archive 1|here]].

(continuing from archive)

== Comment Here ==
Liberals would have to read the Bible? As a pagan moderate, I've actually schooled conservatives in their knowledge of the Bible. The accusation should be made as a whole. I talked to someone that considered themselves a Christian conservative who once told me he needed to read the Bible. Go to Bass Pro Shops and hang out for a bit. Those people carry camo bibles but don't know what it says in it, other than homosexuals being wrong. This accusation that anyone, liberals, moderates, or conservatives as a whole haven't read the Christian bible should be taken out. - JaffaLycosa

Agreed, from a Christian who sees enough other Christians at church to know the above person is largely correct. -Jones

:Folks, you're not fooling anyone here. "JaffaLycosa" has made 12 edits here, but I haven't seen an intelligent one by him about the Bible yet. Check out the finalists and winners of this years National Bible Bee - virtually all are likely conservatives. Out of 300 million people, might a few "pagans" know the Bible better than a few conservatives? Yes, just as there might be someone who lives 100 years despite smoking several packs of cigarettes a day. But those are rare exceptions, not the rule.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:35, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:You know, whenever you see a high-profile liberal talk about the Bible, they always, always display their profound ignorance of it. They misquote passages out of context, invent new passages either out of whole cloth or via bastardization of one or more passages, get books in the wrong Testament, or conveniently ignore passages with some excuse or another. (Now expecting the obligatory and predictable "I know you are, but what am I?" responses from liberals here or ''elsewhere''- i.e. claiming that everything I mentioned is what conservatives do.) [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 13:14, 12 December 2009 (EST)

::In furtherance of your observation, I doubt the average liberal spends more than 1% of his spare time on the Bible, and he is unlikely to be able to answer the most basic questions about this book, which is the most logical and influential in history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:23, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:It seems unfair to call the Bible the most logical book in history, given that many books have been written that do not include any contradictions and do not rely on non-physical entities to explain physical phenomena.

::Really? Name some examples. Also, back up your suggestion that the Bible contains contradictions. Sounds like you've been misled by liberals, and I urge you to reconsider with an open mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:36, 12 December 2009 (EST)

Homosexuals are the main cause of people not wanting to read the bible. It is the most sacred literary work ever. The homosexuals think they can do whatever they want and not follow the teachings of the bible. Good thing we have Prop 8 and things of that nature to keep marriage between a man and a woman.

: Getting rid of the Bible, or having it labeled as "hate speech," is a predicable goal of the homosexual movement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:36, 12 December 2009 (EST)

: Here's one of my personal favorites:
GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
The chronological order of creation isn't even consistent. Even if you can explain this to yourself with a mystical reconsideration of non-linear time, it's still a problem that makes a straight read-through of the Bible an experience isolated from logic. You've claimed that this is the most logical book in history - it appears that any book that doesn't say the same two things happened both before and after each other would be more logical.

:Your objection is what is illogical. Are you saying merely that a verse is out of order? The Bible quotes are fine, but I can't make sense of your objection. I hope you can come up with something more substantive to back up your claim. Also, you were going to give examples of alternatives that you think are so much better.

:I urge, beg, plead with you to open your mind and realize that liberals may have misled you, and rethink your position for yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:19, 12 December 2009 (EST)

Who did the Mark translation, and where did the term "Divine Guide," instead of the quite literal and direct "Holy Spirit" come from? I was gonna ask this question on the CBP google board, but write access was restricted (I believe in order to avoid such pesky questions). "Divine Guide" carries so much potential theological baggage that I don't understand HOW it could be considered a more acceptable translation.

== CBP in church ==

Just want to mention that I'm a priest (apparently the only one Conservapedia, according to one administrator!), and I'm planning on using portions of the Conservapedia Bible translation in church. In fact, I've already done this once already (on December 6th - with passages from Mark) with great success. I plan on doing it again this Sunday (with the Gospel of Matthew).
If anyone has suggestions for specific passages where you think the Conservapedia translation really brings out insights not seen in other translations, please let me know. God bless, --[[User:FatherJoseph|FatherJoseph]] 19:05, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:I'm working on the 6th Chapter of Luke, [[Luke 1-8 (Translated)]], and the translation of the Beatitudes (starting around verse 20) create some stark differences with other modern versions. For starters, Jesus directed the Beatitudes to his own disciples, not the public, if the figurative translation of a word is used rather than the literal one. Not all his disciples were "poor" (Matthew wasn't, for example), but all were "powerless", which makes for a possibly superior word choice. In fact, I'm going to check now if the [[ESV]] ever uses the term "powerless".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:16, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:: Excellent example! I'll be sure to use these passages in a few weeks, once more of Luke is translated. Very intriguing about the word "powerless", which I think fits in perfectly. I did a search of the NRSV, and it doesn't use this word anywhere in the New Testament (although it does a few times in the Old). --[[User:FatherJoseph|FatherJoseph]] 19:29, 12 December 2009 (EST)

...

:::I'm curious: about how many Masses, if any, have you said in Latin?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:11, 15 December 2009 (EST)

:::: Very few - after the Second Vatican Council, Latin Mass has been heavily disfavored, and few churches hold Mass in Latin nowadays. --[[User:FatherJoseph|FatherJoseph]] 22:57, 15 December 2009 (EST)

:::::"Very few"??? The odds of that being true are, let's say, "very small" indeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:21, 15 December 2009 (EST)

:::::: I don't understand. Why is this so surprising to you? --[[User:FatherJoseph|FatherJoseph]] 23:30, 15 December 2009 (EST)

::::::: You should understand if you were who you say you are. Ha ha, ask your bishop and he'll explain it to you!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:34, 15 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::I'm not sure what this is all about. Vatican II did not forbid priests from doing mass in Latin, indeed there are still some that do special masses in Latin. Latin is also used by those giving mass in Vatican City. Even if Vatican II did ban Latin from being used in mass, Vatican II was opened in 1962, around 20 years after Father Joseph started his ministry. --[[User:JAiken|JAiken]] 00:46, 16 December 2009 (EST)

==Renaming the Epistles==

I would be interested to hear anyone's thoughts on whether the "Epistle to the Corinthians" etc should be renamed as "Letter to the Corinthians". I feel that this would be more in keeping with the intention of the books. They are, after all, first and foremost letters from Paul to distinct peoples. I think we should drop the rather archaic word epistle and change it to letter; or perhaps to advice. Any thoughts?--[[User:PThomson|PThomson]] 21:48, 15 December 2009 (EST)

I would go with "Letter" or "Epistle" but not "Advice". [[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 18:32, 16 December 2009 (EST)

==Possibility of Printing this?==
I am the owner of a small, successful religious printing press in Illinois, and I'm wondering if you have considered submitting this to printers for a print run? I'm relatively confident I could sell a few hundred thousand copies of the Conservative Bible nationally and internationally, and would be glad to talk about a profit participation programme? [[User:DaveSand|DaveSand]] 18:40, 16 December 2009 (EST)

:Really, Dave ... you're from Illinois yet you use English spellings ("programme")??? That's funny, because I grew up in Illinois and never saw anyone else there spell "program" in such an inefficient way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:40, 16 December 2009 (EST)

==Translation of Timothy 1==

I have just completed the first draft of the translation of Timothy. I would very much value any comment and suggestion for improvement.
A few verses have specific issues which I would like to address:
*I took the liberty to translate "godless" with "atheist", which I think conveys nicely the original meaning.
*I translated 'whoremonger' with 'pimp', which appears to be the definition of the job. I have second thoughts about including such a word in a translation of the Bible, though.
Could a respected editor share his opinion on these matters? Regards, --[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 08:48, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:I'll review now. Thanks so much for providing your insights on this. I look forward very much to seeing your work. Your points above look excellent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:57, 17 December 2009 (EST)

== Lost Gospels ==

Has there been any consideration to including lost Gospels in this project, for example, the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Thomas, or the Gospel of Judas? After all, wasn’t the selection of the Gospels we read today and the exclusion of others the first form of censorship or bias the bible received? I think it would be interesting to see what can be done with these other lost Gospels and how they can be integrated into a new, more complete version of the bible. --[[User:Smclean|Smclean]] 19:08, 21 December 2009 (EST)

:Presenting the authentic material is not censorship, but honesty. No, we're not going to pretend that something fake is real.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:24, 21 December 2009 (EST)

== Reply to Liberal Talk ==

Several liberal comments were inserted, and then reverted, in the content page. One claimed that the word "war" is conservative (??), and that references to "war" in the Bible are examples of conservative translation. First, "war" is not a conservative word (conservatives virtually never start wars). Second, there is no other way to translate the word!

The liberal comments also claimed that because the narrative about Jesus's infancy in Luke does not appear in the other Gospels, then we should accept the also-not-referenced verse about forgiving those who crucified Jesus. That's obviously a non sequitur, because the other Gospels ''do'' recount Jesus's words during the Passion and this verse was not recorded by eyewitnesses. Luke, who was not an eyewitness, would not add a quotation that the eyewitnesses omitted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:25, 25 December 2009 (EST)

== Mark Done? ==

I'm surprised to read that the translation of Mark is considered "finished." In my opinion, reading over the gospel of Mark, as it stands right now, it does not read as a finished translation at all! Reading over the talk pages, it seems that a consensus was never really reached about using the term "Divine Guide" for "Holy Spirit" (a term that still strikes me as New Age-y and liberal). The discussion over the term "grape juice" seems to have been tabled indefinitely. Overall, even though some of the translation choices are decent, this book looks very unfinished. --[[User:Caspianrex|Cory Howell]] 13:52, 7 January 2010 (EST)

FWIW, i vote for using 'Holy Spirit' and wine. --[[User:SondraH|SondraH]] 14:25, 7 January 2010 (EST)

: Cory, you put quote marks around "finished", but I could not find any use of that term by us. Mark has been "completed" in the obvious sense of the word: a translation has been proposed for all of the verses. But discussion is ongoing and welcome, though comments more substantive than the above would obviously be more appreciated.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:07, 7 January 2010 (EST)

== Could someone take a look at Ecc? ==

I'm nearly done with Ecclesiastes but haven't gotten anyone to take a look at it, could someone go tell me what they think? --[[User:SamF|SamF]] 17:43, 20 January 2010 (EST)
:I'll be glad to. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 17:57, 20 January 2010 (EST)

== Why use KJV? ==

Im sure this was an earlier discussion, however why is it being on using the KJV as the baseline or comparator?
It seems that using a more literally accurate version as the baseline would be better, NASB for example.

And why not have charts comparing the most common versus between the most common versions to see the supposed liberal bias, exp. KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, CBP?

Also, what I am not clear on is why when it stated that original translation did not include a verse (exp. Father, forgive them, they no not what they do), why is the original translation not listed. And besides if some of these were true and in the oldest texts didn't include the stories or the verses then most translation would now have them bracketed (exp of Ethoiopian eunich being taken into the water to be baptized).[[User:Solarguy17|Solarguy17]] 01:17, 10 March 2010 (EST)

KJV is in public domain. But it is still a rather poor choice. The translators of KJV added in some extra verses, and who knows, they may have had a liberal bias themselves! I think to avoid any bias we should work from the Greek like the professionals do. Always handle the Word of God with care. [[User:NP|NP]]

== "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." ==

This quote is probably authentic because scribes probably wouldn't edit the manuscripts to have sympathy for the ones who crucified Jesus. After all, the crucified the Lord! Also the fact that it doesn't appear in any other Gospel doesn't mean anything. "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." doesn't appear in any other Gospel, but it isn't denounced as false and omitted from the translation, is it? [[User:NP|NP]]

:But the phrase conflicts with much of what Jesus did say; Luke was not an eyewitness and yet this is purportedly a quote by Luke; and the phrase has obviously liberal connotations: do whatever you like because even those who crucified Jesus were forgiven. Essentially the quote is a denial of [[Hell]], when in fact Jesus emphasized the existence of Hell more than Heaven.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:01, 21 March 2010 (EDT)
::They didn't know that they were crucifying the Messiah, did they? If those who crucified Jesus became born again and lived a life following what Jesus taught, I'd think they would go to heaven. Oh, and probably none of the gospel writers are eye-witnesses. The names were later attributed to the books. If we were to say anything made by a non-eyewitness is false then you might as well not listen to all four Gospels. [[User:NP|NP]]

:::This may be a tangent, but what percent of Christians believe that [[Jesus came to die]] and that therefore those who "betrayed" or condemned or crucified him were doing a good deed? I don't mean this as a trick question, and I certainly don't intend to start a debate on a talk page. I just ask as a [[Unificationist]], since [[Unification Church|my church]] believes that [[Jesus did not come to die]], and that everything he accomplished by willing going the way of the cross could have been done just as effectively if he had been accepted by the Israelites. Should I elaborate on this somewhere? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:43, 21 March 2010 (EDT)
::::I have to respectfully disagree with you. Maybe we can create a debate topic on this? (I don't believe his betrayers were doing a good deed, though) [[User:NP|NP]]

NP, three of the four gospels were plainly written by eyewitnesses. You've fallen for liberal deceit to argue otherwise. And if an unrepentant crucifier of Jesus does not go to Hell, then who do you think does?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:52, 21 March 2010 (EDT)
:Well, I most certainly think the unrepentant people who crucified Jesus did to go hell. But where do you get your sources from that 3/4 Gospels were written by eyewitnesses? As far as my understanding, 4/4 were written anonymously. And even if you think they were written by the attributions, it would be 2/4 (Mark and Luke weren't disciples). [[User:NP|NP]]

Gospel of Mark

2010-03-21T18:40:17Z

NP: The gospels were written anonymously.

The '''Gospel of Mark''' is an early written account of the teachings, miracles and Passion of Jesus which emphasizes how suffering and loss enhances one's [[faith]] and [[salvation]].<ref>''See, e.g.'', Mark 8:35.</ref> This Gospel was attributed to [[Mark]] or John Mark, who was an apostle of Peter and a missionary companion of Paul.

There are several indications that this Gospel was written by a very young eyewitness. Unlike the [[Gospel of Matthew]] and the [[Gospel of Luke]], the Gospel of Mark has very few economic parables that mean more to adults than to children. The accounts that Mark does include are those making a bigger impression on a child, such as the multiplication of the loaves (which Mark references ''twice'').

Mark is also briefer than the others, and more focused on suffering and loss. Mark does not describe appearances by Jesus after the Resurrection, which again suggests authorship by a child who was not present with the older Apostles when Jesus appeared at their meetings. Mark's writing style is simple and vivid, and has repetition that one expects from a child.<ref>For example, Mark uses the Greek word meaning "immediately", "soon" or "at once" more than 40 times!</ref> Peter referred to Mark as his son (1 Peter 5:13), and once Paul became disillusioned at Mark's impulsive return back to Jerusalem.

The Gospel of Mark was the first to circulate, which again suggests it was written by a young, less discretionary author rather than a cautious adult.

The passages that appear ''only'' in the Gospel of Mark and not in the other Gospels tend to be parables or events that would impress a child more than an adult:

*the admission that the grower of seeds does not know how they grow (difficult for adults to admit), yet is able to harvest the crop (4:26-29)
*the withered fig tree (unlikely to impress an adult) and the power of [[faith]] (more difficult for adults to accept) (11:20-25)
*the widow's mite, having a lesson that would more likely surprise and impress a child (12:41-44)
*the lack of detail about how ''much'' money Judas Iscariot obtained for his betrayal of Jesus, as a child would not care about the actual amount (14:10-11)

Most telling about the likely young authorship of the Gospel of mark is this unique description that appears only at Mark 14:51-52:<ref>This translation is from the [[King James Version]].</ref>

:And there followed [Jesus during his arrest] a '''''certain young man''''' having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him; and he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.

Modern scholarship points out that this unusual description of a "certain" young man was most likely a personal admission.<ref>''See, e.g.'', the [[Holman Christian Standard Bible]].</ref> It is also possible that Mark was the child brought by Jesus before the other Apostles in order to make a point about humility and open-mindedness towards the Lord:<ref>Matt. 18:4-5 (NRSV); also referenced in Mark 9:36-37.</ref>

:He called a child, whom he put among them, and said, "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever becomes humble like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me."

==History==

[[Mark]] is generally believed to be the earliest [[gospel]]. Based upon common elements in Mark and the gospels of [[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]] and [[Gospel of Luke|Luke]], it appears that Mark was used as the framework from which to expand. There is a theory that Matthew was first, especially based on church tradition, but this theory does not have much popularity today.

The second [[Gospel]] is mainly concerned with the [[Galilean]] ministry of [[Christ]], and the circumstances during the last week at [[Jerusalem]]. It begins with [[Christ| Jesus']] [[baptism]] and temptation. The main portion of the Gospel concerns the public ministry, [[Passion of Christ|Passion]], [[death]], and [[Resurrection]] of Jesus.

Mark doesn't mention certain events mentioned by the other synoptic gospels. The genealogies, the birth story of Jesus, the birth story of [[John the Baptist]], are all not included in favor of getting right into the adult stage, beginning with John the Baptist preparing the way for the savior.

Mark is much more concerned with Christ's acts than with His teachings, though two of these teachings 4:3-32 and 13:5-37 are fairly long. The miracles take up almost 25% of the Gospel. This impresses upon the reader Christ's almighty power and dominion over all physical laws. The first chapter shows three miracles: the casting out of an unclean spirit, the cure of [[Peter]]'s mother-in-law, and the healing of a [[leper]]. Eighteen miracles are recorded and all but three occur in the first eight chapters. Only two of these miracles (7: 31-37and 8:22-26) are peculiar to Mark. Mark, however shows details not found in the other Synoptics. Mark has only four parables: the sower (4:3-9), the seed growing secretly (4:26-29), the mustard seed (4:30-32), and the wicked husbandman (12:1-9). The second of is found only in Mark.

Mark gives a face to the human feelings and emotions of Christ.
The frailties of the apostles are much more graphic than in the parallel narratives the other two [[Synoptic]]s.

There are problems with the ending of Mark. The earliest manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20, a section of scripture that puts forth ideas that aren't found in the other gospels. Current thinking is that Mark 16:9-20 is a later addition and that the Gospel either ends with 16:8 or with original ending is now lost.

==Authorship==
While the author of the Gospel of Mark is not named in the writing, early tradition connects the Second Gospel with John Mark as "Peter's copyist," putting to paper what Peter preached. [[Irenaeus]] says: "Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself also handed down to us in writing what was preached by Peter."<ref>Against Heresies, 3.1</ref> [[Papius]], [[Origen]], [[Tertullian]], and [[Clement of Alexandria]] also support a similar position.

John Mark is also mentioned in 2 Timothy.

==Audience==
The audience is for Gentiles. Mark describes Aramaic words and Jewish customs that would not be necessary for a Jewish audience.

==Style==
The Second Gospel was written in Greek, being that Greek was widely spoken in the Roman empire in the first century. [[Koine Greek|Greek]] was the ''lingua franca'' of the times.
Paul wrote to the Romans in Greek.

The Second Gospel uses 1333 different words, of which 58 are proper names. Eighty words, exclusive of proper names, are not found elsewhere in the New Testament. Compared to Luke, which has more than 250 peculiar words, Mark has only a third as many unique words. Mark shares 150 words with the other Synoptics. 15 are shared only by [[Gospel of John|John]] and 11 others by one or other of the Synoptic '''and''' John.

==See Also==
[[Gospel of Mark (Translated)]]

{{New Testament Books}}

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:New Testament Books| nt2]]
[[Category:Gospels | nt2]]

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2010-03-21T17:53:16Z

NP: /* "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." */

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2010-03-21T17:37:54Z

NP: /* "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." */

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2010-03-20T12:52:17Z

NP: /* "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." */ new section

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2010-03-20T12:43:43Z

NP: /* Why use KJV? */

Jesse Jackson

2010-03-20T12:22:25Z

NP:

[[Image:Wld3.jpg|right|400px|thumb|Jesse Jackson with [[PLO]] Chairman [[Yasser Arafat]].]]
'''Reverend Jesse Jackson''' is a Democratic African-American political activist. He is highly controversial for various reasons, including [[anti-Semitic]] remarks when using a slang name to refer to New York City. Jesse Jackson was part of [[Martin Luther King]]'s circle, although the closeness of these ties is debated. His perceived self promotion with Dr. King's death led to an alientation from the King family. Jackson ran for President on the [[Democrats|Democratic]] ticket in 1984 and again in 1988. He fared much better in 1988, but his past New York City slur came back to haunt him and he was especially lambasted by then New York City mayor [[Ed Koch]], who is also [[Jewish]].

According to ''[[Washington Post]]'' reporter Milton Coleman, Jackson remarked about "the preoccupation of some with [[Israel]]." Coleman quotes Jackson as saying,
{{Cquote|That's all Hymie wants to talk about, is Israel; every time you go to Hymietown, that's all they want to talk about. <ref>[http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=187440 Jesse and the Jews], Michael W. Hirschorn, ''The Harvard Crimson'', March 05, 1984.</ref>}}

The ''American Journalism Review'' reported Jackson issued a non-denial-denial.<ref>[http://www.ajr.org/article.asp?id=370 "Hymietown" Revisited], Gigi Anders, ''American Journalism Review'', May 1999.</ref>

Jesse Jackson was arrested by Decatur, Illinois in December 1999 and charged with criminal trespass and contributing to the delinquency of a minor <ref>[http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2006/jackson-report.pdf Jesse Jackson Exposed,] A Judicial Watch Special Report. Retrieved from judicialwatch.org 06/04/07.</ref> in connection with a demonstration at a local high school.

Jackson runs the Rainbow coalition, a group with much controversy such as in 2001 when it was revealed payments were made from the organization to Jackson's mistress.

In the wake of the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] Rev. Jackson was virtually alone in opposing retaliation on terrorists and the regimes that harbored them. Speaking in a meeting at Operation PUSH headquarters in Chicago four days after the attacks, Jackson told listeners rather than deploy troops the U.S. should,
{{Cquote|launch the fight for the redistribution of resources. One hundred million people will have AIDS in five years. We should use our strength for that. <ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_38_17/ai_79027414 A Tale of Two Preachers - Louis Farrakhan and Jesse Jackson], by Kenneth R. Timmerman, ''Insight on the News'', Oct 15, 2001.</ref>}}

He was prominent in the [[Michael Richards]] and [[Don Imus]] cases.

In June 2007, Jackson was again arrested outside a gun shop. Jackson was allegedly protesting the killing of a 16 year old honor student who was the unintended victim of gang violence. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286412,00.html Rev. Jesse Jackson Arrested at Gun Shop Protest], June 24, 2007.</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==External link==
*[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26851 Jesse Jackson's ties to terrorists exposed], By Paul Sperry, ''WolrdNetDaily.com'', March 18, 2002.

[[Category:Liberal Activists]]

Talk:Scott Brown

2010-03-19T00:47:49Z

NP: /* Not a Real Conservative */ new section

== Last poll before election shows Brown taking the race as voters abandon Obama ==

Conducted the 16th & 17th by Public Policy Polling.[http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_MA_117468963846.pdf] --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:08, 18 January 2010 (EST)

==Results and consequences==

We all know he was elected, but:
#Has the person sitting in "Ted Kennedy's seat" stepped down as Senator yet? If so, when?
#Has Brown been seated yet? Again: if so, when?

I want to know what effect this will have, or has had, on the Democratic Party's 60 vote majority. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:19, 30 January 2010 (EST)

== Brown is pro-choice ==

According to fox, Brown supports a woman's right to choose, but not federal funding for abortion. (see here: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/31/brown-federal-funding-yes-abortion-rights/?test=latestnews)would this be relevant to the article? --FF

:Yes, I agree that is worth mentioning, although it wasn't an issue in the campaign and he was endorsed by a local pro-life group.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:18, 1 February 2010 (EST)

== Not a Real Conservative ==

Mr. Brown isn't a true blue conservative. He supported the socialistic RomneyCare, so I think that is worth mentioning. [[User:NP|NP]]

Tom Hanks

2010-03-11T01:26:13Z

NP:

[[Tom Hanks]] is an [[America]]n actor, starring in such films as ''[[Forrest Gump]]'' and the gay agenda setting drama ''[[Philadelphia]]''. Hanks has a well-documented [[liberal bias]], and has starred in several films by anti-Catholic director [[Ron Howard]]. In January 2009, Hanks publicly stated his displeasure with the [[Mormon]]s for their support of [[Prop 8]] <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,480167,00.html Fox News]</ref>, ironically labeling them "un-American" for voicing their convictions, yet not looking at what that says about himself and his ''own'' voiced convictions. A week later, he apologized for his remarks. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2009/01/23/tom-hanks-apologizes-calling-mormon-supporters-proposition-american/]</ref>

Hanks was joking around on MSNBC's Morning Joe program, tastelessly mocking [[Fox News]], Tea parties and [[Ann Coulter]].<ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2010/03/05/hanks-mocks-fox Hanks Mocks Fox, NewsBusters, March 5, 2010]</ref> He wouldn't even appear on Fox News.<ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/03/06/bill-oreilly-rips-tom-hanks-mocking-fox-news Bill O'Reilly Rips Tom Hanks for Mocking Fox News on MSNBC March 6, 2010]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Hanks, Tom}}
[[Category:Actors]]
[[Category:Liberals]]
{{liberalism}}

Creation science

2010-03-10T22:34:25Z

NP: "proves that proves"? Sounds like improper grammar. Undo revision 761142 by Mrsupes (Talk)

'''Creation science''' is [[science]] which sets out to show that [[supernatural]] [[creation]] of the material [[universe]] by [[God]] is consistent and compatible with the available scientific evidence. Most advocates of creation science believe the [[young earth creationism|earth is approximately 6,000 years]] old. In addition, scientists in the discipline of creation science state that the [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first law of thermodynamics]] and [[Second law of thermodynamics|second law of thermodynamics]] argue against an eternal universe. They also claim that these laws point to the universe being created by [[God]].<ref>[http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php Evidences for God From Space—Laws of Science]</ref><ref>Thompson, Bert, [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329 So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!], 2001 (Apologetics Press)</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref> Creation scientists also assert that naturalistic processes alone cannot account for the [[origin of life]] and that the [[Evolution|theory of evolution]] cannot account for the various kinds of animals and plants. Both evolutionary scientists and [[Young earth creationism|young earth creation]] scientists believe that [[speciation]] occurs; however, young earth creation scientists state that speciation generally occurs at a much faster rate than evolutionists believe is the case.<ref>[[Creation Ministries International]], [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3036/ Speciation: Questions and Answers]</ref> Many scientists in the field of creation science assert that the Bible contains an understanding of scientific knowledge beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed (see [[Bible scientific foreknowledge]]).

== Creation Science and Genetic Programs and Biological Information ==
:''Main article: [[Intelligent design]]''
[[Image:Foto Gitt.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Dr. [[Werner Gitt]]]]
Scientists in the area of creation science and [[intelligent design]] advocates state the [[genetic code]], genetic programs, and biological [[information]] argue for an intelligent cause in regards to the origins question.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences18.html</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/infotheory.asp</ref><ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=118</ref>

Dr. Werner Gitt, former director and Professor of Information Systems at the prestigious German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt), wrote that human beings are the most complex [[information]] processing systems on earth. Dr. Gitt estimated that the human body processes thousands of times more information than all the world's libraries contain.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes17.html</ref>

Dr. Gitt has written several points regarding the origin of biological information:

#In his work ''In the Beginning Was Information'' Dr. Gitt stated that “There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.”<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes17.html#wp1484094</ref>
#Dr. Gitt argued that the [[density]] and complexity of [[DNA]] information is millions of times larger than mankind's current technology and this means a supremely intelligent being was the author of this information.<ref>http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn58/tinycode_dna.htm</ref> Similarly, Dr. [[Stephen C. Meyer]] in his 1996 essay ''The [[Origin of life|Origin of Life]] and the Death of [[Materialism]]'', wrote that "the information storage density of DNA, thanks in part to nucleosome spooling, is several trillion times that of our most advanced [[computer chip]]s.<ref>http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_origins.htm</ref>
#Gitt stated that the author of the information encoded into the DNA [[molecule]], who constructed the molecular biomachines to encode, decode and run the cells was supremely intelligent.<ref>http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn58/tinycode_dna.htm</ref>
#Dr. Gitt asserted that because information is a nonmaterial entity and does not originate from matter, the author of biological information must be nonmaterial ([[spirit]]).<ref>http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn58/tinycode_dna.htm</ref>
[[Image:Waltbrown.gif‎|left|thumb|200px|Dr. [[Walt Brown]]]]
Dr. [[Walt Brown]] concurs in regards to the [[supernatural]] origin of biological information and states that the genetic material that controls the biological processes of life is coded information and that human experience tells us that [[codes]] are created only by the result of intelligence and not merely by processes of nature.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences18.html</ref> Dr. Brown also asserts that the "information stored in the genetic material of all life is a complex program. Therefore, it appears that an unfathomable intelligence created these genetic programs."<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences18.html</ref>

To support his creation science view regarding the divine origin of genetic programs, Dr. Walt Brown cites the work of David Abel and Professor Jack Trevors who wrote the following:
{{cquote|No matter how many "bits" of possible combinations it has, there is no reason to call it "information" if it doesn't at least have the potential of producing something useful. What kind of information produces function? In computer science, we call it a "program." Another name for computer software is an "algorithm." No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organism with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms' genomes programmed? - David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information,” Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, page 8<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes17.html#wp1467742</ref><ref>http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1208958</ref>}}

==Creation Science and the Evolutionary Science Community==
Creation science is not accepted by most scientists either in terms of its claims or as a science, on the pretext that it cannot be disproved and therefore cannot be considered "[[science]]".<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/19991013122341/http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/evolutionviews990816.html</ref> <ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ13.html#wp2727001</ref> However, Dr. [[Walt Brown]] argues that the field of creation science is scientific.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ13.html#wp2727001</ref> Also, creation scientists state the evolutionists' objections to creation science are due to the worldviews and preconceptions of the scientists, rather than on the basis of scientific evidence or the scientific validity of the idea.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp</ref>
Also, [[Karl Popper]], a leading philosopher of science and originator of falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience,<ref>
* http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/
* http://www.discovery.org/a/3524</ref> stated that Darwinism is "not a testable scientific theory, but a [[Metaphysics|metaphysical]] research programme."<ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref> Michael Ruse, a leading Darwinist and philosopher of science, conditionally acknowledged Popper's statement: "Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable."<ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref>

{{Creation vs. evolution}}
==See Also==
*[[Christianity and Science]]
*[[Theory of Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality]]

==External Links==
*[http://creation.com/ Creation Ministries International]
*[http://www.creationscience.com/ In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood] the website of Dr. [[Walt Brown]]
*[http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal]
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/ Answers in Genesis]
*[http://www.icr.org/ Institute for Creation Research]
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/ NorthWest Creation Network]

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

[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Creation science]]

Larry David

2010-03-10T21:20:17Z

NP: spelling error

'''Larry David''' is a well known comedian and co-creator of [[Seinfeld]]. Currently, he has his own TV show on [[HBO]] called [[Curb Your Enthusiasm]].
{{DEFAULTSORT:David, Larry}}
[[Category:Comedians]]

Conservapedia talk:Debate Topics

2009-12-17T01:18:41Z

NP: /* Request for a sysop to add Debate:Was Jesus Conservative or Liberal? */

==Request for a sysop to add [[Debate:How should we view the fact leading scientists do not believe in god?]]==
With the leading scientists of America (I believe the British numbers are even higher), professing non-belief to a huge majority. And masses of scientists from leading universities of America having a massively increased chance of being agnostic/atheistic, what lessons should we take from the fact that the supposedly best educated (and most likely highly intelligent also), have decided that god either doesn't exist, or at the least has no positive evidence?
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3341576

Sorry if this isn't the correct way to get a debate added, but it seems the only way I can spot, not sure where the best place would be for it? [[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 15:19, 25 February 2008 (EST)

==Unicorn==
i tried to edit the unicorn page but was unfortunately unable to do so. can u please inform about unicorns.........

Concerned intellectual

==Texas, presidents from==
We put in 3 presidents from Texas, and had 3 wars; a real brain trust. Who supplied the monies to put these Texans into office? We all know the mentality of Texans; shoot first and ask questions later. We are also suppose to welcome illegals into this country, and help support them, says a man from Texass. I could care less about your stupid party affiliations; and A-Hole is an A-Hole no matter the party.
If a demogog was in office instead of a repugnant, he would have been impeached by now. This shows you the power of the repugnants.{{Unsigned|Take13}}

== Spelling as a Commandment on here ==

The Un-American spelling of the Constitution!

The US Constitution has words like “chuse” and “chusing,” “Pensylvania” (in fact so does the Liberty Bell!), “defence,” and there are more… Oh dear, maybe Conservapedia should edit the US Constitution in accordance to it’s spelling absolutism (hey don’t correct me, the Constitution “improperly” has “it’s” instead of “its” in there… Article 1, Section 10). I’m sure Conservapedia would garner plenty of support since spelling is such a big deal these days. I mean it IS one of the 6 Conservapedia Commandments.

The pinnacle of American ideals and identity is our Constitution, and still I think Conservapedia would find themselves in a rut trying to justify why their spelling should be reflected on there… even though their spelling standards claim to be American, and well, the US Constitution IS American.

Spelling is fluid… it would be interesting to see how American spelling changes. I would hope what it means to be an American doesn’t change as much as spelling…{{Unsigned|Heidilaide}}

:I'll leave it to [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]] to decide whether to reproduce exactly the spelling of the US Constitution, or to change the spelling.

:We need to remember that the man who, more than any other man, made spelling standard in the [[United States]] was [[Noah Webster]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 15:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== How to add debate topics ==

Please tell us HOW!! I tried, but apparently got the link wrong the first couple of times... --[[User:Mathematica|Mathematica]] 03:31, 4 April 2007 (EDT) moved from article page by [[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]]

:The instructions are basically at the bottom of the page. I would also recommend finding another debate page that has a similar format and copying in the appropriate wiki markup, like the debate box at the top, headings for things like "Yes" and "No" (or whatever is appropriate). Also, if answers should fall under such headings, try to make the question very clear to avoid misunderstanding.

Yes, please add instructions. Otherwise, I'm sorry for creating discussions out of order. --[[User:Ephilei|Ephilei]] 10:47, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

==Dead links==

I notice rather a large number of these are now red links. I assume that is because the topics were deemed inappropriate and deleted by admins. Since the format is "create the link, then start the debate page", there should be ''no'' red links on this page. Therefore, later this evening I am going to goof off from work again and remove them - unless someone asks (or tells) me not to. I am also going to add an exciting new page I'd like to see ongoing discussion about - CPdians ideas and opinions about the 2008 Presidential candidates! [[User:Human|Human]] 19:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:I thought it was that nobody had bothered to start the debate... [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 19:23, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Idiotic jokes and pointless debates ==

The last ones should be erased

== What went wrong? ==

I joined conservapedia for a laugh, but SHOCK! These debates are actually interesting and thought-provoking. I'll be sticking around here, deffo. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 19:25, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

==Request for a sysop to add [[Debate:The Vacillating Investor]]==
Please add this to [[Debate topics]]. I suggest that it go under a new subheading, "Puzzles." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:29, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

==Request for a sysop to add [[Debate:Is Sexual Orientation Inherent or Chosen?]]==
Please add this to [[Debate topics]]. It should probably go under "Philosophical Debates" or "Scientific Debates".--[[User:Patthew|Patthew]] 12:54, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

==Request for a sysop to add [[Debate:Which_is_better:_science_or_religion%3F|Debate: Which is Better: Science or Religion?]]==
This debate page was created earlier today, though I do not remember who created it. Discussion has already begun, but it is unlikely to continue if not added to the list. Please add, perhaps under "Philosophical". Thanks!

==Request for a sysop to add debate [[Conservapedia: Is Wikipedia really as bad as it is made out to be]]==
I realise by its very name this debate might seem contrary to Conservapedia's aims in distancing itself from the site, but please read my argument to see I'm not taking sides, I'm more arguing for the development of reference sources. Hope it's a good debate [[User:Argonaut|Argonaut]] 20:02, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

==Request for a sysop to add debate [[Conservapedia:Is there a problem with simply copying content from other sites?]]==
I feel like this is a valid question, especially during the speedy new page creation during the Team Contest. This should probably be in the "Debates about Conservapedia" section. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 17:54, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

==Add: Conservapedia:There is no [[Fossil fuel]] or [[Peak oil]]==
Scientists contend that the supply of oil will [[Peak oil|peak]]. But none can agree on an exact month, year or even decade. Other scientists want to research [[abiotic oil]] (a process where oil is made without fossils) but are prevented by the DOE from conducting their research. Success in this area may mean uncovering vast amounts of oil.[[User:KirjathSepher|KirjathSepher]] 14:08, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

==Locked forever?==

Is anyone ever going to post a new debate topic?[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 11:25, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

Ya I want to post a new debate topic actually. I was wondering if it is right that the user "TK" should be able to crank the ban hammer so often. I think his intention is good, however his means are a bit extreme.--[[User:JonL|JonL]] 12:07, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

*LOL! Crank out that topic, man....let's see what you got! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 12:15, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Hello TK. I am a recent family friend of the Schllllllllllllafys. They are unquestionably good people. I am not implying that you are not. Mr S. told us recently that you are a "guard dog" of conservapedia. We, being our class, came up with a grand total of about 35 user blocks lol. To be honest I think that is quite funny, barring the fact that two of them were mine. Now there is about 40 or so people in our class, and 35 accounts banned, theoretically assuming noone one has made more than one account each, however this is not true at least in my case. That comes out to roughly 90% of the class has been banned at least once, give or take. Now this class has been going on for three weeks, and I believe that the majority of the students are new to the class, and thus new to Conservapedia. So, the statistics, ROUGHLY, I emphasize this because I do not believe that they are exact, but I feel they are in the ballpark.

STATS:

40 new users
35 bans
3 weeks = a clear disproportionate number of bans. To your defense I am not positive about the nature of these bans. If they were legitamate then I apologize now. However I feel that this would be very unlikely because from at least what I heard they said that the nature of the bans were for "innapropriate names", which were at least from their point of view -IL-ligit'.

That is all I can say if you have anything to disprove me I gladly except defeat and move on. On a random note could you inform me, or at least tell me of any possible way that I could join your team in that contest that I saw your ID listed in. I'm not sure but I think that the name of your team was Air something lol I'm not sure. Any way, thank you for taking the time to right back, it is always appreciated. --[[User:JonL|JonL]] 12:35, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

*This isn't Wikipedia, we require users to register, and they may have only one account. So, having at least two, you are in violation already. Your "class" will continue to be banned so long as they choose inappropriate names and use proxy servers to mask their true IP. Always good to hear you appreciate my ''righting'' back. As a class project, check the block logs and see who is blocking the most users. Now I wish you Godspeed! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 12:41, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Low blow man with the "righting" back comment lol. Another quick q, I was reading your I guess biography page, or that page regarding you and your life style. I too am a born again Christian and I have to problem admitting this openly. Could you point me to the guidelines on how to create a page such as this. And fyi, I will let Mr. S know about this convo in about two hours when I go to his class. =). Peace --[[User:JonL|JonL]] 12:47, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

*LOL...really scared! :p Godspeed to you! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:22, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

== Why do we need debate topics? ==

This seems like a giant spot for Wikipedians to flame us.

:so people can argue their points obviously-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 01:32, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
:So you can flame them back?[[User talk:Faizaguo|Flame.]]--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 12:30, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

==Archive==

Someone needs to archive these, urgently. Some haven't been touched for 4-5 months! [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 20:36, 9 November 2007 (EST)

==Oops==
Alright, I admit it... I mistakenly thought I was improving two questions under the Philosophical Debate questions heading, and I know I broke some links. What can I do to fix this? [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 14:06, 21 December 2007 (EST)

::Ah! I think I've got it! [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 14:07, 21 December 2007 (EST)

== Why We Should Remove New Hampshire ==

As you know, the American government has accumulated a huge national debt, and they are having a bit of trouble getting rid of it. Getting rid of $8 trillion can be a bit tricky, so they are asking American citizens to come up with ways to help eliminate it. Of course I, like the helpful guy that I am, have come up with the perfect option: Let’s get rid of New Hampshire.

Why New Hampshire? It’s quite easy. New Hampshire has nothing special about it. Not since Old Man in the Mountain collapsed. I mean, it doesn’t have a professional sports team, it has no important colleges, and it’s really small, too. Only 1.2 million people live on 9350 square miles. We could easily get rid of this and no one would care!

Here’s how it happens: First, the government reclaims New Hampshire from private citizens with that wonderful eminent domain power that they have, give the citizens a couple hundred bucks to keep them happy, and then sell the land to another country. It doesn’t matter which one, we’re trying to save America here. Canada comes to mind. They’re already the second-biggest country in the world, so they wouldn’t mind having a nice patch of land south of the Great Lakes. Mexico could be fun. We’d have people complaining of the hundreds of illegal immigrants coming from “East of the border”. Heck, I’d bet Iran or North Korea wouldn’t mind having a small patch of land right next to America. I’d bet they’d be willing to pay top dollar!

Now, let’s get back to actually selling the place. The average price per acre of land in New England is $528,000. If we multiply that by the 2.2 million acres of land in New Hampshire, we’d get over a quadrillion dollars! Not only would we be out of debt, we’d be in in the black! We might even be able to spend a few more years in Iraq without bankrupting the country if we did this!

Hey, here’s another reason: New Hampshire is a bigger money pit than the educational system! New Hampshire spends over $2 billion a year. They also have the second-lowest tax burden in the country! So can you tell me why these people spend so much money with almost no taxes? In addition to that, New Hampshire has the highest per capita sales of alcohol in the country! And speaking of education, New Hampshire doesn’t publicly fund kindergarten! They don’t care about our children and their education! The only thing that they care about is filling their wallets with money and their hip flasks with bourbon. New Hampshirian-ites have the highest per capita income in the country, and none of it is taxed! These greedy, drunken, corrupt, penny-pinching misers deserve to be gotten rid of!

There are political reasons, too. For almost its entire history, God’s chosen political party has governed New Hampshire, but as a result of current trends, New Hampshire is now being ruled… by the left! How terrifying is that? I mean, liberals have wasted enough of this country’s money on health care and alternative energy; can you imagine what it would be like if one more state was ruled by these pagan tax-and-spenders? If we sell New Hampshire, these horrible people will be able to go back to those terrible states that spawned them: California, New York, and Minnesota.

Now, I can tell some of you are squeamish about this idea. You might say that it would cost too much to get rid of New Hampshire. You might say we’d have to redesign the flag to accompany the loss of one state. Surely you jest. Not many people know this, but Texas has a special amendment in its constitution that allows it to split into as many as five separate states if needed. So, after we sell New Hampshire, we can simply split up Texas into two separate states: South Texas and Souther Texas. It would be clean, easy, and efficient.
Besides, if you still think it would cost too much, remember that in 2004, the federal government passed a bill that set aside $25,000 to be spent on researching mariachi music. I think that pretty much proves that this country can afford anything.

Now, my reasons to get rid of New Hampshire are quite clear: New Hampshire is worth a lot of money, incredibly small, and is losing money faster than the Automotive industry. It has no reason to exist, so it shouldn’t. And remember, if you don’t think that we should eliminate America’s national debt quickly and efficiently, it can only mean one thing: you hate America. Thank you and have a nice day.

[[REquest to add Debate Topic: Faith or Morality: Which is more important?]]

==Request for a sysop to add [[Debate:Should we end Medicare?]]==
With the current healthcare debate and alleged waste, this could be a good topic. [[User:CMcFreeze|CMcFreeze]] 19:44, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

== Request for a sysop to add [[Debate:Was Jesus Conservative or Liberal?]] ==

I'd like to see a debate like this. I mean, if the Christian right want to ban the choice abortion because it's against The Bible, then shouldn't it be mandatory to participate in government programs to help the poor? [[User:NP|NP]] 18:44, 14 December 2009 (EST)

: Don't follow your reasoning there. The Bible doesn't support taxation or forced redistribution of wealth. It does have numerous explicit references to how a person exists as a full human being, one even capable of sinning, while still in his mother's womb.

: More generally, wouldn't your proposed debate topic be better address ''after'' we translate the Bible, rather than before?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:48, 14 December 2009 (EST)
::Then shouldn't abortion (not that I am for it) be a choice, then, if giving to the poor is a choice? [[User:NP|NP]] 18:52, 14 December 2009 (EST)
:::Could anyone respond to the above question? @Aschlafly That would be a better idea. [[User:NP|NP]] 20:18, 16 December 2009 (EST)

Conservapedia talk:Debate Topics

2009-12-14T23:52:44Z

NP: /* Request for a sysop to add Debate:Was Jesus Conservative or Liberal? */

Conservapedia talk:Debate Topics

2009-12-14T23:44:12Z

NP: /* Request for a sysop to add Debate:Was Jesus Conservative or Liberal? */

Conservapedia talk:Debate Topics

2009-12-14T23:44:00Z

NP: /* Request for a sysop to add Debate:Was Jesus Conservative or Liberal? */ new section

Profanity

2009-12-14T00:54:42Z

NP: This has no sources to prove it and is not necessarily true

'''Profanity''', also known as '''bad language''', '''swearing''', '''cursing''', or '''cussing''', is the usage of [[word]]s which are considered to be offensive or abusive. Its use is taboo in polite or formal environments, and more commonly accepted in informal contexts. The word "profanity" comes from the word "profane", which means that which is not sacred.

Profane words tend to involve certain near-universal subjects: filth, particularly human waste; forbidden sexual practices; and [[blasphemy|blasphemous]] treatment of the sacred. However, it is the words themselves, and not the concepts they represent, which cause offense, as there are numerous words to signify any taboo subject, with varying levels of acceptability. Among profane words, there exist at least two levels of offensiveness. There are also, in many languages including English, euphemisms such as ''darn'', ''drat'', ''gosh'', ''frap'' and so on.

Over time, the perceived offensiveness of some expressions has changed. Up to the twentieth century the most offensive terms were religious. Many exclamations we find completely innoffensive are euphemistic renditions of blasphemy. The twentieth century saw a shift to sexual terms as the most offensive. Recently racial terms have grown in their offensiveness (the "N" word was commonplace and acceptable until the mid-nineteenth century, it is now too offensive even for use in male-only settings).<ref>http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/articles/pages/751/Nigger.html</ref>

==See Also==
*[[No Cussing Club]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/bbozell/2009/bb_01301.shtml Why Do We Love Profanity?], Brent Bozell, GOPUSA, January 30, 2009

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[Category:Language]]

Turntablism

2009-12-14T00:49:57Z

NP: Undo revision 730936 by LULZ (Talk)

'''Turntablism''' is the practice of using a [[turntable]], or vinyl record player, as a musical instrument. Several popular songs and albums have been created purely by turntablism, such as DJ Shadow's ''Endtroducing'', The Avalanches' ''Since I Met You'' and Girl Talk's ''Night Ripper''.
[[Category:Musical terms]]

Conservative

2009-12-14T00:33:41Z

NP: Removed Conservative Presidents - Undo revision 730917 by JavierTheMan (Talk)

{|align=right border=3 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 5px; border-color: #c0c0c0; background: #e0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Previous_Breaking_News/Conservatives| Previous Breaking News: Conservatives]]
|}

A '''conservative''' adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral values, agreeing with [[George Washington]]'s [[Farewell Address]] that "religion and morality are indispensable supports" to political prosperity.<ref>[http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/49.htm United States Department of State] George Washington, farewell address, 1796</ref><ref>Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary has the following definition of conservative: "tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : TRADITIONAL"[http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conservative] Therefore, a conservative Christian would be one that tends to adhere to the morally sound doctrines of the early Christianity and [[Judeo-Christian]] values.</ref>

Former President [[Ronald Reagan]] said:
* The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom . . . [http://www.reason.com/news/show/29318.html]
[[Image:Aaag.jpg|thumb|Ronald Reagan, the 40th President of the United States, is the epitome of American conservatism.]]

The ''sine qua non'' of a conservative is someone who rises above his personal self-interest and promotes moral and economic values beneficial to all, rather than to themselves as liberals promote. Alternatively, a conservative is willing to learn and advocate the insights of economics and the morality of the Bible for the benefit of all. Specifically, conservatives seek or support:

* [[Classroom prayer]]
* Prohibition of [[abortion]]
* [[Abstinence]] education
* Traditional marriage, not same-sex marriage
* Respect for differences between men and women, boys and girls
* Laws against pornography
* The [[Second Amendment]] right to keep and bear arms
* Economic allocative efficiency (as opposed to popular equity)
* The death penalty
* Parental control of education
* Private medical care and retirement plans
* Canceling failed social support programs
* No world government
* Enforcement of current laws regarding immigration
* Respect for our military ... past and present
* Rejection of [[junk science]] such as [[evolutionism]] and [[global warming]]
* Low taxes, especially for families
* Federalism (less power for the federal government and more for local and state governments)
* A strong national defense
__TOC__ 
==Leaders==
Conservative scholar Clinton Rossiter, The Giants of American Conservatism. American Heritage; 1955 6(6): 56-59, 94-96, names Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, John Marshall, Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun, Elihu Root, and Theodore Roosevelt for the conservative's hall of fame, with John Adams, in Rossiter’s judgment, as the greatest of American conservatives.

===Presidents===
Periodically a conservative has been elected president of the United States. The most prominent conservative presidents include:
* [[George Washington]] (1789-97)
* [[John Adams]] (1797-1801)
* [[Thomas Jefferson]] (1801-09)
* [[John Quincy Adams]] (1825-29)
* [[Abraham Lincoln]] (1861-65)
*[[Grover Cleveland]] (1885-1889, 1893-1897)
*[[William McKinley]] (1897-1901)
*[[William Howard Taft]] (1909-1913)
*[[Warren G. Harding]] (1921-1923)
*[[Calvin Coolidge]] (1923-1929)
*[[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] (1953-1961)
*[[Ronald Reagan]] (1981-1989)
*[[George W. Bush]] (2001-2009) (with respect to taxes, Supreme Court nominations, and national security)

The most prominent conservative Congresses have been:

*The 80th Congress (elected in 1946)
*The 104th Congress (elected in 1994)
===Movement===
[[Movement conservatives]] are those who accept the logic of conservatism across-the-board, and stand up for its powerful principles despite liberal ridicule. Movement conservative activists include:
*[[Phyllis Schlafly]], opposed [[ERA]]
*[[Jesse Helms]], Senator, specialist in foreign policy
*[[Pat Buchanan]], TV commentator
*[[Jerry Falwell]], religion
*[[Michele Bachmann]], columnist
*[[Ann Coulter]], columnist
*[[Rush Limbaugh]], radio
*[[Michelle Malkin]], commentator
*[[Glenn Beck]], TV commentator
===Key leaders===
*[[Barry Goldwater]] - 1964 Republican candidate, lost to liberal Democrat [[Lyndon Johnson]] but revived the conservative movement inside the GOP
*[[Russell Kirk]] - Theorist & intellectual
*[[Irving Kristol|Irving]] and [[William Kristol]] - Notable [[neoconservatives]]
*[[Margaret Thatcher]] - British prime minister between 1979 and 1990, held similar views as Reagan
*[[Milton Friedman]] - Chicago-school [[libertarian]] economist, influential during Reagan administration; leader of the [[Chicago School of Economics]]
==US Voters==
In America, most conservatives support the [[Republican Party]], but not exclusively so. In the 2008 election, 35% of the voters identified themselves as conservatives. Of them, 78% voted for McCain and 20% for Obama, with the 20% accounting for Obama's margin of victory. Only 22% of the voters were liberal; they favored Obama 89%-10%. In the middle were 44% who called themselves moderates. They split for Obama by 60%-39%. (Minor candidates won 2% of the vote.)<ref> See [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1 Presidential 2008 Exit Poll]</ref>
[[File:Conservative-republican-brain.jpg|thumb|350px]]
===Religious differences between political conservatives and political liberals===
The Barna poll conducted in November 2008 shows significant differences between the 32% of Americans who called themselves as “mostly conservative” on social and political matters; and the 17% who called themselves “mostly liberal” on social and political matters. The others --50%--were moderates with positions somewhere in-between.<ref> See [http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/13-culture/258-survey-shows-how-liberals-and-conservatives-differ-on-matters-of-faith on line results] </ref>

Some findings:
Political liberals are less than half as likely as political conservatives to firmly believe that the Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches (27% versus 63%, respectively); to strongly believe that Satan is real (17% versus 36%); and to firmly contend that they have a personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs with others (23% versus 48%).

[Note: "Liberal" and "conservative" in this survey are based on politics]

Liberals are also far less likely than conservatives to strongly believe each of the following:
*their religious faith is very important in their life (54% of liberals vs. 82% of conservatives);
*a person cannot earn their way into Heaven by doing good deeds or being a good person (23% vs. 37%);
*their faith is becoming an increasingly important moral guide in their life (38% vs. 70%);
*the church they currently attend is very important in helping them find direction and fulfillment in life (37% vs. 62%);
*their primary purpose in life is to love God with all their heart, mind, strength and soul (43% vs. 76%);

political conservatives were more likely than liberals to:
*read the Bible, other than at church events, during the past week (57% vs. 33%, respectively)
*attend a religious service during the past week (62% vs. 35%)
*pray to God, other than at a religious service, during the past week (91% vs. 76%)
*share their religious beliefs with others, during the past year (56% vs. 39%, among the born again Christians interviewed from each segment)
*have ever participated in a short-term missions trip, either within the U.S. or in another country (12% vs. 6%)

*2% of conservatives and 11% of liberals were atheist or agnostic
*15% of conservatives and 2% of liberals were Christian evangelicals
*conservatives were twice as likely as liberals to be categorized as born again, based on their theological views about salvation (63% vs. 32%)
*21% of conservatives were associated with the Catholic church, compared to 30% among the liberals.

== Conservative news organizations ==
Some of the more notable news organizations which tend to be more conservative are [[WorldNetDaily]] and [[NewsMax]]. [[Fox News]], though often called conservative, tends to be more [[neoconservative]] than [[conservative]].

== Conservative magazines and blogs ==
Well known conservative magazines in the United States include ''[[National Review]]'', ''[[Policy Review]]'', ''[[The Weekly Standard]]'' and others.

Some notable [[Conservative blogs|conservative political blogs]] include the [[Heritage Foundation]]'s Policy Weblog, ''[[Human Events]]'', [[Michelle Malkin]], Newsbusters, Townhall.com and others.

== Neoconservatives ==

American commentators who ally themselves with the conservative movement but reject its religious or moral underpinnings are generally known as [[neoconservatives]].<ref>Jonah Goldberg, [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWMxNWNiNDJkY2JmNTExY2E1MzdkYWU3MWU1MTBiOGU= "What Is a 'Conservative'?"], [[National Review|National Review Online]], 11 May 2005</ref>

In the United States, conservatives are generally characterized by the following beliefs:

# Support of limited government.
# A preference for freedom of opportunity over equality of result.
# Patriotism, nationalism, and support of a strong defense.
# Support of the institution of marriage.
# Emphasis on social values, like prayer and pro-life principles.

In contrast, neoconservatives generally support bigger government and globalism, and tend to downplay the significance of social values.

== Paleoconservatives ==

[[Paleoconservatives]] are conservatives who are more focused on opposing [[multiculturalism]], and suspicious of both big government and big business. They also lean more towards isolating America from the problems of other continents. Neoconservatives might criticize this as "isolationism", as they believe we can promote [[democracy]] worldwide.

Among paleoconservatives was Democratic Congressman from Georgia, [[Larry McDonald]]. He was also second Chairman of the [[John Birch Society]], and President of Western Goals. McDonald was aboard [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] when it was shot down by the Soviets in 1983.

== Personal conservatism ==
Because Conservatives often have strong political views, there can be a tendency to see conservatism as a purely political ideology. However, there is also a strong personal side to conservatism - being a conservative is as much about applying conservative values to one's everyday life as it is about campaigning and voting for conservative candidates. In general, conservatives can be characterized by a strong sense of personal [[morality]], a willingness to observe their culture's traditions and customs, and a desire to be respectable and to show due respect to other members of the community.
==History of American conservatism==
===Textbook problems===
College-level teaching about conservatism has been distorted by a "liberal state paradigm"--that is, textbooks usually interpret recent American history in terms of the origins and successes of political liberalism--especially the New Deal, the welfare state, labor unions, and Civil Rights for blacks and equality for women. Conservative politics is usually defined as a reaction: as a free market reply to the growth of big government; as an expression of outrage against declining support for tradition and Christian morality. Where the violent Wobblies (IWW) and illegal sit down strikes of the 1930s are seen as heroic, exposing Communist subversion by [[Joe McCarthy]] is denounced as the nadir of political morality.<ref> See Leonard Moore, "Approaching Conservatism," ''OAH Magazine of History,'' 17 (January 2003) [http://www.oah.org/pubs/magazine/conservatism/moore.html online edition]</ref>
===Loyalists===
The [[Loyalists]] of the [[American Revolution]] were mostly political conservatives, some of whom produced political discourse of a high order, including lawyer [[Joseph Galloway]] and governor-historian [[Thomas Hutchinson]]. Howeever when the crisis came, they stood with the Crown as it tried to destroy American political liberties. After the war, the great majority remained in the U.S. and became citizens, but some leaders emigrated to other places in the British Empire. [[Samuel Seabury]] was a Loyalist who stayed and as the first American bishop played a major role in shaping the Episcopal religion, a stronghold of conservative social values. While the Loyalist political tradition died out totally it the U.S., it survives in Canadian conservatism.
===Founding Fathers===
The Founding Fathers created the single most important set of political ideas in American history, known as [[Republicanism]], which all groups, liberal and conservative alike, have drawn from. Two parties were named "Republican"-- the one founded in 1794 by Jefferson and Madison (it disappeared in the 1820s), and the modern GOP founded in 1854.

During the [[First Party System]] (1790s-1820s) the [[Federalist Party]], led by [[Alexander Hamilton]], developed an important variation of republicanism that can be considered conservative. Rejecting monarchy and aristocracy, they emphasized civic virtue as the core American value. The Federalists spoke for the propertied interests and the upper classes of the cities. They envisioned a modernizing land of banks and factories, with a strong army and navy. [[George Washington]] was their great hero.

On many issues American conservatism also derives from the republicanism of [[Thomas Jefferson]] and his followers, especially [[John Randolph of Roanoke]] and his "Old Republicans" or "Quids." They idealized the yeoman farmer as the epitome of civic virtue, warned that banking and industry led to corruption, that is to the illegitimate use of government power for private ends. Jefferson himself was a vehement opponent of what today is called "judicial activism".
<ref>[http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1030.htm]</ref> The Jeffersonians stressed small government.

===Ante-Bellum: Calhoun and Webster===
During the [[Second Party System]] (1830-54) the [[Whig Party]] attracted most conservatives, such as [[Daniel Webster]] of New England. [[Daniel Webster]] and other leaders of the [[Whig Party]], called it the conservative party in the late 1830s.<ref>The word was originally used in the French Revolution. The British used it after 1839 to describe a major party. The first American usage is by Whigs who called themselves "Conservatives" in the late 1830s. Hans Sperber and Travis Trittschuh, ''American Political terms: An Historical Dictionary'' (1962) 94-97.</ref> [[John C. Calhoun]], a Democrat, articulated a sophisticated conservatism in his writings. Richard Hofstadter (1948) called him "The Marx of the Master Class." Calhoun argued that a conservative minority should be able to limit the power of a "majority dictatorship" because tradition represents the wisdom of past generations. (This argument echoes one made by [[Edmund Burke]], the founder of British conservatism, in ''Reflections on the Revolution in France'' (1790)). Calhoun is considered the father of the idea of minority rights, a position adopted by liberals in the 1960s in dealing with Civil Rights.

The conservatism of the antebellum period is contested territory; conservatives of the 21st century disagree over what comprises their heritage. Thus William J. Bennett (2006) a prominent conservative leader, warns conservatives to NOT honor Calhoun, [[Know-Nothings]], [[Copperheads (politics)|Copperheads]] and 20th century isolationists.

===Lincoln to Cleveland===
Since 1865 the [[History of the United States Republican Party|Republican party]] has identified itself with President [[Abraham Lincoln]], who was the ideological heir of the Whigs and of both Jefferson and Hamilton. As the [[Gettysburg Address]] shows, Lincoln cast himself as a second Jefferson bringing a second birth of freedom to the nation that had been born 86 years before in Jefferson's Declaration. The [[Copperheads (politics)|Copperheads]] of the Civil War reflected a reactionary opposition to modernity of the sort repudiated by modern conservatives. A few libertarians have adopted a neo-Copperhead position, arguing Lincoln was a dictator who created an all-powerful government.

In the late 19th century the [[Bourbon Democrat]]s, led by President [[Grover Cleveland]], preached against corruption, high taxes (protective tariffs), and imperialism, and supported the [[gold standard]] and business interests. They were overthrown by [[William Jennings Bryan]] in 1896, who moved the mainstream of the Democratic Party permanently to the left.

The 1896 presidential election was the first with a conservative versus liberal theme in the way in which these terms are now understood. Republican [[William McKinley]] won using the pro-business slogan "[[sound money]] and protection," while Bryan's anti-bank populism had a lasting effect on economic policies of the Democratic Party.

[[William Graham Sumner]], Yale professor (1872-1910) and polymath, vigorously promoted a libertarian conservative ethic. After dallying with [[Social Darwinism]] under the influence of [[Herbert Spencer]], he rejected evolution in his later works, and strongly opposed imperialism. He opposed monopoly and [[paternalism]] in theory as a threat to equality, democracy and middle class values, but was vague on what to do about it.<ref>Curtis, Bruce. "William Graham Sumner 'On the Concentration of Wealth.'" Journal of American History 1969 55(4): 823-832.</ref>

===Early 20th century===
In the [[Progressive Era]] (1890s-1932), regulation of industry expanded as conservatives led by Senator [[Nelson Aldrich]] of Rhode Island were put on the defensive. However, Aldrich's proposal for a strong national banking system was enacted as the [[Federal Reserve System]] in 1913. [[Theodore Roosevelt]], the dominant personality of the era, was both liberal and conservative by turns. As a conservative he led the fight to make the country a major naval power, and demanded entry into [[World War I]] to stop what he saw as the German attacks on civilization. [[William Howard Taft]] promoted a strong federal judiciary that would overrule excessive legislation. Taft defeated Roosevelt on that issue in 1912, forcing Roosevelt out of the GOP and turning it to the right for decades. As president, Taft remade the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] with five appointments; he himself presided as chief justice in 1921-30, the only former president ever to do so.

Pro-business Republicans returned to dominance in 1920 with the election of President [[Warren G. Harding]]. The presidency of [[Calvin Coolidge]] (1923-29) was a high water mark for conservatism, both politically and intellectually. Classic writing of the period includes ''Democracy and Leadership'' (1924) by Irving Babbitt and H.L. Mencken's magazine ''American Mercury'' (1924-33). The [[Efficiency Movement]] attracted many conservatives such as [[Herbert Hoover]] with its pro-business, pro-engineer approach to solving social and economic problems. In the 1920s many American conservatives generally maintained anti-foreign attitudes and, as usual, were disinclined toward changes to the healthy economic climate of the age.

During the [[Great Depression, U.S.|Great Depression]], other conservatives participated in the taxpayers' revolt at the local level. From 1930 to 1933, Americans formed as many as 3,000 taxpayers' leagues to protest high [[property tax]]es. These groups endorsed measures to limit and rollback taxes, lowered penalties on tax delinquents, and cuts in government spending. A few also called for illegal resistance (or tax strikes). The best known of these was led by the Association of Real Estate Taxpayers in Chicago which, at its height, had 30,000 dues-paying members.

An important intellectual movement, calling itself [[Southern Agrarians]] and based in Nashville, brought together like-minded novelists, poets and historians who argued that modern values undermined the traditions of American [[Republicanism]] and civic virtue.

The Depression brought liberals to power under President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] (1933). Indeed the term "liberal" now came to mean a supporter of the [[New Deal]] and Roosevelt's powerful [[New Deal Coalition]]. In 1934 [[Al Smith]] and pro-business Democrats formed the [[American Liberty League]] to fight the new liberalism, but failed to stop Roosevelt's shifting the Democratic party to the left. In 1936 the Republicans rejected Hoover and tried the more liberal [[Alf Landon]], who carried only Maine and Vermont. When Roosevelt tried to pack the Supreme Court in 1937 the conservatives finally cooperated across party lines and defeated it with help from Vice President [[John Nance Garner]]. Roosevelt unsuccessfully tried to purge the conservative Democrats in the 1938 election. The conservatives in Congress then formed a bipartisan informal [[Conservative Coalition]] of Republicans and southern Democrats. It largely controlled Congress from 1937 to 1964. Its most prominent leaders were Senator [[Robert Taft]], a Republican of Ohio, and Senator [[Richard Russell]], Democrat of Georgia.
[[Image:Gop-plank.JPG|thumb|275px|1936 cartoon shows GOP building its platform from the conservative planks abandoned by the Democrats]]

In the United States, the [[Old Right]], also called the Old Guard, was a group of [[libertarianism|libertarian]], free-market anti-interventionists, originally associated with Midwestern Republicans and Southern Democrats. The Republicans (but not the southern Democrats) were isolationists in 1939-41, (see [[America First]]), and later opposed [[NATO]] and U.S. military intervention in the Korean War.

===Later 20th century: Goldwater, Buckley, the Dixiecrats===
By 1950, American liberalism was so dominant intellectually that liberal critic [[Lionel Trilling]] could dismiss contemporary conservatism as "irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas." <ref>Lapham 2004</ref> But just as Trilling was writing a revival was underway. In the 1950s, principles for a conservative political movement were hashed out in books like Russell Kirk's ''The Conservative Mind'' (1953) and in the highly influential new magazine ''National Review'', founded by [[William F. Buckley Jr.]] in 1955.

Whereas Taft's [[Old Right]] had been isolationist the new conservatism favored American intervention overseas to oppose communism. It looked to the Founding Fathers for historical inspiration as opposed to Calhoun and the antebellum South.

The success of the Civil Rights movement came in the Civil Rights Act of 1864 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Most conservatives supported both, but [[Barry Goldwater]] opposed them. Until then southern whites (both liberal and conservative) had been locked into the Democratic party. That lock was now broken and southern conservatives started voting for Republican candidates for president in 1964-68, and by the 1990s they were also voting for GOP candidates for state and local office. The southern blacks now began to vote in large numbers, and they became Democrats, moving that party in the south to the left. By 2000, for the first time, all southern states had a conservative GOP and a liberal Democratic party. The region favored the GOP heavily in presidential elections, but split in state contests. In 2008, however, the Obama campaign broke into the solid Republican South, carrying Florida, Virginia and North Carolina.

Goldwater, a charismatic figure whose intense opposition to all New Deal programs angered liberals, was defeated in a landslide in 1964. Goldwater faded and his supporters regrouped under new leadership, especially that of [[Ronald Reagan]] in California, and regained strength nationally in the 1966 elections. Conservatives voted for [[Richard Nixon]] in 1968, who narrowly defeated the New Deal champion [[Hubert Humphrey]], and southern demagogue [[George Wallace]]. Nixon had come to terms with both the Goldwater wing of the party and the still-influential Rockefeller Republicans (Republicans from the Northeast who supported many New Deal programs).

===Nixon, Reagan, and Bush===

The Republican administrations of President [[Richard Nixon]] in the [[1970s]] were characterized more by their emphasis on ''[[realpolitik]]'', [[détente]], and economic policies such as wage and price controls, than by their adherence to conservative rhetoric and more liberal actions.

In the eight years of [[Ronald Reagan]]'s presidency 1981-89 the American conservative movement achieved ascendancy. In 1980 the GOP took control of the Senate for the first time since 1954, and conservative principles dominated Reagan's economic and foreign policies, with [[supply side economics]] as well as a strict opposition to Soviet Communism. Reagan promised to cut welfare spending but failed to do so. He did cut taxes, but raised military spending and created large federal deficits of the sort conservatives had complained about for decades. They stopped complaining, as the deficit issue switched to favor the Democrats (who did balance the budget in the late 1990s).

An icon of the American conservative movement, Reagan is credited by his supporters with transforming American politics, galvanizing the Republican Party, uniting a coalition of economic conservatives who supported his supply side economic policies, known as "[[Reaganomics]]," foreign policy conservatives who favored his success in stopping and rolling back Communism, and social conservatives who identified with Reagan's conservative religious and social ideals.

==Conservatives in Britain==

In the United Kingdom the present parliamentary opposition party since 1997 is the [[Conservative Party]]. Its current leader is [[David Cameron]].<ref>[http://www.conservatives.com Conservative party UK]</ref>

Up until the mid-19th century, the forerunners of the Conservatives were known as [[Tory|Tories]], and the name has persisted as a common nickname both for the political party and those believed to be in agreement with it. Since the mid-to-late 1970s, British conservatives have been defined by an advocacy of [[laissez-faire]] economics, privatization and lower taxation. In recent years the Conservative Party has moved away from the social conservatism which once characterized it, and the current party policy includes, for example, support for abortion on demand and gay civil partnership and the Kyoto Treaty and to oppose capital punishment (although it should be noted that such policies have little support among the party's grassroots membership) <ref>John Charmley, ''A History of Conservative Politics Since 1830'', (2nd ed. 2008) </ref>

Levels of prayer and worship are much lower in England and Wales than in the U.S., and religious issues thereby play less of a role in public discourse. However, religious issues remain a significant factor in [[Northern Ireland]] and in 2008 religious issues were significant during a special election in [[Scotland]].

In common with conservatives in many other countries, British Conservatives tend towards a patriotic rather than internationalist outlook, and are traditionally skeptical of the [[European Union]].

The broadcast media (dominated by the [[BBC]]) is almost exclusively liberal in tone. The print media is different with pro-Conservative newspapers like the ''Daily Mail'' , ''Daily Express'' and ''Daily Telegraph'' selling more copies than their rivals.<ref>[http://www.mediauk.com/the_knowledge/i.muk/An_introduction_to_newspapers_in_the_UK Media UK; Introduction to newspapers in the UK]</ref>

== Conservatism and the French Revolution ==

Conservatism in France and the continent generally arose in the after 1790 as a response to the radicalism of the [[French Revolution]].

== See also ==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Conservatives|Articles about '''Conservatives''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[More News/Conservatives|Articles about '''Conservatives''' from "More News"]]
*[[Conservative Links]]
*[[Essay:Fair and balanced is not part of the Conservative platform]]
==Further reading==
* Critchlow, Donald T. ''The Conservative Ascendancy: How the GOP Right Made Political History'' (2007)
* Filler, Louis. ''Dictionary of American Conservatism The First Complete Guide to Issues, People, Organizations and Events'' (1987), useful older encyclopedia
* Frank, Thomas. ''What's the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America'' (2005), a liberal perspective [http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Matter-Kansas-Conservatives-America/dp/080507774X/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193685789&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Frohnen, Bruce et al eds. ''American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia'' (2006), the most detailed reference
* Judis, John B. ''William F. Buckley, Jr.: Patron Saint of the Conservatives'' (1988) [http://www.amazon.com/William-F-Buckley-Jr-Conservatives/dp/0743217977/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207759425&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Kirk, Russell. ''The Conservative Mind''. (7th ed. 2001). highly influential conservative history of ideas [http://www.historyebook.org/ online at ACLS e-books]
* Link, William A. ''Righteous warrior: Jesse Helms and the rise of modern conservatism'' (2008) 643 pages
* Micklethwait, John, and Adrian Wooldridge. ''The Right Nation,'' (2004) influential survey [http://www.amazon.com/Right-Nation-Conservative-Power-America/dp/B000F71124/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205919226&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Micklethwait, John, and Adrian Wooldridge. ''God Is Back: How the Global Revival of Faith Is Changing the World'' (2009)
* Nash, George. ''The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945'' (2006), excellent scholarly history. [http://www.amazon.com/Conservative-Intellectual-Movement-America-Since/dp/1933859121/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241925238&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
*Pemberton, William E. ''Exit with Honor: The Life and Presidency of Ronald Reagan'' (1998) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/exit-with-honor-the-life-and-presidency-of-ronald-reagan-by-william-e-pemberton.jsp online edition]
*Perlstein, Rick. ''Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus'' (2004) on 1964 [http://www.amazon.com/Before-Storm-Goldwater-Unmaking-Consensus/dp/0809028581/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193684721&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
*Perlstein, Rick. ''Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America'' (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Nixonland-Rise-President-Fracturing-America/dp/074324303X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241924189&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Schneider, Gregory L. ed. ''Conservatism in America Since 1930: A Reader'' (2003)
*Schoenwald; Jonathan . ''A Time for Choosing: The Rise of Modern American Conservatism'' (2002) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=104931191 online edition] also [http://www.historyebook.org/ online at ACLS e-books]
* Schweizer, Peter, and Wynton C. Hall, eds. ''Landmark Speeches of the American Conservative Movement'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Landmark-Speeches-American-Conservative-Movement/dp/1585445983/ref=sr_1_4/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193685365&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search]

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

==External Links==
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/conservatives/ What Liberals Say - Category: Conservatives], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:Conservative]]
[[Category:Taxation]]
[[Category:American History]]
[[Category:Reagan Era]]
[[Category:1960s]]
[[Category:New Deal]]

*[http://www.conservativedirectory.com Directory of Conservative Websites - Category: Conservatives], [[Politics]]

[[Category:Conservative]]
{{Conservatism}}

Talk:Mongol Peace

2009-12-13T23:54:36Z

NP:

Um, it seems this is a real concept. I think it should at least be a redirect to the appropriate section of [[Mongol Empire]] (which is currently just a redirect to [[Mongolia]], but that's another problem...) --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 18:45, 13 December 2009 (EST)
:Apparently, the article seemed like it was a sentence in length. Shouldn't then "Pax Mongolia" have a redirect as well? [[User:NP|NP]] 18:54, 13 December 2009 (EST)

Mongol Peace

2009-12-13T23:32:43Z

NP:

Pax Mongolia

2009-12-13T23:32:39Z

NP: I hope I tagged this for deletion properly.

Talk:X Corp.

2009-12-13T18:35:55Z

NP: Created page with 'Perhaps a link to the twitter accounts of Senators and Representatives that have been listed would be helpful. Does anyone else think so? ~~~~'

Perhaps a link to the twitter accounts of Senators and Representatives that have been listed would be helpful. Does anyone else think so? [[User:NP|NP]] 13:35, 13 December 2009 (EST)

X Corp.

2009-12-13T18:35:16Z

NP: /* U.S. House of Representatives */ added rep

[[File:Twitter office space.jpg|thumb|Twitter office space (Photo by Jennifer Woodard Maderazo).]]
'''Twitter, Inc.''' is considered a social networking, micro-[[blog]] [[website]] co-founded by [[Jack Dorsey]]. ''Twitter'' is a privately funded startup established in [[San Francisco]], March 21, 2006. <ref>[http://mashable.com/2009/03/21/happy-birthday-twitter/ Happy Birthday Twitter!] Mashable</ref> As a simple messaging tool, the website states:
<blockquote>
''"Twitter asks one question, "What are you doing?" Answers must be under 140 characters in length and can be sent via mobile texting, instant message, or the web. The result of using Twitter to stay connected with friends, relatives, and coworkers is that you have a sense of what folks are up to but you are not expected to respond to any updates unless you want to.''
</blockquote>

They are a fast growing company with over 14 million registered users worldwide. <ref>[http://www.socialtimes.com/2009/04/twitter-14-million/ Twitter Roars Past 14 Million U.S. Users] SocialTimes.com, April 7, 2009</ref>Currently, they are a money losing operation <ref>[http://twitter.com/about#about ''About Twitter]</ref> but have an enormous market capitalization, over one billion dollars.

==About The CEO==
Evan Williams, a Jack Dorsey's partner, started the website ''Blogger'', which he sold to ''Google''.

==Twitter Phenom==
The site is such a popular destination that new news articles about Twitter appear daily. First for FBI arrests, Daniel Knight Hayden, 52 had Twittered that he would massacre hundreds attending an Oklahoma City [[Tax Day Tea Party]]. <ref>[http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10227769-93.html?tag=newsEditorsPicksArea.0 FBI accuses Twitter user of massacre threats] CNet, April 26, 2009</ref>

==Members of Congress that have Twitter accounts==
<ref>[http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Members_of_Congress_who_Twitter Members of Congress who Twitter] Source Watch Encyclopedia</ref>
===U.S. Senate===
[[Barbara Boxer]] (D-Calif.)
[[Tom Coburn]] (R-Okla.)
Susan Collins (R-Maine)
John Cornyn (R-Texas)
[[Jim DeMint]] (R-S.C.)
[[Chris Dodd]] (D-Conn.)
[[Richard Durbin]] (D-Ill.)
John Ensign (R-Nev.)
Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)
[[Jim Inhofe]] (R-Okla.)
Mel Martinez (R-Fla.)
[[John McCain]] (R-Ariz.)
Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.)
Robert Menendez (D-N.J.)
Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.)
Mark Udall (D-Colo.)
Tom Udall (D-N.M.)
Mark Warner (D-Va.)
Roger Wicker (R-Ms.)

===U.S. House of Representatives===
Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii)
[[Michele Bachmann]] (R-Minn.)
Gresham Barrett (R-S.C.)
Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.)
[[Roy Blunt]] (R-Mo.)
[[John Boehner]] (R-Ohio)
John Boozman (R-Ark.)
Michael Burgess (R-Texas)
Dan Burton (R-Ind.)
[[Eric Cantor]] (R-Va.)
John Carter (R-Texas)
Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah)
Mike Coffman (R-Colo.)
John Culberson (R-Texas)
Steven Driehaus (D-Ohio)
Keith Ellison (D-Minn.)
Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.)
Randy Forbes (R-Va.)
Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.)
Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio)
Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.)
Mike Honda (D-Calif.)
Robert Inglis (R-S.C.)
Jim Jordan (R-Ohio)
[[Dennis Kucinich]] (D-Ohio)
Randy Kuhl (R-N.Y.)
Tom Latham (R-Iowa)
Bob Latta (R-Ohio)
Ben Lujan (D-N.M.)
Dan Manzullo (R-Ill.)
Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.)
Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.)
Cathy McMorris (R-Wa.)
Kendrick Meek (D-Fla.)
Candice Miller (R-Mich.)
George Miller (D-Calif.)
[[Nancy Pelosi]] (D-Calif.)
Jared Polis (D-Colo.)
George Radanovich (R-Calif.)
Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.)
Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.)
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.)
Tim Ryan (D-Ohio)
Joe Sestak (D-Pa.)
Christopher Shays (R-Conn.)
John Shimkus (R-Ill.)
Zach Wamp (R-Tenn.)
Joe Wilson (R-S.C.)
Rob Wittman (R-Va.)
John Yarmuth (D-Ky.)
Gus Bilirakis (R-FL)

== References ==
<references/>

== External Links ==
*[http://www.twitter.com Twitter Home Page]
*[http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=3955253&referralPlaylistId=playlist Video - Social Networking - Twitter can get you fired], ''Fox News'', March 24, 2009
*[http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-10075487-83.html?tag=mncol;txt U.S. Army warns of twittering terrorists]

[[Category:Online social networking]]

Talk:Liberal

2009-12-13T18:32:13Z

NP: /* First few sentences */

[[Talk:Liberal/Arch1|Archive 1]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch2|Archive 2]]
|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch3|Archive 3]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch4|Archive 4]]
 


== Differences between liberals and democrats ==
These should not be included because these do not describe liberalism in and of itself, it describes typical opinions of American democrats. Liberalism is the opposite of some of these things because liberalism is a ideology that mean belief in personal liberty and belief in a social market. These are all actually conservative by definition.

'''Censorship of teacher-lead prayer in classrooms and school sponsored events''' (liberals believe in the freedom of speech and religion. This confusion is caused by democrats belief in the seperation of church and state clause)

'''Support for gun control''' (Liberals believe in maximim personal liberty)

'''Political correctness''' (this is censorship, liberals strongly oppose censorship of the media)

'''Environmentalism''' (not a belief of liberalism in and of itself)

'''Disarmament treaties''' (depends on how you look at it, liberals can be either isolationist of involvementist)

'''In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is a key component of atheistic ideologies in the Western World.''' (doesn't have anything to do with politics)

'''Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama).''' (this one doesn't even need an explanation)

== This Article is so flawed it makes my head spin ==
Problems with this page in order and how to fix them:
'''1. The article's definition of a liberal''' "A liberal is a person who's views reject traditional and biblical standards in favour of subjective or relative standards." is baseless. It has no station nor can i find this definition anywhere else on the internet. I would suggest using a definition from the Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy (online)

'''2. list of so called political positions and practices'''
The lists header "A liberal supports many of the following political positions and practices. " on itself is stylistically non-academic. It could be said that that a conservatie likewise suports many of the following political positions and practices: freedom, Christ, and killing children. Many are sported but not all. Moreover, the list contains many practices that should not necessarily be attributed to liberals.

Most of the views contained in the list are validly liberal however most of them do not have citations and those that do are blatant straw men.

'''3. picture'''
The picture contained in the article is non-factual. its just a cartoon. I would suggest the political compass graph of the beliefs of candidates in the democratic primaries.

'''4. Liberals in north america today'''
Again, no facts here.
the following claims are made:
<blockquote>
Democrats and many media outlets in the U.S. are often liberal.[6]

* Some argue that liberals typically support economic policy similar to that of fascism. [7]

* Liberals claimed a monopoly on compassion, decency, and social justice (as defined by themselves), posing as the sole defenders of civic virtue against a horde of backwoodsmen, racists, and religious fanatics. [4]
</blockquote>

The first really doens't say anything. i could likewise say that many media outlets in the US are often conservative. The word many is the cause of the meaninless.

The second is unfactual due to the word "Some". I can also say that some argue that conservatives typically suport economic policies similar to that of facism. (and really come on? who's closer to Hitler Mendela or Palin? [though i supose Mendella isn't north america])

The third statment says that liberals claim something however it doesn't speek to any actual policy or official statment.

to fix this i would sugest that this entire section is eather deleted or rewriten by a civics profesor if avalable.

This is what i have to say on this article for now anyway. more comming perhaps. --[[User:Trekdude31|Trekdude31]] 21:34, 19 November 2008 (EST)
::Please stop blaspheming. The article is correct, and since you say that it isn't, I can say with 95% success that you are a liberal, unChristian, unAmerican, and a mass murderer. I can say with 106% certainty that you are an avid practitioner of [[liberal deceit]].--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 21:42, 19 November 2008 (EST)

This is offencive. Your right though. i am a mass murderer, you just haven't herd of me because you don't watch the so called "liberal media" (it realy isn't) whcih reports on all the genocide stuff --[[User:Trekdude31|Trekdude31]] 22:03, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::Dude, chill out. Yes, this article is very biased against the liberal ideology, but this is Conservapedia; the whole site follows the anti-liberal regimin. I agree with what you are saying, but there's no need to get overly accusational and angry; then you are doing the exact same thing that the article is doing. We must discuss these problems calmly if any ground is to be covered. For the reasons you listed, I think I'll refrain from making any major edits for now.--[[user:ForeverPeace|ForeverPeace]]

:: Good, because I don't have the time to clean up the tons of misspellings by the critics above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:21, 9 January 2009 (EST)

:::Mr. Schlafly, may I ask you a question? Please don't ban me, I'm not going to make any changes here or on any highly controversial pages, I'm just wondering... Did you create Conservapedia to try to propigate a hateful opinion of Liberalism? Sometimes I get that vibe, which seems like a ridiculous position for a site advocating loving, Christian values to hold. I understand how tense a situation this can be, I just want to hear your response. Thanks! --[[user:ForeverPeace|ForeverPeace]]

The problem isn't so much the flagrant bias of this article so much as the fact that Conservapedia is so damn sanctimonious about Wikipedia's alleged bias. You people have no right to complain about bias when you wear your own so proudly on your sleeve. This whole enterprise makes you look like a bunch of petty, oblivious jackasses. Consider this a public service announcement.

Also, on an unrelated note, Wikipedia's article on Jesus is more comprehensive, more eloquently composed, more insightful, more educational, and more consistently cited than its counterpart here. Ironic, considering the whole point of Conservapedia was to provide a more Christian perspective on reality.

My comment start here (I want to make it clear since the previous comment is unsigned):

"A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing"

Is that an encyclopedic definition, suitable for an educational resource? I am not going to make any changes, because I do not want to be banned, but I can suggest a general definition for a leftist: "Someone who supports a more egalitarian distribution of wealth". I think all leftists agree with that. Now, as a conservative encyclopedia, you can and should explain the disadvantages of liberalism in the article, but it should also have an objective definition in the first place. --[[User:Quetzalcoatl|Quetzalcoatl]] 20:20, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

== Picture ==

Shouldn't the picture be something representative of liberals rather than a satirical cartoon?[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 08:53, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Yes, yes it should. I understand that this is supposed to be "an encyclopedia with articles written from a conservative viewpoint", but doesn't that make it especially necessary that we don't make ourselves look like clowns? If anything, that was probably drawn up by a self-aware liberal with a sense of humor. [[User:Harbinger|Harbinger]] 11:22, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Indeed, it says that I, as a liberal (one who loves God and tries to mirror the compassion for people that he showed whilst here on earth) have little work ethic, personal responsibility, or common sense. I take issue with that proposition. [[User:Apr28|Apr28]] 4:18 23 May 2009 (PDT)

: You have free will to take issue with 2+2=4 also. The fact remains that liberals favor higher taxes (which not "compassionate") and donate less to charity than conservatives. Indeed, liberals recently attempted to reduce the tax deduction for giving to charity, which speaks volumes about how they really feel about it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:47, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

== Additional Liberal Organizations ==
Center for Democracy & Technology, a civil liberties group that filed briefs against the law Child Online Protection Act and is working in coordination with the ACLU. {{unsigned|Jpatt}}

:Two more--Brookings Institute and Fairness In Accuracy & Media --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:25, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

::Also Research for Change, Emily's List, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Human Rights Campaign, People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals, Planned Parenthood, Creative Commons, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Democracy For America, and ActBlue! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:31, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Be aware that some liberal organizations, in an attempt to hide their agenda, will tout themselves as "Progressive" organizations instead. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:35, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Another: Center For American Progress --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:21, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

The more I think about it, probably need a whole page dedicated to Liberal Organizations. They can be sorted and divided by Soros funded / abortion sponsors / environmental / innocuous named (e.g. Democracy For America) / gay support / union backed / progressive advocates / Conservative watchdogs. Your thoughts?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:29, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

: Hmmmm, the more you think about it you've come to that conclusion? Well, it's such a good conclusion, I came up with it yesterday and asked Mr. Schlafly about it [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Liberal_Organizations here]! Although I believe a different organizational system is worthwhile. Hey, if you keep checking my contributions, you may find some other ideas that you can "think about" and claim as your own. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:57, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:: Darn, if I only stalked jareds posts I would have realized that I was beaten by liberal intelligence. Let me guess your suggestion 'different organizational system' - hmmm, watered down to alphabetical and by state. If there becomes a Liberal Organizational page, it will need to be a tool for people to know what organizations to stay away from and why they are for boycott.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:45, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Hmmm, I was actually thinking about organizing it by media, topic type, purported purpose. But take my idea and let's collaborate. That was the point of my post the other day, which you buried when you were insulting me. Let's collaborate and put something together. Obviously I had a good idea that you also like, so instead of continuing to insult me, let's make something out of it. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:01, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: I'll just do my own work, you edit, like always. I have no desire to collaborate with you. Sorry. The most you 'll get from me is a prayer that your heart changes--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:07, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

==Founding Fathers were liberal==
For their time at least. And you can't deny this. All of their rallying cries were liberal for their day. "No taxation without representation." Liberal. No authoritarian autocrats, wow that's very liberal considering the day. Freedom of religion, and religion seperated fom state? Why, those are some of the very things some of you hate "liberals" for to begin with.

Point is, "liberal" is just a word. But some of the less sociable and not so well adjusted conservatives *gasp, they exist* have used the same silly word games with "liberal" as they did when they coined that lovely little phrase "pro-life." Actually it's quite clever. Now liberal is, supposedly, perjorative along he same lines that anyone not "pro-life" must be "pro-death." And how horrible is that, pro-death? Exactly...

What ever happened to moderation =( Middle of the road is not so bad, folks. There's something to be had from either end of the spectrum. Extremism is never the best choice. Self profesed "conservatives" are as guilty of it as self profesed "liberals." The problem, unfortunately, is relly with all of us in general. It's just in our nature to prefer the radicals over the moderates. It's more exciting to us, and none of us are above it. However, we can actively be aware of that and make a point not to fall in lock step with the radicals on either end. And in truth, many do. They are just quiet, it's always th fringes that are the loudest... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:55, 24 August 2008 (EDT) (I'm goig to be blasted as one of those "liberals" lol...)

(Keep in mind this is coming from a liberal) The founding fathers were not liberals (at least what liberalism means today), rather, they were libertarians or conservative communist(It should be worthy to note that democratic-republicans were libertarians and the federalist were conservative(by that I mean that they weren't authoritarians because authoritarians believe in socialism (which the federalist did not( but they did oppose free-enterprise and personal liberties (which in my mind make them communist conservatives). Although some aspects of socialism did exist(such as democratic-republicans opposition of aristocracy and federalist belief that government should be actively involved in the economy), socialism had not developed. Thus the founding fathers weren't liberals.

:Grounding government on morality made most of the Founding Fathers conservative, not libertarian. But your points are well taken and I hope you can contribute more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:48, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

==List at top==

The list at the top makes it clear that it's supposed to be strictly a list of things liberals support, almost a "liberal platform", if you will. Why are there "studies" like this: "In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution. Support for the theory of evolution which is a key component of atheistic ideologies in the Western World." Why can't we just say "secularism and atheism"?

Or this: "Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)." Just seems gossipy, and not really representative of a whole, but rather some particular instances with which someone has taken issue. I'm all for being honest about what they're trying to do, and I'm just saying this information should be placed where it deserves to go. Does this merit a new section to place this info in, or does anyone think there's a better place on the article to put this? [[User:PCarson|PCarson]] 13:49, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

==See Also==
Would like to add Liberal education. --[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:10, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

Would like to query the "opposition to the Patriot Act" and being anti-republican while considering the fact that if a democratic president had tried to implement that policy, the screams of Communism and KGB would have raised the roofs. Has anyone considered the fact that invasive policy is invasive based on its content rather than who made it into a bill and passed it?

Oh and that "call someone a professor whether they are or not" thing? I don't know anyone of either party who does that. If you were building a page meant to alienate Americans from each other you couldn't have done a better job cause I'm walking away from you guys and I won't be back.

:Obviously I'm not going to bother with your comment if you petulantly declare that you "won't be back." I do wonder how you'd do on our [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness|test for open-mindedness]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 07:43, 12 December 2009 (EST)

==Clean up article==
Can someone tell me how to edit the main page? The list of liberals in the see also section is a bit long so I created another page to place them located [[List of liberalism in America|here]]. Thank you.--[[User:JasonM|JasonM]] 21:39, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
:The page is locked so nobody can edit except for sysops. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:58, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

== Recent changes ==

In the list of ideologies there is a missing line break in the line "A "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it was intended* Government programs to rehabilitate criminals". This should be two lines.

Also, the wording on the sex ed line needs to be tweaked. As it is, it reads like liberals actually want to teach people to be promiscuous, which isn't true. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:58, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

:The new definition is... circular. And there's still a typo (mentioned above). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:26, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
::Perhaps the word you're looking for is [[tautology]]? "A liberal is someone who denies any harm caused by liberal ideology" - this doesn't actually tell the reader anything about what a 'liberal' is, except that the author clearly doesn't like them. And I'm disappointed to see that the 'brain of a Democrat' cartoon has returned to such prominent placement too - it's unencyclopaedic, to say the least (although I did laugh at the "anti-bellum"). [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:05, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I hate to sound like a bother, but could anyone address these comments? (Anyone with the capability to edit the article, that is) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:50, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:::: That better? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:00, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::It's not bad, actually. I'd rather have a more textbook defintion, but I'm pretty satisfied. Thanks Philip :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:57, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

==Obama: Professor?==
''Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)''

*Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> He held the position of Lecturer, an adjunct position, from 1992 to 1996.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> He held the position of Senior Lecturer from 1996 until his election to the senate in 2004.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, has suggested that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. <ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> The University states that Senior Lecturers are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure track.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>

* ''"I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution," Obama told an audience at a campaign fundraiser. ... Responding to Obama's comments, Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said, "Senator Obama needs to understand that at this level words matter and he will be scrutinized." Ronayne pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. The University of Chicago lists him as a senior lecturer on leave.''<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> So in this reference, an AP story in the San Francisco Chronicle, we have evidence that Obama has indeed called himself a law professor, and a quote from an RNC spokesman claiming he was not entitled to do so.

* University of Chicago's ''Statement Regarding Barack Obama''<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> states: ''The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.'' It seems that he was an adjunct from '92 to '96, but after that, as a Senior Lecturer, he was considered a professor.

* Next, let's look at a news article on UChicago's site from '04. It uses the title of Senior Lecturer to describe Obama, which confirms that he was indeed at that time a Senior Lecturer. <ref>[http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml]</ref>

All of the references seem to agree that Obama was a Senior Lecturer, and that he was not full-time. The RNC spokesman said that Obama was "only a Senior Lecturer and not a full professor", but this is contradicted by the university itself; UofC said "Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track". I think this makes a pretty strong case for Obama having been entitled to use the title "professor" to describe at least the latter part of his time teaching at UofC.

Therefore, I suggest that the sentence ''Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)'' be changed to remove Obama's name.

== Suggestions: ==
The Liberal Party of Canada should also be in the "See also" section of the page. Nothing more Liberal than a party that declares itself so. [[User:Conservatores|Conservatores]] 15:04, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

<references/>
==Liberal Arts==
I wanted to remove 'liberal arts' and 'liberal arts college' from the list, but apparently I can't. Those terms have nothing to do with liberalism. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 20:46, 19 December 2008 (EST)

: Good suggestion. I removed them.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 20:51, 19 December 2008 (EST)

==Absolutely correct definition...but :-)==
:''A liberal is a person who's views reject traditional and biblical standards in favour of subjective or relative standards.''
This definition is absolutely correct. Not sure if it captures the possible fact that some liberal thinkers appear to hold these views based on the problems of their time instead of merely asserting their wills. Is there not a significant difference between [[Liberal Christianity#Origins of liberal Christianity|these 19th century Christian liberals]] and say 19th century atheistic liberals such as [[Karl Marx]] and [[Ludwig Feuerbach]] and their 20th century couterparts [[Mao Zedong]] and [[Joseph Stalin]]? --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 10:10, 27 December 2008 (EST)

:Aren't we breaking the first commandment of Conservapedia, ''"Everything you post must be true and verifiable."'' Why don't we just use the dictionary definition of liberal, or are we under the impression that the dictionary has a liberal bias here?
::''liberal: favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.''<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref>

:::I don't use that definition because it is false. Liberals are people who favor taxpayer-funded abortion, censorship of classroom prayer, and just about anything that is anti-Christian.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:50, 11 December 2009 (EST)

::::Do you have a reliable citation for that? Also, what makes you say that that definition is false?

::::Hmmm, I think we could profitably incorporate that definition as the way liberals view themselves. How about:
:::: "A '''liberal''' (also '''leftist''') is someone who favors so-called "progress" away from, or "reform" of <ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref>, logical and biblical standards. There are no general liberal standards; often a liberal uses many words to say what is, in essence, nothing. Many liberals become liberals out of a craving for attention or other self-centered reasons."
:::: I think this is a better definition than either, because it tells what they're (re-)gressing away from, and that they view it as progress. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 14:18, 11 December 2009 (EST)

:I wouldn't call them Liberals. Liberals are the disguised [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]] of overt Communists. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:14, 27 December 2008 (EST)
::Until World War II most Christian liberals tended to be [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]], thinking it would bring the fullfilment of the [[Kingdom of God]]. [[Reinhold Niebuhr]] is a good example. He expressed pro-Marx views and didn't denounce Stalin until he signed a pact with Hitler in 1939. After that Neibuhr became radically anti-communist. Neverthless, few liberal Christians follow Niebuhr in his renunciation and instead hold on to these obviously false and desctrutive [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]] notions. So today I think most liberal Christians are like the young Niebuhr unaware of the evils lurking within communist thought. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 10:26, 27 December 2008 (EST)
:::On the other hand, most of today's self-proclaimed political liberal Christians (if they give a hoot at all about [[God]], [[Jesus]], or Scripture is unknown) like [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Barack Hussein Obama]] appear to more into [[Liberal Fascism]] than [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]]. Not that one of these evils is better than another. Just different. Sigh. Probably should just ignore this liberal evil stuff altogether. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 11:00, 27 December 2008 (EST)

== The philosophy of Liberalism ==

We definitely need a section on the actual meaning of a liberal viewpoint in political philosophy. The definition of 'liberal' in this article in fact broadly refers to the ideology of the Democrats, who are moderate socialists. The Republicans in fact espouse significantly liberal economic views and significantly conservative social views. Therefore, we need clarification that, outside of American politics, true liberalism is 'promoting freedom', something I believe that the conservatism you refer to advocates.--unsigned dark night

:Maybe at one time liberalism meant promoting freedom, but not today's liberals. Today's liberals look to stay neutral in foreign conflicts, stay away from the promotion of freedom. In America, they are for taking away freedoms (e.g. fairness doctrine, House rules barring minority party representation, etc.) --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:29, 14 January 2009 (EST)

::That may be so, but only by your definition of liberalism. Todays liberals are in fact socialists - , so we should probably attempt to clarify that, in real American government, liberals espouse these flawed policies, whereas in political philosophy, matters are very different.

:No, today's liberals are not in fact socialists, liberalism refers to belief near the center of the political spectrum, with conservatives to their right, and socialists to their left. The assertions in this page that liberals reject logic and the bible are arbitrary and biased, two things that I thought conservapedia was founded against. The idea that liberals are simply those opposed to certain beliefs and opinions held by a majority of those that call themselves conservatives is a sweeping, generalizing statement. A misleading statement is a form of [[deceit]]. [[User:Apr28|Apr28]] 4:52 23 May 2009 (PDT)

:: Today liberals support taxpayer-funded [[abortion]] and demand [[censorship]] of [[classroom prayer]], plus all the other positions on the list. There is nothing "near the center" about the liberal positions. The [[deceit]] is when liberals deny what they do believe and support.

== Free Market ==

I've always thought a defining quality of a Liberal was a lack of faith in a free market to solve problems. Conservatives tend to believe an economic problem is best solved in the market, whereas Liberals tend to want government intervention. [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 23:40, 31 January 2009 (EST)

==Suggestion==
The text currently reads ''There are no coherent liberal standards, and often a liberal is merely someone who uses many words to say nothing.'' I would suggest that this might read 'There are no coherent liberal standards that are distinct from socialism or communism, and often a liberal is... ' [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 17:04, 1 February 2009 (EST)

== If you want anyone to take you seriously... ==

Then you should get rid of this satirical cartoon and replace it with a more appropriate picture. It is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. --[[User:Yorpa|Yorpa]] 09:40, 15 February 2009 (EST)

== Problems With the Article ==

''a liberal is merely someone who craves attention''
 Erm... there's just a little problem with what you're saying here. I don't think that this is factually correct, especially considering the fact that Conservatives are just as vocal about their opinions as Liberals are. Perhaps we could consider removing this phrase as it makes the entire article sound ridiculously biased. I know that it is meant to be anti-Liberal, but could we please steer away from what sounds like a petty insult? It makes it sound like vandalism.

There are a few other bits throughout the article which make it sound like whoever wrote the article didn't know what they were talking about/were trying desperately to elongate or pad out the article, eg ''Some argue that liberals typically support economic policy similar to that of fascism''. Liberalism and fascism are polar opposites, one pushing for equality, freedom of choice and help for the poor, the other pushing for a superior race of people, a forced way of living and murdering the poor. I propose that this statement could be amended or removed, especially seeing as it says ''some argue'' rather than ''most'' or ''a significant number of the scientific community/economic experts''. We should not base arguments on what one or two people think - that is not reliable information. [[User:Ululator|Ululator]] 09:51, 16 February 2009 (EST)

:I also have a criticism of the article: the See also section is too long, and contains many pages that are also linked in the navigation bar immediately below it. Perhaps the page could be unlocked so that those with improvements to make can make them?
:Ululator, I know this page is opposed to liberals, but I don't think anyone's accusing them of wanting to 'murder the poor'!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:54, 16 February 2009 (EST)

: (edit conflict) Ululator, you need to open your mind more. On average, liberals are more vocal and aggressive than conservatives. There's no denying that. Just look at what happened to Harvard President Larry Summers.

: As to economic policy, both liberals and fascists favor greater state control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:56, 16 February 2009 (EST)

You cannot try to link two groups based solely on the fact that both hold similar economic policies, otherwise you can clearly link Reaganomics with medieval policies....the solution to our problems is to concentrate the wealth of a nation in the hands of the already wealthy and powerful?

Liberals and fascists do both want greater state control, but then again, so do dictatorships and many other political viewholders. However, you cannot possibly argue that they want state control in the same way. Liberals seek equality. Fascists seek superiority. I don't think there are two more different views. I also disagree that liberals are more vocal and aggressive. I have personally been attacked, both verbally and physically, on a number of occasions by conservatives, for being gay/disabled/pro choice and I know of many other people, including high profile people who have also been attacked.[[User:Ululator|Ululator]] 10:10, 16 February 2009 (EST)

: Ululator, there's no denying that liberals are more aggressive in expressing and enforcing their views on others. You're not going to fool anyone here by claiming otherwise. Address my specific example (one of many) or move on. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:20, 16 February 2009 (EST)

I know little about Larry Summers' situation, so I would feel unable to comment on this example, since all I know about it is hear-say that came from this website. I personally feel that conservatives and liberals are equally vocal and aggressive in their views, since on each side there are those who are loud, and those who are quiet. I am more inclined to remember loud conservatives, and no doubt you are more inclined to remember loud liberals. Therefore it is pointless us pointing the finger at each other. I know in my heart that J-sus preached acceptance and love, so I will end this debate here, before it descends into a petty argument. You may think on this though: liberalism is all about accepting others for who they are, loving them and respecting their choices. Surely this is what J-sus wanted? [[User:Ululator|Ululator]] 10:29, 16 February 2009 (EST)

== Application ==

The description on this page doesn't really apply to many of the Liberals I'm friends with... they're generally anti-censorship, pro-military, patriotic individuals. Some of them I know are charitable in nature. Isn't it a bit of a generalisation? -- Dollfuss

*No. Only a European, or someone living outside the United States might believe that. This is an American encyclopedia, and the view of the vast majority of American liberals, is decidedly anti-military, and unpatriotic. Furthermore, liberals in the United States contribute to charity at a rate of less than half as conservatives do. We do not attempt, at Conservapedia, to be no point of view. We present facts, and if that offends certain people's political ideas, so be it. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:01, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

:Right. We're talking about American liberals specifically in this article. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:29, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

== Question about the article ==

In the first line "A liberal is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards", how can someone who rejects the bible still not be logical? The bible is founded on faith - not logic. Please change this back to traditional instead of logical, as the article is locked. [[User:JamesY|JamesY]] 20:02, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

*Wrong. The Bible is the word of God. We accept what it says because of ''Faith''. Liberals don't have faith, nor much logic. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:13, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

:James, you've been misled in your education. The Bible is the most logical book written. People have a free will to reject logic, and reject that 2 and 2 are 4, but that doesn't change the logical truth of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:03, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::Andy Schlafly, would you do me the honor of explaining why the Bible is the most logical book written? [[User:ShmuelB|ShmuelB]] 22:58, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::: God created the world, and then man. Man incurred the ultimate offense against God, and that required the ultimate sacrifice to redeem it. God intervenes with miracles from time to time as He likes. This ''is'' completely logical. Now everyone has free will to reject this and conjure up any alternative theory they like, but Christianity is the most logical religion and the Bible is the most logical book.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:30, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::: As an example of the illogical view of [[atheists]], they deny the existence of [[Hell]]. If anything is logical, it is justice, and Hell is essential to that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:33, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Well it's possible to embrace Biblical and logical standards and still remain liberal. Take for example a liberal who is for gun control, and thinks the way he does because Jesus taught us to "Turn the other cheek". {{Unsigned| AmmaAm}}

:Spoken like a true liberal and atheist, AmmaAm. "Turning the other cheek" has absolutely nothing to do with guns, or allowing criminals to abuse you, or your family. I urge you to read many of our good articles on Christianity and Jesus Christ. You will find the truth, and it will indeed set you free! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:12, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

I still don't see how Christianity is the most logical religion, or how the fact that God creating the world and man could warrant complete logic. You noted that a logical point of view is to consider that with justice comes punishment (in this particular case, hell). This is a logical way of thinking because we understand that the components work together. We can describe what justice means and understand the its essentials include the punishment of the offender. The fact that God created the earth and everything on it "because he can" doesn't logically explain the components that are required for a God to be able to exist and to be able to perform what has been claimed. Nobody today has a first hand account of the events Christianity describe, so nobody can say for certain that it happened. I can claim that my grandfather told me of a giant alien that his father told him created and rule the earth many hundreds of years ago. I could provide letters and painting of the event that could easily be fake, but just as easily be real, and insist that it happened. People can choose not to believe me and believe in christianity instead, but can't I just claim my teachings to be the most logical? {{unsigned|Texico11}}
:Your logic is that proof is required. We don't need proof for God's existence. Wisdom of Christianity is passed on to other generations. Today's generation claims to be the smartest that ever lived, I beg to differ. Relativists can claim whatever and make truth whatever they want it to be. It doesn't mean that it is true.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:16, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

:Texico11, you find no ''logical'' flaw in Christianity. There is none. You may choose to disbelieve that Jesus rose from the dead, but there is nothing illogical about that Christian statement.

:Try to construct another explanation of the world and you will find it has logical flaws. If you prefer logic, then Christianity is the religion for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:38, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

So the Muslims and the Hindus and all the other religions that exist are not as logically sound as Christianity? Because the millions that follow these teachings would beg to differ and claim as many logical flaws in Christian teachings. The perception of there own religion as being flawless is just as strong as the word of somebody who believes Christianity is. I prefer logic over anything and swing with whatever theories present the most logic and and hold the most evidence, and while I personally believe that Christianity is the most sound of all the religions in its logic I don't believe that all its teachings are 100% flawless.--[[User:Texico11|Texico11]] 16:23, 13 May 2009

== First few sentences ==
I'm not arguing with the political views of Conservapedia at all, but wouldn't it look a little nicer not to have the first few sentences be an editorial against liberals? Wouldn't a dictionary definition or something similar be a better introduction, and then the article can discuss the flaws of liberal views after that? - [[User:Trajork|Trajork]] 13:34, 11 November 2009 (EST)
:A definition is included in the first few sentences, "A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons.". It so happens that the definition of a liberal can be used against them. [[User:NP|NP]] 13:32, 13 December 2009 (EST)

Protestant Irish

2009-12-13T18:30:26Z

NP: /* Presbyterians */

The '''Protestant Irish''' or '''Scots-Irish''' or '''Scotch-Irish''' were immigrants from Ireland to America of Protestant background. Most were Presbyterians whose ancestors moved from Scotland to Ireland, especially the northeastern part that is today [[Northern Ireland]]. About 250,000 migrated in the period 1710-1770, heading especially to the frontier regions in the South where they were herders and farmers.<ref>Some of these had been Catholic in Ireland but became protestants in America.</ref> They were often called "[[Yeomen|Yeomen]]". From 1800 to 1860 another 100,000 came to America, while others went to Canada.

They called themselves "Irish" --the term "Scots Irish" came later--and produced such notable politicians as [[Andrew Jackson]] (President 1829-37) and [[James Knox Polk]] (President 1845-49). After 1850 or so they lost a sense of ethnicity and blended into the general population.

About 45 million Americans are of Irish descent--and a majority are Protestants. Originally most were Presbyterians. Today the largest number are [[Southern Baptist Convention|Baptists]], followed by [[United Methodist Church|Methodists]].

Although the [[Orange Order]] was strong among Protestant Irish in Canada, it never caught hold in the United States. There were relatively few instances of violence between the Catholic Irish and the protestant Irish--the most notable being riots in Philadelphia in 1844 and New York City in 1870 and 1871. [[File:Scots-irish.jpg|thumb|290px]]
==Presbyterians==
.
Noll et al (2006) identifies some of the beliefs and practices that are distinct to American Presbyterians, such as their adoption of democratic principles and pluralism. The article is divided into three sections, each of which examines an aspect of American Presbyterianism that sets it apart from Presbyterianism in other parts of the world. The first section identifies what Old and New World Presbyterians have in common, and where they have diverged. Section two points to the 1788 revisions to the Westminster Confession - which recognized separate spheres for church and state - as the significant departure that defined American Presbyterians. The final section suggests that strong Irish influences from Ulster helped establish the distinctive American identity.

==See also==
* [[Catholic Irish]]
* [[Colonial America]]

==Further reading==
* Blethen, Tyler ''Ulster and North America: Transatlantic perspectives on the Scotch-Irish'' (1999) online at ACLS History e-book project
* Fischer, David Hackett. ''Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America'' (1991), major scholarly study tracing colonial roots of four groups of immigrants, Irish, English Puritans, English Cavaliers, and Quakers.
* Glazier, Michael, ed. ''The Encyclopedia of the Irish in America,'' (1999), a good place to start--the most authoritative source, with essays by over 200 experts; covers both Catholics and Protestants.
* Griffin, Patrick. ''The People with No Name: Ireland's Ulster Scots, America's Scots Irish, and the Creation of a British Atlantic World, 1689-1764''. (2001)
* Kennedy, Billy. ''Scots Irish in Pennsylvania & Kentucky'' (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Scots-Pennsylvania-Kentucky-Scots-Irish-Chronicles/dp/1840300329/ref=pd_sim_b_2#noop excerpt and text search], popular history
* Lee, J. J., and Marion Casey, eds. ''Making the Irish American: History and Heritage of the Irish in the United States'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Making-Irish-American-History-Heritage/dp/0814752187/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255940745&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Leyburn, James G. ''Scotch-Irish: A Social History'' (1989), scholarly survey; good starting point.
* McWhiney, Grady. '' Cracker Culture: Celtic Ways in the Old South'' (1989), scholarly interpretation
* Meagher, Timothy J. ''The Columbia Guide to Irish American History.'' (2005). [http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=15575 online review]
* Noll, Mark; D. G. Hart, and Marilyn J. Westerkamp. "What Has Been Distinctly American about American Presbyterians?" ''Journal of Presbyterian History'' 2006 84(1): 6-22.
* Webb, James. ''Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America'' (2004) by a popular novelist who is now Senator from Virginia; not considered reliable by scholars.
====references====
<references/>

[[category:Ethnicities]]
[[category:Protestantism]]
[[category:Presbyterians]]
[[category:Baptists]]
[[category:Methodism]]
[[category:The South]]
[[Category:Irish-Americans]]

Makkah

2009-12-13T18:08:04Z

NP: Redirected page to Mecca

#redirect[[Mecca]]

Conservative Bible Project

2009-12-13T17:58:09Z

NP: Common Vandalism - Undo revision 730658 by Jeewslawter (Talk)

[[File:BIBLE.jpg|right]]{{ConservativeBible}}

The '''Conservative Bible Project''' is a project to render God's word into modern [[English]] while removing [[liberal]] distortions. Beginners can pick any verse, type its citation into [http://www.blueletterbible.org/], click on "SHOW STRONG'S" at the top right to obtain the Greek, and then make an edit here for all to review.

[[Liberal]] [[bias]] has become the single biggest distortion in modern [[Bible]] translations. There are three sources of errors in conveying biblical meaning are, in increasing amount:

*lack of precision in the original language, such as terms underdeveloped to convey new concepts introduced by Christ
*lack of precision in modern language
*translation bias in converting the original language to the modern one.

Experts in ancient languages are helpful in reducing the first type of error above, which is a vanishing source of error as scholarship advances understanding. English language linguists are helpful in reducing the second type of error, which also decreases due to an increasing vocabulary. '''But the third -- and largest -- source of translation error requires conservative principles to reduce and eliminate'''.<ref>The committee in charge of updating the bestselling version, the [[NIV]], is dominated by professors and higher-educated participants who can be expected to be [[liberal]] and [[feminist]] in outlook. As a result, the revision and replacement of the [[NIV]] will be influenced more by [[political correctness]] and other [[liberal]] distortions than by genuine examination of the oldest manuscripts. As a result of these political influences, it becomes desirable to develop a [[conservative]] translation that can serve, at a minimum, as a bulwark against the liberal manipulation of meaning in future versions.</ref>

As of 2009, there is no fully conservative translation of the [[Bible]] which satisfies the following ten guidelines:<ref>Additional less important guidelines include (1) adherence to a concise and dignifying style, such as use of "who" rather than "that" when referring to people and also use glorifying language for the remarkable achievements and (2) recognizing that Christianity introduced powerful new concepts that even the Greek and Hebrew were inadequate to express, but modern conservative language can express well.</ref>

:# '''Framework against Liberal Bias''': providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias
:# '''Not Emasculated''': avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other feminist distortions; preserve many references to the unborn child (the [[NIV]] deletes these)
:# '''Not Dumbed Down''': not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the [[NIV]] is written at only the 7th grade level<ref>The [[NIV]] has supplanted the [[KJV]] in popularity.</ref>
:#'''Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms''': using powerful new [[Essay:Best New Conservative Terms|conservative terms]] to capture better the original intent;<ref>For example, in 1611 the [[conservative]] concept of "accountability" had not yet developed, and the [[King James Version]] does not use "accountable to God" in translating Romans 3:19; good modern translations do.</ref> Defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words that have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle".
:# '''Combat Harmful Addiction''': combating addiction<ref>See [[Bible on Addiction]].</ref> by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots";<ref>For example, the [[English Standard Version]] (2001) does not use the word "gamble" anywhere in translating numerous references to the concept in the [[Bible]].</ref> using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census
:# '''Accept the Logic of Hell''': applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of [[Hell]] or the [[Devil]].
:# '''Express Free Market Parables'''; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning
:# '''Exclude Later-Inserted Inauthentic Passages''': excluding the interpolated passages that liberals commonly put their own spin on, such as the [[adulteress story]]
:# '''Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples''': crediting [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|open-mindedness]], often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels
:# '''Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness''': preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God."

Thus, a project has begun among members of [[Conservapedia]] to translate the Bible in accordance with these principles. The translated Bible can be found [[Conservative Bible|here]].

Benefits include:

*mastery of the Bible, which is priceless
*mastery of the English language, which is valuable
*thorough understanding of the differences in Bible translations, particularly the historically important [[King James Version]]
*benefiting from activity that no [[public school]] would ever allow; a Conservative Bible could become a text for public school courses
*liberals will oppose this effort, but they will have to read the Bible to criticize this, and that will open their minds
*this project has a unifying effect on various [[Christian]] denominations, and serves as an important counterweight to liberal efforts to divide conservative candidates based on religion

How long would this project take? There are about 8000 verses in the [[New Testament]]. At a careful rate of translating about four verses an hour, it would take one person 2000 hours, or about one year working full time on the project.

== Possible Approaches ==

Here are possible approaches to creating a conservative Bible translation:

*identify pro-liberal terms used in existing Bible translations, such as "government", and suggest more accurate substitutes
*identify the omission of liberal terms for vices, such as "gambling", and identify where they should be used
*identify conservative terms that are omitted from existing translations, and propose where they could improve the translation
*identify terms that have lost their original meaning, such as "word" in the beginning of the [[Gospel of John]], and suggest replacements, such as "truth"

An existing translation might license its version for improvement by the above approaches, much as several modern translations today are built on prior translations. Alternatively, a more ambitious approach would be to start anew from the best available ancient transcripts.

In stage one, the translation could focus on word improvement and thereby be described as a "conservative word-for-word" translation. If greater freedom in interpretation is then desired, then a "conservative thought-for-thought" version could be generated as a second stage.

== Building on the [[King James Version]] ==

In the [[United States]] and much of the world, the immensely popular and respected [[King James Version]] (KJV) is freely available and in the [[public domain]]. It could be used as the baseline for developing a conservative translation without requiring a license or any fees. Where the KJV is known to be deficient due to discovery of more authentic sources, exceptions can be made that use either more modern [[public domain]] translations as a baseline, or by using the original Greek or Hebrew.

There are 66 books in the [[KJV]], comprised of 1,189 chapters, 31,102 verses, and 788,280 words.<ref>http://www.biblebelievers.com/believers-org/kjv-stats.html</ref> The project could begin with translation of the [[New Testament]], which is only 27 books, 260 chapters, 7,957 verses, and
less than 200,000 words.

Retranslation at rate of 20 verses a day would complete the entire [[New Testament]] in about a year. With 5 good retranslators, that would be an average of only 4 verses a day per translator. At a faster rate of 20 verses per day by 5 good translators, the entire [[New Testament]] could be retranslated in less than 3 months.

== First Example - Liberal-Promoted Falsehood ==

The earliest, most authentic manuscripts of the Gospel According to Luke lack this verse fragment set forth at the start of Luke 23:34:<ref>[http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Luk&c=23&v=34&t=NIV#34 Quoted] here from the [[NIV]].</ref>

:Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."

Is this a corruption of the original, perhaps promoted by [[liberal]]s without regard to its authenticity? This does not appear in any other Gospel, and the simple fact is that some of the persecutors of Jesus '''''did''''' know what they were doing. This quotation is a favorite of liberals, although it does not appear in the earliest and best manuscripts of the Gospel of Luke. It should not appear in a [[conservative]] Bible, because in point of fact Jesus might never had said it at all.

== Second Example - Dishonestly Shrewd ==

At Luke 16:8, the [[NIV]] describes an enigmatic parable in which the "master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly." But is "shrewdly", which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here? Being dishonestly shrewd is not an admirable trait.

The better conservative term, which became available only in 1851, is "resourceful". The manager was praised for being "resourceful", which is very different from dishonesty. Yet not even the [[ESV]], which was published in 2001, contains a single use of the term "resourceful" in its entire translation of the Bible.

== Third Example - Socialism ==

Socialistic terminology permeates English translations of the Bible, without justification. This improperly encourages the "social justice" movement among Christians.

For example, the conservative word "volunteer" is mentioned only once in the [[ESV]], yet the socialistic word "comrade" is used three times, "laborer(s)" is used 13 times, "labored" 15 times, and "fellow" (as in "fellow worker") is used 55 times.

== Advantages to a Conservative Bible Online ==

There are several striking advantages to a conservative approach to translating the Bible online:

* participants learn enormously from the process
* liberal bias - and lack of authenticity - become easier to recognize and address
* by translating online, this utilizes the growing online resources that improve accuracy
* supported by conservative principles, the project can be bolder in uprooting and excluding liberal distortions
* the project can adapt quickly to future threats from liberals to biblical integrity
* access is free and immediate to the growing internet audience, for their benefit
* the ensuing debate would flesh out -- and stop -- the infiltration of churches by liberals pretending to be Christian, much as a vote by legislators exposes the liberals
* this would bring the Bible to a new audience of political types, for their benefit; Bible courses in college Politics Departments would be welcome
* this would debunk the pervasive and hurtful myth that Jesus would be a political liberal today

== References ==

<references/>

== See also ==

* [[Conservative Bible]] (includes links to specific books)
* [http://www.greekbible.com/ Nestle-Aland 26th edition Greek Bible (the source for all modern translations except the [[NKJV]]])
* [http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/ets/efts/Greek.html Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek Lexicon and Woodhouse's English-Greek Dictionary]
* [[Bible Translations]]
* [[Bible Translation Issues]]
* [[Bible Retranslation Project]]
* [[Word Analysis of Bible]]
* [[NIV]]
* [[Feminist Bible]] (disfavored here)
* [[Inspiration of Holy Scripture: An Eastern Christian and Jewish Perspective]]
[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Bible Versions]]
[[Category:Conservative Bible]]

Talk:Luke 1-8 (Translated)

2009-12-13T01:50:48Z

NP: /* Translation */

==Luke 2:1 -- απογραφεσθαι==

απογραφεσθαι can mean either a tax or a census. From the [http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/ant18.html writings of Josephus], it appears that this απογραφεσθαι caused an uprising in Judea, which implies taxation (why would a census cause protests?), so I have translated here as taxation.

But so many sources translate this word as a census, so does anybody know of a reason for this? If so, let me know here and we can discuss and possibly change it. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:54, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

== 2:34-35 ==

Was skimming through the translation, and happened to notice these two verses. The construction here can be thought of as a cause-consequence-ultimate purpose clause (or a dual level purpose clause). Quite often, when a construction has both "eis" and "hina/hopos" in it, the clause after the "eis" indicates the immediate consequence (which may or may not be intended, usually determined by context), and the clause after the "hina/hopos" indicates the ultimate intended purpose. So the structure here is as follows:

Cause:
(A) The child will cause the fall and rise of many Israelites

Immediate Consequence:
(1B) Many will dispute that He is who He says He is
(2B) Mary will be deeply grieved

Ultimate Purpose"
(C) to reveal the inner motivations of many people

In this case, it is pretty clear that the 2 immediate consequences (people hating Jesus and Mary getting hurt) are not intended, but they are completely unavoidable. The ultimate purpose of His actions, however, both in the current generation, and in all generations to come, is to reveal the innermost motivations of many people (frankly, I think this means both good and evil motivations, but that is another issue).

I think the translation could probably be slightly adjusted to demonstrate this construction a little better.

Just a thought. God bless. [[User:MBack|Michael Back]] 1:40, 8 November 2009 (EDT)

: Thanks for the enlightening explanation! I'll see if I can improve our translation of 2:34-35 as you suggest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:37, 8 November 2009 (EST)

==Luke 3:1==
In this particular instances, as weird as the word is to us today, each of the men identified including Herod Antipas is τετρααρχοῦντος - tetrarch. A tetrarch was one who ruled over 1/4 of the empire and was subordinate only to the emperor. King gets used frequently incorrectly used to refer to Herod Antipas in translating this term, but he was not a king and Judea was not a kingdom. I am using the word governor instead of king, which isn't controversial when used for Pilate, who had exactly the same role as Herod Antipas - he was tetrarch of Judea. But perhaps there is a better word than both governor or king. [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 22:25, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

==Chapter 3 Verse 12==
Master is the original, Teacher is the modern version. Jesus asked his disciples "Who do they say I am?" I am thinking the replacement should be "Rabbi" (a respected authority) or "Great Prophet" (some say Elijah, some say John the Baptist). --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:38, 30 October 2009 (EDT)
:The Greek is 'didaskale' (teacher, instructor). KJV uses 'master' (a very common term for a teacher pre 20th century). I like the old-fashioned 'master', but I think 'teacher' is better understood these days. I think 'Rabbi' is diverging a little from the original word, and 'Great Prophet' is simply not what the original text says *and* breaks the relationship described between Jesus as teacher and his disciples/students. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 17:37, 6 November 2009 (EST)

::Teacher has different connotations today, as in tenured (and very liberal) public school officials or professors. It may work in some contexts, but I doubt all. Perhaps additional words should be considered: "Sir", "Boss", "Mister", "Coach", others?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:34, 6 November 2009 (EST)

:::"Mentor" is the most accurate that comes off the top of my head. Perhaps even "guide" or something along those lines? -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 18:39, 6 November 2009 (EST)

:::I see where you're coming from, but I'm not too comfortable with with using words that are further from the original Greek-- teacher may not be perfect, and it may come with some baggage, but it's still the best fit for 'didaskale'. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 22:25, 6 November 2009 (EST)

::::Mentor is a very good idea. But it's not used much as a salutation or title, is it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:57, 6 November 2009 (EST)

:::::I don't think it's used much as a title, but I think in the context it would work. Some examples:
:::::"Tax collectors asked to be baptized, saying, 'Mentor, what should we do?'"
:::::"And His students awoke Jesus, saying, 'Mentor, we will drown.'"
:::::"...and Peter said 'Mentor, the crowd is thick, and presses against you...'"
:::::19:09, 6 November 2009 (EST)

::::::I think you're right that "Mentor" does work in many contexts. Great idea!

::::::One basic translational point is that I don't think the same word should be translated the same way in all uses. I think most would agree, yet it is easy to find superficial criticisms of translating the same Greek word differently in different places. It is a weakness of the word-for-word translations of the [[NASB]] and [[ESV]] to try to avoid that (baseless) criticism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:17, 6 November 2009 (EST)

(unindent)I think that along with word translation comes translation of the context that word was used in. "Mentor" may be a good translation in some areas, but perhaps in others a more formal, subservient "Sir" or "Master" would be in order. I'm not very well-versed in Biblical translation, but I would be more than happy to assist in minute details like this! -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 19:24, 6 November 2009 (EST)

==Gender-Neutral Language==
While I'm all for retaining gender-specific language where it exists in the original text, I feel that there are some assumptions being made here that don't really reflect that. In 3:4, for example, the Greek Bible makes it a 'voice in the wilderness', *not* specifically a man's voice. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 23:06, 6 November 2009 (EST)

:Good point. Where are you on the expression "sons of God"? All modern versions change that to "children of God," presumably to gender-neutralize it (degender -- a new Conservapedia word?). But "children of God" has a very, very different meaning from the Greek and from "sons of God." "Children of God" means less accountability, less responsibility, and lower expectations than what the Greek indicates.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:58, 7 November 2009 (EST)

::I don't have a overarching opinion on that, because there's more than one context. For exampke, KJV uses 'sons of God' in clear references to male persons only (ie Genesis 6:2) and to translate the Greek τέκνα θεοῦ (of 1 John 3:1 and elsewhere), which absolutely, 100% really does mean 'children of God'. So, sometimes gender-neutral terms *are* correct, and I think we need to refer to the original text in *every* case. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 14:36, 7 November 2009 (EST)

:::That's fine, but I can't imagine ''any'' of the texts to mean "children of God." Rather, that appears to be obvious gender-neutralizing.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:56, 7 November 2009 (EST)

::::Honestly, with my general liking for the language of the KJV, that's what I assumed. Then I looked it up, and looked it up somewhere else, and did some additional reading, and looked it up again... etc. τέκνα θεοῦ means "children of God"; the original uses the more inclusive term and the King James Version masculinises it unnecessarily. Nothing for it but to open our minds a little further. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 15:54, 7 November 2009 (EST)

==Chapter 3, Verses 18-20==
18. In Greek, the words are εὐηγγελίζετο (could be translated 'preached Good News' or 'evangelized' or just 'preached' and παρακαλῶν parakalōn (exhortations or encouragements). The word 'warning' is just not there.

19. It's a little more complicted than that. Herodias was divorced by Philip and then married Herod Antipas. John's objection was to the fact Herod had married a woman who was the ex-wife of his still-living brother, a condition not permitted in Jewish law. So, the reprove was for an unlawful marriage, and, by extension open fornication, but not adultery.

20. No. The word censor is not in the original, and by throwing John into prison, he did a lot more than that.[[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 14:38, 7 November 2009 (EST)

:Excellent points, but the primary meaning of "exhortation" and "Parakaleo" is to admonish, not comfort.

:In verse 19, a better word than adultery to describe the objection would be fine, if one exists in English, but just omitting it altogether seems to leave the reader wondering what the fuss is about.

:In verse 20, the Greek word is "katakleiðw", which literally means to "shut up," presumably both physically and in connection with communicating, the point of the verse.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:56, 7 November 2009 (EST)

::On 'exhortation'-- I have no problem with 'admonish'-- just with 'warning', which means something a *slightly* different.

::On verse 19-- please see my edit-- I agree it's not quite obvious to the modern audience, but 'adultery' isn't quite what's wrong and probably muddies the waters a bit. I've tried to clarify.

::On verse 20: Nope-- "shut up" means two things in modern English, but the Greek κατακλείω only has the sense of 'incarcerate'. (Honestly, I don't think *any* reader could miss the fact that John criticises Herod and is silenced-- no need to belabour the point.) [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 15:30, 7 November 2009 (EST)

:::You have good ideas and I've learned from this discussion. I wonder why the Greek word κατακλείω could not mean "censor", especially since that is what was happening here. I'll investigate further.

:::More generally, I think some of your efforts on verses 18-20 overly emphasize word-for-word translation at the expense of clarity of meaning. If, for example,, "adultery" is the best word we have for verse 19, then isn't it better to use it than to obscure the point? If Herod had an unlawful divorce from another woman, would translators be as reluctant to use the word "bigamy"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:28, 7 November 2009 (EST)

::::That's not quite it either. Herodias was lawfully divorced from Philip and free to marry, so her second marriage was neither bigamous nor adulterous. The issue was that it was forbidden to marry the brother of a former husband who was still living-- the prohibition is similar to the prohibition of incest. I'm not sure how to express this in the verse other than "unlawful" or perhaps "illicit".

::::I'm not actually an absolute word-for-word enthusiast, but when it's straiightforward, I think we should keep it as straightforward as possible and save the interpolation for difficult passages. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 18:04, 7 November 2009 (EST)

::::Ah, just read your edit-- immoral also works, although illicit might be slightly better. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 18:05, 7 November 2009 (EST)

:::::You use the word "unlawful", but Herod essentially made the civil law, and John the Baptist wouldn't have cared about civil law. Do you mean unlawful under Jewish law? In that case I don't think "lawful" would be the term. Regardless, I guess if Herod married Herodias, then "adultery" wouldn't be appropriate as the translation.

:::::I'm all for being straightforward and concise, but I don't think we should obscure meaning simply because the English terminology is inadequate. Sometimes we have to choose the closest English term based on modern connotations, and adultery does seem to capture the basic objection here most concisely. I'm fine with "immoral" or "illicit" but am not confident the reader will really get the point as well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:34, 7 November 2009 (EST)

::::::Yes, of course I meant under Jewish religious law-- sorry I didn't make that a bit clearer. I think, then that we agree that we just don't have a good term for this. I think immoral or illicit will do though, since the larger point is actually that John was silenced for his criticism. I think "shut John up in prison" conveys the point nicely. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 18:46, 7 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::OK, fine, though I think "adultery" captures the essence of the Jewish prohibition against someone having an affair with his former sister-in-law. In essence, Jewish law does not recognize the divorce with respect to the brother-in-law.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:50, 8 November 2009 (EST)

== Luke 3:23 ==

I don't see an improvement in capturing original intent by replacing "ostensibly" with "being known as." This may illustrate the difference between translating based on original intent verses a textualist translation. We're the former.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:50, 8 November 2009 (EST)
:No, not at all-- mostly, I just prefer the slightly simpler words-- that and the fact that 'ostensibly' is sometimes used to suggest deceit, which I would rather avoid here. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 17:40, 8 November 2009 (EST)

::But our version is not dumbing things down. In fact, that is one of our objections to the [[NIV]], which some say is written at only the 4th grade level.

::"Being known as" is not accurate. Mary, Elizabeth, Joseph, John the Baptist and perhaps others always knew he was the Son of God. And "being known as" is not a word-for-word translation of the Greek either. Finally, why should anyone care what others may have thought? "Being known as" just doesn't fit the point of the passage.

::Ostensibly does not imply deceit in English. I saw that nowhere in its definition in the dictionary.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:31, 8 November 2009 (EST)

:::Well, if I said that you are ostensibly here to translate the Bible, I'd be implying that you were really here to do something else. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ostensibly I know that's not the *only* meaning, but I'd like to avoid *any* possible misunderstanding on this point.
:::Presumably Mary and others didn't "suppose" (KJV's word) Him to be the literal son of Joseph, either.
:::Another option might be to say that He *seemed* to be or that he was *apparently* the son of Joseph, which is probably no further from the original and reads a little better.
:::I'm not trying to dumb this down-- replacing complex language with simple would be dumbing down, and I'm not doing that. I'm just trying to hang on to some of the plainness of the KJV verse. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 18:50, 8 November 2009 (EST)

== Luke 6:35 ==

I just saw your very recent translation of Luke 6:35, and have a question about the use of the phrase "sons of God." While I wholeheartedly agree that we don't want to use the gender-neutral "children", the translated verse in a way implies that each good person will become a "son of God." As we know, there is only one Son of God - Jesus Christ. I wonder if this could be rephrased somehow, although it might be difficult (as you pointed out, this verse could be the subject of entire thesis!). --[[User:FatherJoseph|FatherJoseph]] 19:59, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:Great point. Luke 6:35 is perhaps the toughest single verse yet ... after John 1:1! By the way, the objection I have to "children of God" is that removes our responsibility, accountability, adult-like nature, etc. The [[KJV]] does have occasional examples of misguided gender-neutralization, and it's impressive that the NASB is more conservative on this point than the KJV!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:12, 12 December 2009 (EST)

I have found some verses that are translated, but not necessarily remove the alleged dilution in them.

== Translation ==
For example, in Chapter 1 of Luke, the first verse:

*"Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,"
*"Though many have endeavored to write accounts of our most cherished beliefs,"

I have found that the only thing that has been changed are the words. Does anyone else find this? [[User:NP|NP]] 20:23, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:I'm sure of what the Bible means here, but I'm not sure what you mean! I think you're saying that the substance is unchanged for this verse between the KJV and our work-in-progress. I'd agree, and that is usually the case. In fact, to the extent you think the KJV was 100% precise in conveying original intent in 1611 English (not all here would agree), then the substance should always be unchanged.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:40, 12 December 2009 (EST)
::That is indeed what I meant. I appreciate your explanation for this, now I understand why this is done. [[User:NP|NP]] 20:50, 12 December 2009 (EST)

Talk:Luke 1-8 (Translated)

2009-12-13T01:24:07Z

NP: Forgot the heading

Talk:Luke 1-8 (Translated)

2009-12-13T01:23:34Z

NP:

==Luke 2:1 -- απογραφεσθαι==

απογραφεσθαι can mean either a tax or a census. From the [http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/ant18.html writings of Josephus], it appears that this απογραφεσθαι caused an uprising in Judea, which implies taxation (why would a census cause protests?), so I have translated here as taxation.

But so many sources translate this word as a census, so does anybody know of a reason for this? If so, let me know here and we can discuss and possibly change it. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:54, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

== 2:34-35 ==

Was skimming through the translation, and happened to notice these two verses. The construction here can be thought of as a cause-consequence-ultimate purpose clause (or a dual level purpose clause). Quite often, when a construction has both "eis" and "hina/hopos" in it, the clause after the "eis" indicates the immediate consequence (which may or may not be intended, usually determined by context), and the clause after the "hina/hopos" indicates the ultimate intended purpose. So the structure here is as follows:

Cause:
(A) The child will cause the fall and rise of many Israelites

Immediate Consequence:
(1B) Many will dispute that He is who He says He is
(2B) Mary will be deeply grieved

Ultimate Purpose"
(C) to reveal the inner motivations of many people

In this case, it is pretty clear that the 2 immediate consequences (people hating Jesus and Mary getting hurt) are not intended, but they are completely unavoidable. The ultimate purpose of His actions, however, both in the current generation, and in all generations to come, is to reveal the innermost motivations of many people (frankly, I think this means both good and evil motivations, but that is another issue).

I think the translation could probably be slightly adjusted to demonstrate this construction a little better.

Just a thought. God bless. [[User:MBack|Michael Back]] 1:40, 8 November 2009 (EDT)

: Thanks for the enlightening explanation! I'll see if I can improve our translation of 2:34-35 as you suggest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:37, 8 November 2009 (EST)

==Luke 3:1==
In this particular instances, as weird as the word is to us today, each of the men identified including Herod Antipas is τετρααρχοῦντος - tetrarch. A tetrarch was one who ruled over 1/4 of the empire and was subordinate only to the emperor. King gets used frequently incorrectly used to refer to Herod Antipas in translating this term, but he was not a king and Judea was not a kingdom. I am using the word governor instead of king, which isn't controversial when used for Pilate, who had exactly the same role as Herod Antipas - he was tetrarch of Judea. But perhaps there is a better word than both governor or king. [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 22:25, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

==Chapter 3 Verse 12==
Master is the original, Teacher is the modern version. Jesus asked his disciples "Who do they say I am?" I am thinking the replacement should be "Rabbi" (a respected authority) or "Great Prophet" (some say Elijah, some say John the Baptist). --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:38, 30 October 2009 (EDT)
:The Greek is 'didaskale' (teacher, instructor). KJV uses 'master' (a very common term for a teacher pre 20th century). I like the old-fashioned 'master', but I think 'teacher' is better understood these days. I think 'Rabbi' is diverging a little from the original word, and 'Great Prophet' is simply not what the original text says *and* breaks the relationship described between Jesus as teacher and his disciples/students. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 17:37, 6 November 2009 (EST)

::Teacher has different connotations today, as in tenured (and very liberal) public school officials or professors. It may work in some contexts, but I doubt all. Perhaps additional words should be considered: "Sir", "Boss", "Mister", "Coach", others?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:34, 6 November 2009 (EST)

:::"Mentor" is the most accurate that comes off the top of my head. Perhaps even "guide" or something along those lines? -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 18:39, 6 November 2009 (EST)

:::I see where you're coming from, but I'm not too comfortable with with using words that are further from the original Greek-- teacher may not be perfect, and it may come with some baggage, but it's still the best fit for 'didaskale'. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 22:25, 6 November 2009 (EST)

::::Mentor is a very good idea. But it's not used much as a salutation or title, is it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:57, 6 November 2009 (EST)

:::::I don't think it's used much as a title, but I think in the context it would work. Some examples:
:::::"Tax collectors asked to be baptized, saying, 'Mentor, what should we do?'"
:::::"And His students awoke Jesus, saying, 'Mentor, we will drown.'"
:::::"...and Peter said 'Mentor, the crowd is thick, and presses against you...'"
:::::19:09, 6 November 2009 (EST)

::::::I think you're right that "Mentor" does work in many contexts. Great idea!

::::::One basic translational point is that I don't think the same word should be translated the same way in all uses. I think most would agree, yet it is easy to find superficial criticisms of translating the same Greek word differently in different places. It is a weakness of the word-for-word translations of the [[NASB]] and [[ESV]] to try to avoid that (baseless) criticism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:17, 6 November 2009 (EST)

(unindent)I think that along with word translation comes translation of the context that word was used in. "Mentor" may be a good translation in some areas, but perhaps in others a more formal, subservient "Sir" or "Master" would be in order. I'm not very well-versed in Biblical translation, but I would be more than happy to assist in minute details like this! -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 19:24, 6 November 2009 (EST)

==Gender-Neutral Language==
While I'm all for retaining gender-specific language where it exists in the original text, I feel that there are some assumptions being made here that don't really reflect that. In 3:4, for example, the Greek Bible makes it a 'voice in the wilderness', *not* specifically a man's voice. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 23:06, 6 November 2009 (EST)

:Good point. Where are you on the expression "sons of God"? All modern versions change that to "children of God," presumably to gender-neutralize it (degender -- a new Conservapedia word?). But "children of God" has a very, very different meaning from the Greek and from "sons of God." "Children of God" means less accountability, less responsibility, and lower expectations than what the Greek indicates.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:58, 7 November 2009 (EST)

::I don't have a overarching opinion on that, because there's more than one context. For exampke, KJV uses 'sons of God' in clear references to male persons only (ie Genesis 6:2) and to translate the Greek τέκνα θεοῦ (of 1 John 3:1 and elsewhere), which absolutely, 100% really does mean 'children of God'. So, sometimes gender-neutral terms *are* correct, and I think we need to refer to the original text in *every* case. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 14:36, 7 November 2009 (EST)

:::That's fine, but I can't imagine ''any'' of the texts to mean "children of God." Rather, that appears to be obvious gender-neutralizing.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:56, 7 November 2009 (EST)

::::Honestly, with my general liking for the language of the KJV, that's what I assumed. Then I looked it up, and looked it up somewhere else, and did some additional reading, and looked it up again... etc. τέκνα θεοῦ means "children of God"; the original uses the more inclusive term and the King James Version masculinises it unnecessarily. Nothing for it but to open our minds a little further. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 15:54, 7 November 2009 (EST)

==Chapter 3, Verses 18-20==
18. In Greek, the words are εὐηγγελίζετο (could be translated 'preached Good News' or 'evangelized' or just 'preached' and παρακαλῶν parakalōn (exhortations or encouragements). The word 'warning' is just not there.

19. It's a little more complicted than that. Herodias was divorced by Philip and then married Herod Antipas. John's objection was to the fact Herod had married a woman who was the ex-wife of his still-living brother, a condition not permitted in Jewish law. So, the reprove was for an unlawful marriage, and, by extension open fornication, but not adultery.

20. No. The word censor is not in the original, and by throwing John into prison, he did a lot more than that.[[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 14:38, 7 November 2009 (EST)

:Excellent points, but the primary meaning of "exhortation" and "Parakaleo" is to admonish, not comfort.

:In verse 19, a better word than adultery to describe the objection would be fine, if one exists in English, but just omitting it altogether seems to leave the reader wondering what the fuss is about.

:In verse 20, the Greek word is "katakleiðw", which literally means to "shut up," presumably both physically and in connection with communicating, the point of the verse.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:56, 7 November 2009 (EST)

::On 'exhortation'-- I have no problem with 'admonish'-- just with 'warning', which means something a *slightly* different.

::On verse 19-- please see my edit-- I agree it's not quite obvious to the modern audience, but 'adultery' isn't quite what's wrong and probably muddies the waters a bit. I've tried to clarify.

::On verse 20: Nope-- "shut up" means two things in modern English, but the Greek κατακλείω only has the sense of 'incarcerate'. (Honestly, I don't think *any* reader could miss the fact that John criticises Herod and is silenced-- no need to belabour the point.) [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 15:30, 7 November 2009 (EST)

:::You have good ideas and I've learned from this discussion. I wonder why the Greek word κατακλείω could not mean "censor", especially since that is what was happening here. I'll investigate further.

:::More generally, I think some of your efforts on verses 18-20 overly emphasize word-for-word translation at the expense of clarity of meaning. If, for example,, "adultery" is the best word we have for verse 19, then isn't it better to use it than to obscure the point? If Herod had an unlawful divorce from another woman, would translators be as reluctant to use the word "bigamy"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:28, 7 November 2009 (EST)

::::That's not quite it either. Herodias was lawfully divorced from Philip and free to marry, so her second marriage was neither bigamous nor adulterous. The issue was that it was forbidden to marry the brother of a former husband who was still living-- the prohibition is similar to the prohibition of incest. I'm not sure how to express this in the verse other than "unlawful" or perhaps "illicit".

::::I'm not actually an absolute word-for-word enthusiast, but when it's straiightforward, I think we should keep it as straightforward as possible and save the interpolation for difficult passages. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 18:04, 7 November 2009 (EST)

::::Ah, just read your edit-- immoral also works, although illicit might be slightly better. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 18:05, 7 November 2009 (EST)

:::::You use the word "unlawful", but Herod essentially made the civil law, and John the Baptist wouldn't have cared about civil law. Do you mean unlawful under Jewish law? In that case I don't think "lawful" would be the term. Regardless, I guess if Herod married Herodias, then "adultery" wouldn't be appropriate as the translation.

:::::I'm all for being straightforward and concise, but I don't think we should obscure meaning simply because the English terminology is inadequate. Sometimes we have to choose the closest English term based on modern connotations, and adultery does seem to capture the basic objection here most concisely. I'm fine with "immoral" or "illicit" but am not confident the reader will really get the point as well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:34, 7 November 2009 (EST)

::::::Yes, of course I meant under Jewish religious law-- sorry I didn't make that a bit clearer. I think, then that we agree that we just don't have a good term for this. I think immoral or illicit will do though, since the larger point is actually that John was silenced for his criticism. I think "shut John up in prison" conveys the point nicely. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 18:46, 7 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::OK, fine, though I think "adultery" captures the essence of the Jewish prohibition against someone having an affair with his former sister-in-law. In essence, Jewish law does not recognize the divorce with respect to the brother-in-law.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:50, 8 November 2009 (EST)

== Luke 3:23 ==

I don't see an improvement in capturing original intent by replacing "ostensibly" with "being known as." This may illustrate the difference between translating based on original intent verses a textualist translation. We're the former.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:50, 8 November 2009 (EST)
:No, not at all-- mostly, I just prefer the slightly simpler words-- that and the fact that 'ostensibly' is sometimes used to suggest deceit, which I would rather avoid here. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 17:40, 8 November 2009 (EST)

::But our version is not dumbing things down. In fact, that is one of our objections to the [[NIV]], which some say is written at only the 4th grade level.

::"Being known as" is not accurate. Mary, Elizabeth, Joseph, John the Baptist and perhaps others always knew he was the Son of God. And "being known as" is not a word-for-word translation of the Greek either. Finally, why should anyone care what others may have thought? "Being known as" just doesn't fit the point of the passage.

::Ostensibly does not imply deceit in English. I saw that nowhere in its definition in the dictionary.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:31, 8 November 2009 (EST)

:::Well, if I said that you are ostensibly here to translate the Bible, I'd be implying that you were really here to do something else. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ostensibly I know that's not the *only* meaning, but I'd like to avoid *any* possible misunderstanding on this point.
:::Presumably Mary and others didn't "suppose" (KJV's word) Him to be the literal son of Joseph, either.
:::Another option might be to say that He *seemed* to be or that he was *apparently* the son of Joseph, which is probably no further from the original and reads a little better.
:::I'm not trying to dumb this down-- replacing complex language with simple would be dumbing down, and I'm not doing that. I'm just trying to hang on to some of the plainness of the KJV verse. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 18:50, 8 November 2009 (EST)

== Luke 6:35 ==

I just saw your very recent translation of Luke 6:35, and have a question about the use of the phrase "sons of God." While I wholeheartedly agree that we don't want to use the gender-neutral "children", the translated verse in a way implies that each good person will become a "son of God." As we know, there is only one Son of God - Jesus Christ. I wonder if this could be rephrased somehow, although it might be difficult (as you pointed out, this verse could be the subject of entire thesis!). --[[User:FatherJoseph|FatherJoseph]] 19:59, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:Great point. Luke 6:35 is perhaps the toughest single verse yet ... after John 1:1! By the way, the objection I have to "children of God" is that removes our responsibility, accountability, adult-like nature, etc. The [[KJV]] does have occasional examples of misguided gender-neutralization, and it's impressive that the NASB is more conservative on this point than the KJV!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:12, 12 December 2009 (EST)

I have found some verses that are translated, but not necessarily remove the alleged dilution in them.

For example, in Chapter 1 of Luke, the first verse:

*"Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,"
*"Though many have endeavored to write accounts of our most cherished beliefs,"

I have found that the only thing that has been changed are the words. Does anyone else find this? [[User:NP|NP]] 20:23, 12 December 2009 (EST)