Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Roman Catholic Church

2008-12-12T22:07:00Z

NewCrusader: A bit of tidying and clarification.

The '''Roman Catholic Church''' is headed by the [[Pope]] (Supreme Pontiff), the Bishop of [[Rome]], currently [[Pope Benedict XVI]]. It is the largest [[Christian]] denomination in the world, with more than 1.3 billion officially Baptized adherents (In the United States more than 64 million.) The [[Roman]] Catholic Church is the oldest institution in the western world. The Roman Catholic faith teaches that the Pope is the successor of [[St. Peter]], the 'rock' ([[Gospel of Matthew|Matt]] 16:18) upon whom Jesus built his church. The term [[Catholic Church]] is, literally, the ''Universal Church'' of [[Jesus Christ]] (from the Greek ''katholikos'', "universal").

''"The chief teachings of the Catholic church are: [[God]]’s objective existence; God’s interest in individual human beings, who can enter into relations with God (through prayer); the Trinity; the divinity of Jesus; the immortality of the [[soul]] of each human being, each one being accountable at death for his or her actions in life, with the award of heaven or hell; the resurrection of the dead; the historicity of the [[Gospels]]; and the divine commission of the church. In addition the Roman Catholic Church stresses that since the members, living and dead, share in each other’s merits, the [[Virgin Mary]] and other saints and the dead in purgatory are never forgotten." '' <ref> [http://www.bartleby.com/65/ro/RomanCat.html The Columbia Encyclopedia]</ref> The presence of Christ is believed to be present in the Eucharist, the bread and wine is Jesus himself. Another essential belief is the veneration of Mary, the mother of Jesus as the Blessed Virgin Mary and veneration of the saints.

The principal sources for the essential beliefs of the Catholic Church are the Sacred Scriptures (the Bible), Sacred Tradition, and Living Magisterium of the Church.

The term Catholic is frequently applied to the Roman Catholic Church. Although many [[Protestantism|Protestant]]s object to Roman Catholics monopolizing the term, because the defined meaning of Catholic is "universal" and comes from the Greek word Katholikos. The Eastern [[Orthodox Church]] also refer to themselves as, "one holy, Catholic, and apostolic church..."<ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/catholic</ref> Conversely, many Roman Catholics dislike the adjective "Roman" because it implies, contrary to (Roman) Catholic doctrine, that their church is not ''the'' universal Church of Christ.

[[Image:Cathpop.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Catholics in the world.]]

== History ==
The original Christian community was founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ and led by the Apostles. St. [[Paul|Paul the Apostle]] was, together with [[Saint Peter]], the most notable of Early Christian missionaries. Christians were subjected to persecution, first under [[Nero]], shortly after the foundation of the church, and again, more severely, under the emperors [[Decius]] and [[Diocletian]] in the third century as well as [[Domitian]], [[Marcus Aurelius]] and others with the penalty for being Christian ultimately being death. After almost 300 years of persecution against the Church had only seen Christianity flourish, the Emperor [[Constantine I]] had a religious experience and legalized Christianity in the early fourth century. Going to war with the co-Emperor of the east [[Lucinius]] over his continued persecution of Christians, Constantine won and became sole Emperor. The age of persecution was over. In 380, Emperor [[Theodosius I]] accepted Christianity as the official religion of the [[Roman Empire]]. By the time of the fall of the Roman Empire in 476, the surrounding barbarian nations had been Christianized, although mostly they followed [[Arianism]]. Over the next century or so they embraced Catholicism.

During the [[Middle Ages]] the Church underwent a time of missionary activity and expansion. After numerous disputes between eastern and western churches that became more pronounced from the ninth century onwards, the Church underwent the [[Great Schism]] in 1054 that divided it into a Western (Latin) branch, which has been called the Catholic Church and an Eastern branch, which has become known as the [[Orthodox Church]]. Both traced their roots to the time of Jesus, but the Orthodox Church did not acknowledge the Pope as the one leader of the Church and instead believed that all of the patriarchs were equals.

The second major schism was the [[Protestant Reformation]] in the 16th century. As a reaction to the increasing popularity of Protestantism the Roman Catholic Church began to undertake some reforms. Firstly from 1869–1870 during the [[First Vatican Council]]. It was during the [[Second Vatican Council]] (1962–1965) that the most comprehensive reforms were undertaken. The Roman Catholic Church stretched relations with other Christian communities and other religions. The Roman Catholic Church also issued directions for a revision of the liturgy.

==Different churches==

The term "The Catholic Church" refers to any one of several Rites, but in the United States is often used synonymously for the largest Rite, the Latin Rite. Other Rites include the Byzantine, Alexandrian, Syriac, Armenian, Maronite, and Chaldean Rites. Some Eastern rites have significant differences in liturgy, history, discipline and hierarchy from the Roman Catholic Church, but still recognize the primacy of the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) and are in communion with Rome. These Eastern Rite churches are Catholic and do not belong to the [[Eastern Orthodox Church]].

Despite important differences in doctrine, the Roman Catholic Church recognizes the Orthodox Church's Holy Orders (priesthood) as valid; however, the Orthodox generally follow a theory of ordination for place and purpose -- so the notion of being ordained outside the Orthodox Church is meaningless, and no theory of validity is held to.

The Roman Catholic Church has often, especially prior to the rise of Prtestantism, been considered the Western Church while the Greek Orthodox Church considered the Eastern Church. But more eastern than that, there were from the earliest centuries, the Aramaic Church of the East (see [[Aramaic Church]]) which considers itself to be a Catholic Church. The full name for this Church is the "Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church of the East" This Church, being cut of for most of the time from the Roman and Byzantine spheres by being in the "enemy" empire - Parthia,. developed differently from its sister Catholic Church of the West. The Church of the East also having the three fold ministry of Bishop, Priest, and Deacon, and being in [[Apostolic succession]] (through the Apostle Thomas rather than Peter), never developed the infallibility of bishops, as the Roman Church would do for the bishop of Rome (the Pope) speaking "ex cathedra" (nor infallibility of the synod of bishops as did the Greek Orthodox church). This elevates the authority of the Bible and brings affinity of this Catholic Church to the Evangelical world.

It is commonly thought that the Catholic church forbids its priests to marry. But this is true only of the Latin Rite. Eastern Rite Catholic Church congregations which are in communion with the Roman Catholic church have a married priesthood and diaconate although bishops may not marry. It is a common sight for non Latin rite Catholic priests to be seen, particularly in the Mid East and India, with wives and children. Priestly celibacy for Latin Rite Roman Catholic, though in force, is considered as canonical ruling having papal force but not an infallible decree or teaching coming "ex cathedra" - and thus priestly celibacy may be changed by the Pope and be in line with the non Latin rites of the Catholic Church. Some of the non Latin rites of the Catholic Church are: the Melkite Church (also known as the Greek Catholic Church), the Maronite Church, the Chaldean Catholic Church (a part of the Aramaic Church of the East that came under the Pope), the Malankara Church, the Syro-Malabar Church, and the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church. The general rule in the Roman Catholic Church in relation to its eastern rite communions within it is to allow the customs, practices, and even doctrines to remain "eastern". This approach entails not only the allowance of married priests but also mixed vernacular liturgies of natural development (Aramaic with Arabic, Aramaic with Greek), baptism of infants immediately followed by Chrismation (confirmation), rather than the Latin rite 12 year interval between baptism and confirmation, baptism by full immersion even of infants rather than sprinking or pouring as in Latin rite.

The Roman Catholic Church historically regarded [[Protestantism|Protestant]] Christianity as heretical, that is, being against Roman doctrine. However, this changed in the 1960's when [[Pope John XXIII]] called the Second Vatican Council, where '''the''' '''doors of the Church were opened wide''', and Protestants referred to as '''"our separated brethren".'''

[[Image:JpII.jpg|right|thumb|John Paul II]]

The [[Anglican Church]] (Episcopalian in the United States) occupies an odd situation, because it encompasses within it factions ("Low Church") that emphasize its Protestant aspects and factions ("High Church") that emphasize its Catholic aspects. Anglo-Catholics regard the Anglican church as part of the Catholic Church, and in the unbroken line of the Apostolic Succession. The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern branches take a position that could be described as saying that the Anglican Church is almost but not quite Catholic. There have long been unification overtures, and Anglican priests who wish to adopt Catholic Holy Orders are often provided with an abbreviated path to that goal.

The [[Nicene Creed]], the great historical statement of Christian belief, contains the line "I [or we] believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic church". The [[Apostles' Creed]] contains a similar affirmation. However, Protestants and Catholics place different interpretations on the term "universal", or "catholic". Protestants believe that it refers to the general, over-arching spiritual unity of all Christian believers, Jew or gentile, which transcends individual churches and denominations. Catholics, on the other hand, believe that the [[Roman Catholic Church]], as the single true church founded by Christ, is the universal Catholic Church in which there is neither Jew nor gentile. Some prefer not to refer to their own church as the "Roman" Catholic Church, on the grounds that such formulations implicitly deny this point of doctrine.

== Saint Paul's Writings ==

[[Paul|St. Paul]] is the second most prolific contributor to the [[New Testament]]. Thirteen letters are attributed to him and fully known as the "Catholic (or Universal) Epistles of Paul". The letters are written in Greek. The epistles contain the basis of Christian doctrine, interpretation and commentary from earlier scriptures. They are full of expositions of what Christians should believe and how they should live.

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

''St. Paul reminded the Christians how they should live. They should think about the things in heaven (Colossians 3:2), because they belong with Christ (Colossians 3:3-4). They should not do evil deeds (Colossians 3:5-11). Instead, they should love other people (Colossians 3:12-14). And they should serve God (Colossians 3:15-17). If we invite Jesus into our lives, we will become friends of God (Colossians 1:15-23).'' </blockquote>

St. Paul's influence on Christian thinking has been more significant than any other single New Testament author.

== Fathers ==

[[St. Ambrose]], Bishop of [[Milan]] from 374 to 397, was one of the most illustrious Fathers and [[Doctors of the Church]], and fitly chosen, together with [[St. Augustine]], [[St. John Chrysostom]], and [[St. Athanasius]], to uphold the venerable Chair of the Prince of the Apostles in the tribune of St. Peter's at Rome. <ref>[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01383c.htm St. Ambrose] Catholic Encyclopedia.</ref>
 

==Recent Controversy==
[[Image:Cerro_de_Angeles.jpg|right|thumb|Cerro de los Angeles, Madrid, Spain.]]
Widespread controversy erupted in 2001 and the years following over past abuse of minors by some Catholic clergy involving inappropriate sexual contact. The difficulty spanned multiple churches, with a lack of set policy and reluctance to involve authorities outside the church sometimes resulting in priests involved being moved from church to church by the presiding Bishops. For the most part the Catholic Church quietly cleaned this up internally in the mid 1980s. The vast majority of allegations of abuse that came to light in the 2000s occurred before this time period. Of course most priests were not involved, but the damage that could be done by even a small number of priests if not properly checked was horrible.

Although words like pedophile were often used in the press, in truth 90% of the cases involved priests making overtures towards teenage boys, and not pedophilia. It was a case of breaking vows and non-celibate [[homosexuality]].<ref>http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=72992710807995&mkt=en-US&lang=en-US&w=98cf251&FORM=CVRE4</ref>.

Following the public discovery of the incidents, the church was strongly criticised in the media for choosing to discipline priests internally and reassigning them rather than reporting the crimes to law enforcement authorities. Opponents of the church label this a 'cover-up' process to avoid public embarassment or loss of moral authority. Due to the failure to report the abuse to police, the state of massachusetts passed a law mandating religous officials report any incidence of abuse of a minor of which they are aware. An exception protects the confidentiality of Confession.<ref>http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/seslaw02/sl020107.htm</ref>

Due to the scandal, the U.S. Catholic church has paid out more than $2 billion in abuse claims.<ref>[http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070715/la_archdiocese_070715/20070715?hub=CTVNewsAt11 L.A. Catholic church settlement]</ref>

Incidents of abuse are not unique to the Catholic Church. A recent article from Associated Press (June 19, 2007) reported that three companies which insure the majority of Protestant churches in America indicated that they receive 260 reports annually of minors being abused by clergy, church staff, or volunteers.<ref>http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2007/06/18/80877.htm</ref> There is a general consensus that this type of abuse is not relegated to any religion in particular, but is a systemic societal issue.<ref>http://www.reformation.com/CSA/AbuseNotSimplyAChurchProblem.htm</ref>

== See also ==

*[[Jesus Christ]]
*[[Vatican City]]
*[[Pope John Paul II]]
*[[Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer]]
*[[Dead Sea Scrolls]]
*[[Catholic views on creationism‎]]
*[[Eucharist]]

==External links==
[[Image:Virgen.jpg|right|thumb|Virgin Mary and Child]]

*[http://www.Vatican.va The Vatican]
*A digital version of [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/ ''The Catholic Encyclopedia''].
*[http://www.cua.edu/ The Catholic University of America] Washington, D. C.
*[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm St. Paul] Catholic Encyclopedia.
*[http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm Catechism of the Catholic Church] Saint Charles Borromeo Catholic Church web site.
*[http://www.pellegrinocattolico.com/index.html Al Pellegrino Cattolico] Italian web site.

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Catholic Church]]
[[Category:History]]

Debate:What should be America's policy toward Islam

2008-12-12T21:49:21Z

NewCrusader:

The American policy towards Islam is a very important aspect of our government. The religion of Islam is one of the most, if not the most, violent religion in the world. Therefore it would make sense that our attitude towards it will affect the way we live. I will split the discussion into two groups: what our policy towards Islam should be, and what our policy towards violent/non-violent Muslims should be.

We should treat the Islamic religion exactly as we treat all other religions, with complete acceptance and religion freedom. We would not be “The land of the free” unless we do this. In this way Muslims will not be able to use an argument of acceptance against us. On the other hand, I do not believe we should treat all Muslims in the same way.

Muslims who come to our nation legally and seek a future in America and desire to be a part of society here should be accepted with open arms. The exact opposite is true of violent Muslims who are here to terrorize us. In the same way, Muslims who already live here should be allowed to stay (as long as they got here legally), but any Muslim that threatens or commits an act of violence towards America should immediately be imprisoned or deported. In addition to the person who commits violence, and organization that may have had any sort of connection with this violence should be removed from the nation, with its key members imprisoned.
:How is this any different then we treat everyone else? If anyone commits an act of violence towards America we attempt to punish those responsible, whether it be Muslims or any other person/group (like Timothy McVeigh). [[User:Grinder|Grinder]] 21:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

America should be tolerant, but not insecure. American citizens should come first on the government totem pole. This means that any part of our nation that is a threat, which is includes violent Muslims, needs to be taken care of. --[[User:SharonS|SharonS]]
:What about Muslim Americans? Do they come second to "true", Catholic citizens? --[[User:Conservativenick|Conservativenick]]

::Of course tolerance is needed. But when a theological idea becomes a threat to the foundation of American Society, then something obviously needs to be done. It's stated in the Qu'ran that Muslims shouldn't stop their struggle until all of the world is under Sharia (Islamic Law, the kind where adultery gets you stoned to death and women can't show a square inch of skin). I don't want to live like that, and neither does the 98.4%-98.6% of the US population which isn't Muslim. --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 18:57, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Wow, Hojimachong -- way to misunderstand. Sharia is not actually a part of Islam proper, but rather an interpretation of Islamic law that has been created since Islam's beginning, because of the need to apply Muhammad's injunctions to changing historical contexts. It is not a part of the Quran. Sharia does not, in fact, require the concealment of women; rather, that is a cultural precept held by ''some'' Muslim cultures. Muslims do not have to abide by Sharia, as it is merely one interpretation of the religion; many countries choose not to.

Thank you for your racist straw-man fallacy. Next time, do some research before you flame, please.
[[User:WhatWouldJesusEdit?|WhatWouldJesusEdit?]] 17:21, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

And don't some evangelistic Christians also believe that Christianity should spread across the Earth as well? Are there not passages in the Bible that mandate very harsh punishments for actions that would not be considered crimes in the modern world? I know that I don't wish to live under Christian law any more than I wish to live under Muslim law.
-Gasmonkey

== Simple Answer ==

'''None.''' A democracy should not have any policies regarding particular religions. In fact the Bill of Rights is quite clear on this. It should not even be an interesting discussion. Insert exasperated child-friendly explitive here. --[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 20:48, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:True of religion, but Islam is more than a religion - it's also a political movement, seeking to impose what it's members see as a perfect system of government and of morality upon the world. That puts it in the same class as, for example, Communism - and America certinly had a policy of opposing that. If hundreds of millions of people are working to destroy America - maybe over a billion, I'm not sure of the ratio of westernised to fundamentalist muslims - then surely there should be a policy opposing their efforts? [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 16:49, 12 December 2008 (EST)

If people are dumb enough to wanna try sharia law they deserve to get it good and hard. Let the Taliban take their 7th Century travelling road show to as many villages that they want, let all the Emirs go down, sell Israel and India the latest exportable US fighters and medium-range missiles, and most important, ban all travel from muslims countries to the US, no matter how long or short the layover in a third country. In other words, if their passport is stamped Syria, Turkey, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Saudia Arabia, Yemen, you name it, they get to turn around. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 22:09, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

== different answer ==

Well by the Bill of Rights the Government can't interfere with Islam as a religon but
that doesnt prevent the average citizen from speaking out against Islam. Now if I could
change the Bill Of Rights it sure would NOT include Islam. Call me whatever you want
for that, maybe not ALL americans feel that way but a good portion do. GO USA

--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 12:25, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

'''None.''' A democracy should not have any policies regarding particular religions. previous unsigned comment added by [[User:BarryGoldwater]] 19:23, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Westboro Baptist Church

2008-11-12T19:58:47Z

NewCrusader:

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

I don't think that the Westboro Baptist Church qualifies as a liberal activist group especially since they oppose evolution, abortion, and the homosexual agenda, three things that liberals push for heavily. --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 12:37, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

Phelps wouldn't be that bad if he only protesting homosexuality, its his disrespect of American troops that makes me mad. --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 12:38, 28 October 2007 (EDT)
:Of course the WBC isn't a liberal group. They are living proof that anything, even religious conservatism, can be taken to the most extreme, and out of its original context. [[User:Bruce1|Bruce1]] 21:19, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
::So why are they still called liberal activists and why is the page locked? [[User:Alexjohnc3|Alexjohnc3]] 11:56, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Of course they're liberal. They hate America. They say "God Hates America". Who cares if they also say that God hates fags? Who cares if they're also doing God's work by picketing fag churches? Hatred of America is liberal, period. The admins were right to lock the page. You seem to forget that children are reading this site, and they might be confused if we give then too much conflicting information. MissAmerica 11:00, 24 November 2007 (EST)

Osama bin Laden also hates America. Does that make him liberal? Do you even know what liberal means?
:This is an encylopedia, remember? [[liberal]] [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 14:58, 12 November 2008 (EST)
--[[User:Incide|Incide]] 19:12, 12 December 2007 (EST)
:Possibly; [[bin Laden]] leads a national liberation movement against [[West]]ern oppression, [[imperialism]], and the [[Church]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:12, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Are you a parodist? This is a second prime example of it at any rate. I've studied Fred Phelps in great detail sir - no other conclusion can be brought out of this article other than that you are writing parody articles. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 16:52, 14 December 2007 (EST)
:*''I've studied Fred Phelps in great detail sir ...''
::*I see. Hmmm. I do not doubt you, sir, for an instant. Now, why are you directing personal comments at me, then, and not discussing the issue? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:45, 14 December 2007 (EST)
You may have studied his inflammatory comments or read an anti-Christian slanted expose or three, but you haven't pointed out a single specific inaccuracy in the article. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:48, 14 December 2007 (EST)
:'''[[bin Laden]] leads a national liberation movement against [[West]]ern oppression, [[imperialism]], and the [[Church]].'''

:I was responding to that (He is implying that Phelps is a Liberal there, and in the Phelps article he is called a 'Leftist Liberal Democrat'. Doesn't take a genius to work out that that is plain false. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 20:07, 14 December 2007 (EST)
::It's not false, how could it be? I mean it says "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" and it has an AMERICAN flag right there at the top-left hand side of the page. Are you anti-America or something?! (Just kidding, by the way. I know that sometimes you can't tell if these type of people are kidding or not so I thought I should note that.) [[User:Alexjohnc3|Alexjohnc3]] 18:29, 15 December 2007 (EST)

I'm conservative but even I can admit that this group is neither liberal nor conservative. It is just simply a hate group --[[User:StephenHarper|StephenHarper]] 20:33, 16 December 2007 (EST)

Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church are not liberal by any stretch of the imagination. --[[User:Richardhead|Richardhead]] 17:40, 20 December 2007 (EST)

:I took out the part that it is a liberal group because there is absolutly no basis for that argument at all. Please tell me if there is. Thanks. [[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

:PS. I also added in some parody groups of this hate group. [[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

::Folks,
::I know there are likely going to be some who will immediately want to revert Rocky's changes, but I respectfully suggest that there might be some merit here. If Conservapedia wants to grow and become generally accepted, it needs to build a solid foundation. Lumping someone like Phelps in with tree-huggers and misguided college students serves no real useful purpose, and provides ammunition for those who claim that conservatives use "liberal" to mean "Anyone we dislike."

::That being said, facts are facts. Phelps is/was a Democrat; that is a matter of record, as is his support for Gore; those things cannot be disputed or spun, and certainly merit coverage.

::On the other hand, the parody groups don't seem significant, and I don't see why they should be covered. I'll let veteran editors have first crack before I make any changes.
::--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:03, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

I just added in the parody groups simply to show people that these people are not that tough. If you don't make fun of someone, they will allways find a way to justify their hate. However, if you make fun of them, they will have no defense because they will look like idiots. However, I apprechiate the fact that you stuck up for my edits. Thank you. --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

== Fred Phelps ==

Why was the tie-in to Fred Phelps removed? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 05:01, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

It was removed because I could not find any sources. If you can find some, you can put it back in. --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

:Rocky please use any search engine with 'Fred Phelps, Westboro Baptist Church'. It's not exactly hidden. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:11, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Westboro Baptist Church

2008-11-12T19:57:29Z

NewCrusader: It's too vulgar to say, but it's used in the next sentence? Have some consistancy - either don't use the word, or use it freely. Don't change policy from one sentence to the next.

'''Westboro Baptist Church''' is a cult run by extremist [[Fred Phelps]]. Although the church calls itself Baptist, they are not affiliated with any [[Baptist]] denomination. The church's members are almost entirely family members and are infamous for their protests and pickets at the funerals of soldiers who died in the line of duty, where they take the opportunity to denounce what they consider to be America's acceptance of [[homosexuality]]. The name of their [[website]], which contains a vulgar word, reflects this. Their antics are denounced across almost all spectra of political and religious thought.

Their hatred, and seeking of publicity, goes beyond homosexuality. They also protested the [[Pope]]'s visit, calling him the [[anti-Christ]].<ref>http://www.adl.org/special_reports/wbc/default.asp</ref>

There are many groups that parody it. For instance, in England, there is a group with the motto "God Hates Fags" with fake bible quotes on their page saying that smoking is bad for your health ("fag" in British English means cigarette). There is also a group called "God Hates Figs", pointing out the scene in the [[bible]] where [[Jesus]] destroys a [[fig]] tree.

==References==

<References/>

[[Category:Hate Groups]]
[[Category:Cults]]

Talk:Homosexuals and the Holocaust

2008-11-12T19:38:59Z

NewCrusader: Long comment.

JohnD wrote: It is widely accepted that homosexuals were targeted during the holocuast. The second sentance even admitts there were gay people in the camp, and that they indentified as such.

:The relevant question is whether they were targeted. A tangentially related question is what the 0.1% figure says about the 10% claim of Kinsey and other advocates of perversion. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:33, 12 November 2008 (EST)--
:: I've added a reference as per your request.
:But not a good one. You gotta do the math. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:45, 12 November 2008 (EST)

*The Nazi campaign against homosexuality targeted the more than one million German men who, the state asserted, carried a "degeneracy" that threatened the "disciplined masculinity" of Germany. Denounced as "antisocial parasites" and as "enemies of the state," more than 100,000 men were arrested under a broadly interpreted law against homosexuality. Approximately 50,000 men served prison terms as convicted homosexuals, while an unknown number were institutionalized in mental hospitals. Others—perhaps hundreds—were castrated under court order or coercion. Analyses of fragmentary records suggest that between 5,000 and 15,000 homosexual men were imprisoned in concentration camps

1,000,000 estimated homosexual men
10,000 homosexual men in concentration camps

#That's a 1% figure. Compare that to 85% of all Jews.
#Other sources say they were not "rounded up" but caught having public sex.

Please respond to this critique making further article edits. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:45, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:: I'm not questioning the numbers. The way you have written the original statement suggests that only gay activists claim that homosexual were targeted during the holocaust. That isn't true. I'm interested to see you've labelled the United States holocaust museum as gay activists.

For another reference see [http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/BIB/Homosexuality_and_the_Holocaust.htm] and references there in.

::: One thing to consider is that it's far more difficult to identify homosexuals than Jews, especially using the methods that the Nazis did. When you have synagogues with membership lists, exclusively Jewish communities, and people who, a few years before, had no reason to hide their identity, it's a lot easier to pick them out. The majority of gay people are private about their life style, you can't make a definitive definition of who's gay by tracking them through their ancestors, and, while they do (I can't speak for whether they did in the WWII era) have some gathering places and communities that are frequented by many gay people, there aren't many, and there probably were far fewer at the time, places that have lists that identify gay people. That makes it a little difficult to compare the percentages of Jews that were targetted to the percentages of gays. [[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 10:45, 12 November 2008 (EST)

I haven't labeled the museum as activists. Rather, I identified them as a source '''used by''' activists.

And I concede the difficulty Mike points out. But linking the anti-homosexuality rhetoric of American conservatives to the Nazi Holocaust is unwarranted. Perhaps it depends on the tacit assumption that sex is an life requirement like breathing or a need (like drinking and eating).

But Jews were rounded up based on identity, while Homosexuals were arrested only for having public sex. Those pretending not to see the difference should avoid this discussion. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:06, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:Where on earth are you getting this idea that homosexuals were only arrested for having sex in public? The terms of the legislation ruled against [http://www.holocaust-trc.org/parag175.htm "lewd and lascivious acts with another male"] irrespective of whether it was in public or in private, & the Nazis used police lists of suspected homosexuals as well as a special Gestapo division to root out closet homosexuals & identify secret homosexual meeting places. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 12:09, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::I should point out that at the time Britain and most (possibly all?) of the US also considered homosexual acts to be a criminal offense. It wasn't at all unusual prosecute homosexuality - many held, and indeed many still do hold, the view that the state has a compelling increase in fighting homosexuality as a threat to public health and morality. The UK faced a lot of opposition to legalising homosexuality, and the US has a few states that would likely re-criminalise it if the supreme court hadn't somehow declared gay sex to be a civil right. What defined the Nazi approach isn't that they criminalised homosexuality, but the '''enthusiasm''' with which they did so - tightening the laws, establishing a specialist department with the single role of finding and catching homosexuals, and subjecting those arrested to cruel 'treatments' or to likely death in a concentration camp. They took the criminalisation of homosexuality to an extreme, singling it out above other sex crimes as specific menace to society and demonising homosexuals in propaganda as an 'enemy within' that would try to destroy Germany. While only a small percentage of homosexuals were actually prosecuted, this is not for a lack of trying - were it not for the identification process being so unreliable and time-consuming (Compared to the ease of Jew-finding), the Nazis would certinly have been more than happy to execute every single homosexual or bisexual person in Germany. But, if you want an alternative view, you can always study [[Scott Lively]]. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 14:38, 12 November 2008 (EST)

Talk:Homosexual Historical Revisionism

2008-11-12T18:51:51Z

NewCrusader:

I have to argue that Alexander at the minimum engaged in long term homosexual relations. This was not uncommon in the greek culture of his day. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 18:00, 10 November 2008 (EST)
:I had occasion to reread Xenophon's ''The Persian Expedition'' recently. Some of the Greeks had their boys along with them. That isn't revisionism...it's primary source. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 18:28, 10 November 2008 (EST)

::But that does not mean they had them along for sexual purposes, as gay liberals claim.--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 20:32, 10 November 2008 (EST)
:::I am not going to go through and look for it, but the context was certainly sexual. It was a 1940's translation...Rex Warner...and I remember the class sniggering about it in the late fifties when it was read for our curriculum.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 21:12, 10 November 2008 (EST)
:::I've just thought...it seems ironic - or appropriate - that I have just been getting rid of the red links on [[Edward II]]. Including [[Berkeley Castle]].[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 21:34, 10 November 2008 (EST)

''not supported with any citations see conservapedia commandments.'' Quite right. Do you want cites that claim the individual was gay, or cites that claim that they aren't, or one of each, or what? What would be the best way to proceed? I think the article needs examples.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:03, 10 November 2008 (EST)

:The article has examples: Jesus, Paul, Robin Hood. The attempt before Conservative's edit to paint ASchlafly as a homosexual is just what a liberal considered humor, and I think you're unlikely to find any citations for it. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 22:28, 10 November 2008 (EST)

::Correction: I misread. Apparently, it was a different Schlafly, but I'm sure the same applies: this was just a liberal smear that would indicate that anyone was accusing any Schlafly of perversion, even though the intent was that John was not homosexual. Backhanded smears are common [[liberal style]].
::Even if I am wrong, it's just more evidence that liberals love to accuse prominent conservatives of homosexuality, especially if they share a name or lineage with other prominent conservatives like [[Aschlafly]]. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 00:04, 11 November 2008 (EST)

:::You are right BHarlan, that is why I started this article. Homosexual activists try to appropriate our history by blithely making these outrageous claims that "so and so was gay" with no evidence. This article is designed to highlight, and counter, their ridiculous assertions.--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 07:32, 11 November 2008 (EST)

It's possible you started this article as a parody. I removed the Liberace reference.

We may need an article on famous closet gays who falsely denied their homosexuality. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:38, 11 November 2008 (EST)
:Only one I can think of is Alan Turing. At least we can be completly confident this one actually was gay - it drove him to suicide.[[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 13:35, 12 November 2008 (EST)
Fred Mercury was certainly gay, I don't understand his inclusion in this. I thought John Schlafly was openly gay, but I don't think he should be included in the list, for obvious reasons, anyway. [[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 12:27, 11 November 2008 (EST)

== Smear, smear, smear ==

There are three claims in the article that the purpose of claiming various figures are gay is to smear various groups of people, but this doesn't hold water. First of all, some conservatives think that being called a homosexual is a smear, but certainly gays wouldn't think that, right? So while you might think it is a smear, it is not an "attempt to smear". Second of all, even if it ''were'' their intent, there's not been presented any evidence to this fact. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:36, 11 November 2008 (EST)

== But but but ==

I was going to put this along with my above comment, but I think I will keep them separated for clarity. Every claim of "being gay" has a reference of someone calling that person gay, but none of them have references that show that these people were not, in fact, gay. In other words, it's not HHR to call a spade a spade, so in order to claim HHR we need to show that these people were not gay. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:39, 11 November 2008 (EST)

:I was rather puzzled by the presence of [[Freddie Mercury]], a noted pervert, who died of AIDS, on that list. I suspected that Mercury's name might have been added by a vandal, but I wasn't sure. —[[User:AshleyS|Asphalt P. Stanky]] 16:17, 11 November 2008 (EST)
::With this article, it can be hard to tell. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:19, 11 November 2008 (EST)

:::My intent when I created this article was to point out that homosexual activists falsely claim that certain historical figures were gay, when they were not. Liberace and Freddie Mercury were in fact gay, so they should not be in this article, at least that is the way I see it.--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 16:59, 11 November 2008 (EST)
::::Freddie Mercury was very much Bi, though the general consensus was a preference for homoseuxuality. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 18:21, 11 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Freddie Mercury himself said he was gay in 1974 [http://www.queenarchives.com/index.php?title=Freddie_Mercury_-_03-12-1974_-_NME]. As long as nobody objects, best to remove him from the list.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 13:15, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Well it can't, by definition, be historical revisionism if it actually happened, now can it ;-) Yeah, I see no problem in removing it. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:26, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::I have a philosophical question here. If one nut job is making a claim, is it really fair to suggest that such a claim is at all representative of the gay (or liberal) community at large endorsing that claim? That is to say, I know many gay people, scholars, liberals accept the claim that many Greeks were gay, that DaVinci was gay, etc., and certainly some say Paul was gay, but I know of no main stream, "normal", real, gay or liberal person who would seriously assert that Jesus was gay. Is it fair to include those kinds of "one hit wonder" references here? I'm sure if we look hard enough we can find someone on the internet who has taken any and every preposterous position that can be held. doesn't mean it's worthy of inclusion on an article. --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 13:32, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::You seem to have hit the nail on the head. It's a problem we potentially face on many articles -- how does one tell the difference between a fringe view and a mainstream view? I think in this case it's best to properly denote ''who'' is doing the accusation. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:41, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::Fringe, mainstream... isn't it just as important to make sure we get the conservative view? That is, after all, why we are here. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 13:51, 12 November 2008 (EST)
I'm glad someone has put the question that way. Let's discuss it and come to a consensus. Then I'll put the result into the [[Conservapedia:guidelines]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:45, 12 November 2008 (EST)

Talk:Homosexual Historical Revisionism

2008-11-12T18:35:44Z

NewCrusader: Example.

Talk:Rapture

2008-11-12T18:32:09Z

NewCrusader: My oppinion

It seems that suggesting that the [[Pope]] may be the fulfillment of the condition that ''The Antichrist must be walking the earth in human form'' is unacceptable but it is OK to suggest the [[Euro]] fulfills the condition that ''The countries of the world must have the same currency'' and that the [[United Nations]] may be considered as ''One World Government, like the Revelation 7th beast''.
Surely they are equally daft and shouldn't be here either?
:"These things also belong to the wise: It is not good to show partiality in judgment." (Proverbs 24:23)
::Equating the Pope (Or the Catholic church) with the Antichrist is not a new idea. Protestants have been doing it for a very long time, and it's got quite a following with the fans of end-time prophercy - it fits in nicely with their idea of the Antichrist imposing a false religion, with the added irony of perverting Christ's own teaching to do so. As for the global currency... it isn't yet. But given that consolidating currencies is easier than creating a new one, it may be unified one day in future. And on World Government... the UN isn't that powerful. This would suggest the conditions arn't right yet, but could be in another fifty or more years. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 13:32, 12 November 2008 (EST)

[[User:BillyBoy|BillyBoy]] 06:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:I agree. Potty. That's why I insisted on attributing the ideas to 'some evangelical commentators' rather than, as the way of it is around here, to 'Christians'! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 08:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Oy a bruch!

Give me a break! The United Nations can't even agree that the Sudanese are practicing genocide in Darfur, let alone a single world government and currency. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 01:21, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Speaking as how a lot of you guys believe in YEC, we have been waiting for Jesus to return for 1/3 of all existence.

How does that fit with Matt. 16:28, Luke 9:27, Matt. 23:36, Mark 9:1, Luke 21:32, 1 Corinth. 7:29, Hebrews 1:2, 1 Peter 4:7, 1 John 2:18, Revelation 1:1, Revelation 3:11, etc.?

The NT makes it pretty clear that it's going to be "soon" according to the time of the authors. 2,000 years is not soon, especially if you consider the Earth to be 6,000 years old. [[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 22:10, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Civil union

2008-11-12T17:58:13Z

NewCrusader: How does this look?

A '''civil union''' is a legally-recognized domestic union offered in some jurisdictions as a substitute for [[marriage]], generally to same-sex couples. Civil unions are intended to give same-sex couples the same rights and responsibilities they would have if legally married, without extending marriage to include same-sex partnerships.

Civil unions exist in many countries, including the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Sweden. Civil unions and similar 'domestic partnerships' are offered in several U.S. states.

Civil unions generally confer rights including co-parenting, the ability to make decisions for a partner who is medically incapacitated, access to family health plans, and some tax benefits.<ref>http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html</ref>

Civil unions appeal to people of many political backgrounds because they offer some of the rights and recognition of traditional marriage to same-sex couples while keeping traditional marriage [[heterosexual]]. Some social conservatives condemn the idea of civil unions because they condone [[homosexuality]], which is immoral, or that the value of marriage my be lessened by the existance of a near-identical legal concept without the social or religious history of marriage. There is also a fear that civil unions may be a first step towards the abolition of traditional marriage. This is especially true in those areas where there are civil unions, but there is still a push to have marriage redefined to include homosexuality. Other people believe that civil unions are not an appropriate substitute for the legalization of [[same-sex marriage]] in those cases where they do not offer the same rights as traditional marriage. Some also believe that civil unions create segregation between same-sex and opposite-sex couples under the umbrella of "separate but equal" services.

==See also==
*[[Same-sex marriage]]

==External Links==
*http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html What Is a Civil Union?, FactCheck.org, August 9, 2007

[[category:homosexuality]]

Allegorical interpretation

2008-11-12T17:44:34Z

NewCrusader: This is sure to come in useful soon.

'''Allegorical interpretation''' is assigning a higher interpretation instead of a [[literal interpretation]] to the [[Scripture]] record of things, in particular to [[Old Testament]] stories.<ref>{{Nuttall|Allegorical interpretation}}</ref>

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[Category:Bible]]

Rant

2008-11-04T17:13:20Z

NewCrusader: I like this definition more.

A '''rant''' is a monologue, usually spontainous, in speech or in text, characterised by 'on the fly' production. A typical rant has little internal consistancy, is inconsistant, frequently changes topics and leave points unaddressed and includes personal attacks on an opponent or opponents. Though often considered a sign of poor thinking, occasional ranting can function as a form of stress relief.

Debate: Who will win the 2008 presidential election?

2008-11-04T17:01:30Z

NewCrusader: My turn.

'''The big day is upon us!''' We all have opinions, but who's a savvy statistician and who's just a pompous pollster? Let's see who can predict the presidential election outcome the best! Add your name and predictions below. Whomever get the closest wins. Ties will be decided by the U.S. House of Representatives. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 23:42, 3 November 2008 (EST)

{| class="wikitable"
|+
|- bgcolor=#dedede
|-
! User
! Electoral Winner
! Votes
! Popular Winner
! Percent Margin
! Comments
|-
| [[User:Corry|Corry]]
| Obama
| 326
| Obama
| 6%
| Obama carries PA, VA, OH, and loses FL and NC.
|-
| [[User:Jpatt|Jp]]
| McCain
| 285
| Obama
| 2%
| Hillary supporters are the difference, OH, FL, Bradly effect.

|-
| [[User:TGeary|Tgeary]]
| McCain
| 271
| McCain
| 0.5%
| Looking increasingly unlikely, but I cannot give up my confidence in my country yet.
|-
| [[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]]
| Obama
| 338
| Obama
| 4%
| Obama carries PA, VA, OH, and NC. Loses FL and MO., Sen. 60-seat margin, Ca. no on 8, Co. no on 48.
|-
| [[User:DRamon|DRamon]]
| McCain
| 271
| McCain
| 0.5%
| You gotta have hope!
|-
| [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]
| ?
| ?
| Obama
| 4%
| Polls show Obama is going to get the popular easily - but as this seems to be from making the blue states even bluer, it might not translate to electoral collage votes. I don't know enough to call that one, sorry.
|}

Add your prediction to the table above.

[[Category:Debate]]

Talk:Sex education

2008-11-04T00:24:12Z

NewCrusader: Commented.

== Debate? ==

Considering that this is a hot-button issue, don't you think we should have a debate about it? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:34, 5 February 2008 (EST) 
Can't they just use the same method that scared me away from sex? My high school showed STD videos.. like the worst stages of getting one. -^_^- [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy]] 20:42, 5 February 2008 (EST)

:This doesn't seem very conservative. It's all about how ineffective abstinance education is. Probably true, but irrelivant: Conservatives know that sex ed is about more than safe sex, it's about promoting moral values and Christian virtue. Comprehensive sex ed may keep the teens safe from pregnency and STI, but at the expense of turning them away from God, so we need to give our full support to abstinance. I urge a rewrite to strip all the pro-sex and anti-abstinance parts - which leaves three paragraphs. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 18:12, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

::Abstinence only education doesn't work because of the forbidden fruit effect (for an example, see Prohibition). Teens just don't listen, h*** I'm only seventeen and I understand that. Abstinence only, like Communism, requires that human nature change completely and abruptly and that is impossible. Comprehensive Sex Education gives teens information that can actually be useful such as contraceptives, STDs, STD prevention. It also teaches that abstinence is also okay and someone's choice. But it isn't taught exclusively and used as a crutch to misinform teenagers.[[User:JudgeKing|JudgeKing]] 13:37, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
:::Your point? It doesn't matter if comprehensive education can be shown to prevent every single STI and case of accidential pregnency - it's still a moral poison that Christians should be obliged to oppose. Abstinance until marriage and fidelity within is ''the'' standard, the ''only'' god-endorsed expression of sexuality, and the purpose for which it was created. So none of these scientific studies or the exchanges of statistics matter in the slightest. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 19:24, 3 November 2008 (EST)

== Where did this article go? ==

Why were huge (refereneced) chunks of this article deleted without explanation? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:36, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
:By me, in the hope that the sudden shrinkage would prompt a rewrite to less liberal standards. Looks like it worked. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 19:24, 3 November 2008 (EST)

==Second sentence==
It's awkward. Really, really awkward and horribly written. Changing it.

==Apples & Oranges==
''Federal funding for abstinence only education across the country has increased during the decade, but still does not equal the amount of money the government gives to Planned Parenthood, a single organization, each year.''
I don't believe that the figures in the two articles cited can be compared to each other. Planned Parenthood does various things - not all of their money is about sex ed or abortions, some is things like breast cancer ed (if I remember right) - plus most public schools get little federal funding anyway, so looking at Planned Parenthood's total income vs. federal gov't money spent on abstinence-only ed doesn't mean much of anything. We need more accurate/specific figures or we need to remove this sentence. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 13:37, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
:Yes, they do a lot of breast cancer screening programs. We should look into getting non-murdering organisations to handle more of those - it would make it easier for us to starve Planned Parenthood of the government funds that keep it running if they didn't have such a noble-seeming cause with which to demand tax funding - and I am sure some of the cancer-screening grants find their way into pro-abortion lobbying. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 19:24, 3 November 2008 (EST)

User talk:NewCrusader

2008-10-31T19:36:39Z

NewCrusader:

==Block reason==
You have been blocked for subverting the spam filter and your inappropriate comments have been reverted. Remember, this is a "family friendly" encyclopedia and you must follow these rules. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 17:17, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
:My appologies. I merely considered it odd that the word 'anal' was blocked, considering the debate topic was discussing the level to which Conservapedia should self-censor, and made use of a temporary workaround until the issue could be addressed. I also found it confusing that I was unable to use a word which several other commenters had used previously.

::Please sign your posts with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> (four tildes) or use the signature button on the toolbar above the editbox (10th button from left). [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 11:49, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Ah, so that's how to do it! I've been trying to figure that out... I knew there was some type of sequence. Thanks... and testing: [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 12:42, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

==Satan Block==

Just for the record, I was blocked by DeanS for one week for reason 'Parodist' following my edits to the article on [[Satan]]. I'm not sure why this is, looking back at my edits, I made three very minor changes, all of which look acceptable.

== Debate: Do we put enough emphasis on homosexuality? ==

I thought you'd like to know that "Debate: Do we put enough emphasis on homosexuality?" is back open for business, at Rat ion alWiki. --[[User:Martina|Martina]] 17:30, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

:Doesn't surprise me. I started it to draw attention to the apparent facination Conservapedia contributors have with homosexuality, and it's exactly the type of thing 'that wiki' would mock them for. Also, Aschlafly... this is my talk page. Don't just revert someone's comment before I have even had a chance to see it, that was very confusing. If Martina broke a rule (Are users forbidden from acknowledging the existance of other wikis?), then at least have the manners to say in exactly what way while deleting her comment. It's very annoying when an admin acts without stateing which rule was broken - I still cannot understand which of my edits to the Satan article were mistaken for parody. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 15:36, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

User talk:NewCrusader

2008-10-31T19:36:27Z

NewCrusader: Always forgetting to sign...

Talk:Essay:Rules of Chivalry for Students

2008-10-30T19:28:39Z

NewCrusader: Comment, and mini-rambling on an unrelated topic.

==parody?==
At first I thought this might be parody, then I saw who created it... now I think perhaps it's not that bad a page after all. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 20:22, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
:Why would you think it was parody? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 20:23, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
::Because it's typical of liberals to accuse conservatives of being outdated, or of supporting gender inequality. If it looks like us as seen by them, it may be written by them. But I know Aschlafly is no parodist, so I can trust this. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 20:56, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
:This is no parody. My class of 56 teenagers, boys and girls, starts Thursday. Unlike my prior classes, this one is going to develop a bit of [[chivalry]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:26, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
::Aschlafly, might I ask where you teach? I more than somewhat like the articles I see here. I did not know as much about Barack Obama untill I read that article on him,and am rather impressed by the depth of multiple other articles. [[User:JohnI|JohnI]] 20:31, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

::: I teach in [[New Jersey]]. I don't use any school. Thanks for your comments, if sincere, and regardless Godspeed to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:34, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

::::As a thought, it would be interesting to ask the students in your pending class to contribute a few entries themselves. I'm sure most of us are not teen-age students, so it would be interesting to get their direct perspective on what they'd consider "chivalrous". --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:23, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

==Sports==
What does attending boys' sporting events have to do with chivalry? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 20:35, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

:It is supportive of your classmates.[[User:ErstBlenchPoet|ErstBlenchPoet]] 20:37, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
::I just don't see that as fitting in. Lets get more opinions. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 20:38, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Because they are more easily injured, girls should not play most sports (except the explicitly feminine ones such as gymnastics or dance). Therefore it is appropriate for them to cheer on the sidelines and provide support.[[User:ErstBlenchPoet|ErstBlenchPoet]] 20:40, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::Ah, I see. Welcome back, ErstBlenchPoet. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 20:46, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
::::I do somewhat object to that, I have seen quite a couple women and girls playing sports, including what you would consider not to be "explictily feminine ones", and while I have seen some of them get injured, the amount seemed about even to the men. I believe that both genders can cheer at athletic events, as below. [[User:JohnI|JohnI]] 20:45, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
::::I agree that attending sports events is supportive however I dont think it specifically applies to girls as such. More the whole class should get out and cheer each other on. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 20:42, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::I removed it per consensus. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 20:46, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::How about a "both" section? It would be a good place for listing things like being supportive of classmates' endeavors. I also think the "no cursing" should be #1. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:06, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::I agree with that idea. Another one I think should be in "both" would be proper dress. [[User:JohnI|JohnI]] 21:55, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

==hat doffing==
(unindent) Would removing one's hat in the presence of a lady be considered anachronistic? While a hat is no longer a major part of adult attire, many teenagers wear baseball caps and the like. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:47, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
:I was brought up to not wear hats inside period. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 20:49, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

I can't believe my entry was removed. I am from Belgium and here most girls curtsey, and all are taught to! I can't believe that it is considered anachronistic in America! I hope the other Europeans here agree with me. --[[User:HPoirot|HPoirot]] 20:52, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
:I never saw that in Brussles. But then again, my eyes were only for chocolate. ;-) Seriously, your teens curtsey for someone other than royalty?--[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] 21:09, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
::And how often did you see men bow? Good manners are fading, but I guarantee you that every girl learns to curtsey here. --[[User:HPoirot|HPoirot]] 21:18, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't know. Seems far-fetched, HPoirot. It hasn't been seen in the U.S. for many decades.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:31, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
::::You are the teacher and I do not want you to teach wrong manners. Still, I can only feel sad that the U.S. have gone so far. All the world admires and takes example from the U.S., but also imports most of your uses and manners, including some which are questionable. Good luck for your class though, teaching chivalry to students is an admirable task. --[[User:HPoirot|HPoirot]] 21:39, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

==Complementing people==
why should complementing people be reserved as something boys do for girls. *everyone* especially young teens trying to find their path in this world, can benefit from sharp, insightful (not empty) complements. "I really like your ideas on that last question". "Your writing style is impressive". and "I find that you have wonderful taste in literature, would you recommend something to me". "golly sally you are sure' perty" seems like something from the 1950's tv reality. We can have our well educated kids do far better than that! I try to find one really genuine thing to say about a person I work with each day. And when I can, I try to make it about them, not just what they are wearing, or things they cant change like how pretty they look.--[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] 21:07, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

:Nicely said. A sincere compliment on what someone does (which we can change with every choice we make) goes a long way to building a good self-image. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:20, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

:: Chivalry emphasizes complimenting females. They appreciate it more than males do. In fact, a male can find a compliment to be patronizing or insincere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:24, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

:::I'd think a female would find an insincere or patronizing "compliment" just as offensive. You're right about chivalry being oriented about the manners of men in their treatment of women, though. It just seems a shame to pass on an opportunity to teach both genders in a 21st century class about courtesy, manners and respect without it depending so much on which gender one belongs to. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:31, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

::::(edit conflict) That is just wrong, Andy. A complement is important to all people. Especially people who are strong, who are intelligent, and who want to be important community leaders. Boys take and give complements every day and are better for it. perhaps you mean to say "flattery" where it isn't a complement about something someone does well, but just empty rhetoric about how pretty they are. Are you truly sitting here saying that you, a man, do not complement your students, and if you do, they boys only think it is hollow or patronizing? Teachers teach by pointing out the best in each thing they say, and then trying to help make other aspects as good. Teachers teach by saying "you have really improved in your essay writing (and it does not matter if its Jane or John), but you still need to work on your math skills". Teachers teach by giving grades that do not just have letters, but well explained reasons for why they were given that grade which *necessarily* provides things they student does well, not just things he or she does poorly. --[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] 21:33, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

==Dresses==

I believe it should be mentioned that wearing a dress is preferable for a girl seeing how it is more traditional and it establishes set gender roles. Pants were originally designed to be worn exclusively by men and were worn exclusively until the Feminist movement in the 60's. -- [[User:Jose83|Jose83]]

Girls

1. Put your superior social skills to good use by welcoming others.
2. Do not attempt to embarrass a boy, as in trying to beat him in arm-wrestling or bragging that you did better on a test.
3. Avoid excessive gossip.
4. Dress modestly, not provocatively or suggestively. A dress is preferable.
5. Avoid profanity.

-- [[User:Jose83|Jose83]]
:Didn't you learn anything since your last parody block? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 21:28, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

::That was parody, but given that there are essays like [[Essay:Women wearing pants]] written by sysops it's not that far a stretch. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:37, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Indeed. It's hard to tell here - I'm still trying to work out why I was blocked for a week as a 'parodist' in response to my edit to the Satan page. I made three changes, and none of them look at all contriversial to me. There are some users here who are on the fringe, but not intentionally parodist. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 14:47, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
Please focus your attention on the writing, not the writer. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:35, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

== Rules for both genders ==

Would it be appropriate to redivide this with one section for rules which apply to both genders (e.g. good manners, avoid profanity, avoid gossip), then the sections on ruled for boys and girls? I think that many of the rules should apply equally to boys & girls, although there are a few which are more specific. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 09:30, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
:Frankly, I think that would be a wonderful idea. I am a Christian woman who puts my family first. But I am also a supporter of women finding their own strength and wisdom and path - and not just being empty wombs that some people want us to be. We are mothers, and it takes an inordinate amount of awareness, lifeskills, intelligence, and even stubbornness (kids are a blessing, but damn are they a pain!) to be a good mother. Rules in our house, and rules in my highschool classes go for BOTH genders. No one hits the other, both of my kids are to have respect for each other. Both are to help out either parent when it's needed (and yes, both my son and my husband do the dishes if they need done, and I've been known to use a drill when something is loose. being the head of the household, and being a good wife as defined by Christianity does not mean you have to be dogmatic as a man nor a push over as a woman. and nothing in the bible says women are less - just that they have differences.) In my classroom, no one uses bad language, no one slouches when anyone else is giving a presentation, all students help pick up before we go out, all students help monitor each other's works. And if and when any student gets a great grade, they are encouraged to be proud of the grade but not tease others. "girls should not tease boys about higher grades" makes it sound as if boys should be getting the higher grades. Everyone is treated equally in my classes. This is what mutual respect is all about, and it is a very Christian and Jesus-like view. Bravo for suggesting it!--[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] 12:40, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

==Equal==

Boys and girls are not 'equal' - in things like strength, for instance - so it's unlikely a boy would lower himself by bragging the way sideways suggested.

We have separate do's and dont's for boys and girls because of their inherent differences. If you want to argue about whether such differences exist (or are socially conditioned), start a debate page - don't make ideological edits. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:33, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
:How was it an ideological edit? It was an edit related to chivalry. Wouldn't you agree that a boy bragging about beating a girl is decidedly unchivalrous? I have certainly encountered this sort of bragging, and do consider it unchivalrous, for the very reason that there is a difference in strength and aptitude, which is why I believe it should be acknowledged as a rule of chivalry. The reason that ''most'' boys would not lower themselves to this kind of bragging is precisely because they consider it unchivalrous. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 09:40, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
::Ed, that is also a sexist view point. Boys are not "better" than women, you know. and boys *do* brag, and girls brag. neither should be encouraged to brag. But I am beginning to find that several of you do not have Christian Equality in mind, but rather like stating that women are an inferior being. Not one place in the Bible will you find it stated that women are more likely to be braggarts then men. No where in the Bible does Jesus, or Paul, or even Timothy suggest that women shouldn't be proud of their educational accomplishments. Being a good Christian woman is about putting your family first in a melinia where the entire world wants you to put your career first. (again, why I have issues with Palin, serious ones). Being a good Chrsitian woman means knowing your husband is the ultimate arbitrator if you and he disagree about something - but it does not mean you should not express your opinion nor does it mean he should not listen and does not have to respect you. Being a good Christian woman means finding love at the core of what you do, and putting aside petty things we *all* as humans are tempted to do. but in no way, anywhere in our Bible does it suggest that women are more likely to be petty, nor that men must somehow "handle" women, or that men should be treated with kid gloves and not embarrassed in class. That is just reinforcing the idea that women are not as capable as men in navigating this world. We use different emotional paths, and put value in other places, but we are just as valuable and important as men. Your comments are hateful to women, I'm sorry to say, by belittling them and turning us into mere toys and not strong, loving, compassionate, intelligent beings on our own.Michelle. Proud mother, Proud Wife, Proud educator, Proud student and scholar (in that order). --[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] 12:49, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

== Essay? ==

Regarding NewCrusader's concern that this might be a parody, well, this is no essay at all. An essay is a ''written composition of moderate length exploring a particular issue or subject''. What we have here is just an enumeration of "guidelines".
Perhaps it would be better without the "Essay", just "Rules of Chivalry for Students," under a new category: Conservative guidelines or something like that. --[[User:CBlake|CBlake]] 11:17, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
:I'd point out that '''Essay:''' as a ''wiki namespace'' is not necessarily the same as ''essay'' in the dictionary. --[[User:EPauper|EPauper]] 11:21, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

::From that point of view, obviously. --[[User:CBlake|CBlake]] 11:30, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

:: And I'll point out that "Essay" is not actually a namespace on Conservapedia! This page (not the talk page, of course) is in mainspace. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:31, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Oh, point taken! I thought both Essay: and Debate: were separate namespaces. --[[User:EPauper|EPauper]] 11:33, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

:::: I've avoided adding new namespaces because they frustrate searching. I've been told that there is a software change to overcome that frustration, but that seems to be low priority right now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:10, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::Any user can set default namespaces for searches. It's in the "Search" tab of the Preferences. Right now, it's the ''current'' scenario that makes searching frustrating because the main search box is assumed to search the encyclopedia (Well, at least ''I'' assumed that much when I first used it... YMMV, but I think general intuition agrees with me since the encyclopedia aspect is the most notable one.), but the results also show (some) debates, lectures and their homework (like [[American History Homework One Answers]]) and essays. So I'm all for proper namespaces for things that aren't connected to the encyclopedia aspect. </two_cent> --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 18:12, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

==Date Section==
I think the section just added by Bugler about going on a date should be removed. Is this guide not for students and about classroom behaviour? Just a suggestion. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 18:31, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
:It's rules of chivalry for young - and old -adults. Attraction is normal. Proper beahviour should be aimed at. Do you have a problem with what I suggest as a rule? The fact that you interpret 'going on a date' in a salacious fashion speaks volumes. It ain't neccesarily so, and that is how my advice was framed. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 18:35, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
::There is no need to get shirty with me. You state in your edit "if going on a date". I was under the impression that Aschlafly wrote this as a guidline for his students within the classroom setting. I wont remove anything from this and just leave it for him to decide. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 18:45, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
:::What I wrote is perfectly appropriate for older students. And what I am counselling is perfectly proper behaviour, OK? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 18:48, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
::::Post what you like, I was merely making a suggestion. Not attacking you. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 18:52, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

== Gossip ==

"Avoid excessive gossip." Excessive? How about just avoiding it entirely? Just curious. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:05, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
:Thank you Hew. I removed that part. Great Dane-related contribution. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 00:32, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

== Reactionary to the Point of Absurdity ==

Firstly, I complete respect the author's rights to his opinions about gender roles and inherent differences. However, I feel that to continue to contribute to this site without commenting on this page would be taciturn approval of those opinions, which would be incorrect. '''I find this page, and the views expressed therein to be disgraceful.'''

Are you going to force all people to conform to these gender roles? I know that you don't consider the idea of gender equality and these views to be contradictory, but the idea that boys should "carry something heavy" for girls is clearly a comment that girls are less capable. There's simply no other way to interpret it. And as for "Be appreciative when girls bake cookies for the entire class."
As far as I can tell, this comment has two interpretations: boys can't make biscuits, or when they do, nobody should be appreciative. The latter seems odd, and the former is again, ridiculously misogynistic. You're treating girls like the outdated notion that they should be "homemakers and mothers". Good Osborne, have we come full circle? Has nobody learnt anything from the last fifty years?

Anyway, as I said, I respect the opinions in the essay, but I feel I have to point out I find them horrific, and that I in no way agree with them. Thank you,

[[User:KarlJaeger|KarlJaeger]] 15:19, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
:That does sound like an odd one... I used to work at a school, just a typical school, and they were quite paranoid about the safety of the students, both out of genuine concern and fear of legal action: If a student were to bake cookies, they would probably be forbidden from openly handing them out for fear the school may be liable should any student come down with food poisoning. If the cookies were distributed, it would be while the staff were not looking. But perhaps some schools are more permissive than others. I could probably rant on this for a time if I wished... the school trip is slowly dying out because the health-and-safety requirements are growing prohibative. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 15:28, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

User talk:NewCrusader

2008-10-30T19:23:22Z

NewCrusader: Delete comments if you want, Aschlafly, but it would be nice if you gave a reason.

User talk:NewCrusader

2008-10-30T19:18:29Z

NewCrusader: Undo revision 545111 by Aschlafly. See page for reason.

Talk:Onanism

2008-10-28T21:48:49Z

NewCrusader: Confusing.

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

''It is a dishonest way for a male to prevent the pregnancy of a woman.''

What the bloody hell are you writing? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 21:05, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

: The only honest ways of a pregnancy not happening are if fertilization naturally fails or you abstain from sex altogether. The Biblical story of [[Onan]] documented his dishonest and sinful act of engaging in sexual union with his brother's wife but "spilling his seed" to prevent pregnancy. God punished him for that deceptive avoidance of one of the purposes of sexual congress, especially since it was his duty to bear his dead brother's child. [[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 22:28, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
Well, it is a tricky one to write... particually as conservapedia is configured to forbid to use of 'that word.' The one that starts with M. The sin of Onan is not entirely clear though - the traditional catholic intrepretation is as Foxtrot claims, and is part of their justification for their ban on contraception, but most protestant churches do not hold that sex without reproduction is inherently sinful and rather claim that Onan's sin was disobeying a direct command from God. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 17:48, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Onanism

2008-10-28T21:46:24Z

NewCrusader: I give this, oh, two minutes before someone cuts it back to one sentence, or possibly blocks the article altogether. Still, worth a try.

'''Onanism''' is a [[sin]] which was committed by [[Onan]], who was punished by [[God]] for committing it. The exact sin is subject to dispute - a popular intrepretation by Catholics is attempting sexual intercourse without permitting reproduction, an act considered sinful by the Roman Catholic Church. An alternative view suggests the sin may have been in disobeying an order from God.

[[Category:Sin]]

Sex education

2008-10-28T21:36:08Z

NewCrusader: And here comes some more, for your editing pleasure! Anyone object to these?

'''Sex Education''' is classroom instruction on [[human reproduction]] and [[sexuality]]. It is typically taught by both public and private schools, with parents usually given the option of withdrawing their children if they feel the content to be inappropriate or have personal or religious objections.

The appropriate content for sex education is a subject of political dispute within the United States, and within other countries. The greatest division is between the comprehensive and [[abstinence]]-only schools of thought. Proponents of comprehensive sex education believe that instruction should include education on methods of [[contraception]], as a means to prevent the twin threats of pregnancy and the transmission of sexually-transmitted infections. Proponents of abstinence education maintain that instructing unmarried teenagers on contraception is implicitly endorsing sexual activity outside of marriage, and so sex education should omit contraception and instead concentrate on helping teenagers to avoid pressure towards pre-marital sexual activity, and to wait until they are in a monogamous, married relationship to begin sexual activity.

In general, comprehensive education is favored by [[liberal|liberals]] while abstinence-only education is favored by [[conservative|conservatives]].

As well as subjects directly relation to physical sexual acts, sex education may also include instruction on relationship management, self-control, pregnency, the physiological changes of puberty, sexual orientation, and in religious schools the morality of sex. This variety adds to the political contriversy, with varying groups advocating the inclusion of exclusion of specific components.

Sex education is typically taught at varying points throughout education, either as a seperate short course (Often with a visiting specialist teacher) or as a module in the science cirriculum. Thus an individual student will go through several sex education courses, each one imparting information considered appropriate for their age at the time.

==Abstinence Only==
Federal funding for abstinence only education across the country has increased during the decade, but still does not equal the amount of money the government gives to [[Planned Parenthood]], a single organization, each year.<ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/education/la-na-abstinence24apr24,1,5905418.story</ref><ref>http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/mmalkin/2008/mm_06041.shtml</ref>

== Sex Education in England ==
In England the National Curriculum [http://www.dfes.gov.uk] requires all schools to offer comprehensive sex education as part of Personal, Social and Health Education, from junior school on. These classes are opt-out: All children take the lessons unless their parents have previously requested otherwise.

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Sociology]]
[[Category:Sexuality]]

Scott Lively

2008-10-24T21:39:14Z

NewCrusader: And while I'm here...

'''Scott Lively''' is an anti-[[homosexual]] behavior activist, president of Defend the Family International (a ministry with the stated objective to 'promote and defend the [[Bible|Biblical]] view of marriage and family' but an almost exclusive focus on homosexuality), director of ATM's Pro-Family Law Center,<ref name="nwv">http://www.newswithviews.com/conspiracy/conspiracy6.htm</ref> author of ''The Poisoned Stream: "Gay" Influence in Human History'' and co-author of ''[[The Pink Swastika]]: Homosexuals and the Nazi Party,'' which "documents the homosexual roots of Nazism and the central role of homosexuals in the Holocaust."

==Quotes==

"I advocate a high tolerance for the people who define themselves by their choice of a homosexual lifestyle, even while I promote a low tolerance for homosexual conduct." - In ''A Letter to the Lithuanian People''<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/news/scott-lively-warns-the-lithuanian-people-about-the-oppressive-homosexual-movement.html</ref>

" In reality, homosexuality is nothing more than same-gender conduct among people who are innately and unchangeably heterosexual. Homosexuality is thus biologically (and to varying degrees morally) equivalent to pedophilia, sado-masochism, bestiality and many other forms of deviant behavior." - ''Deciphering 'gay' word-speak and language of confusion''<ref name="nwv" />

"We Declare that the human rights of religious and moral people to protect family values is far superior to any claimed human right of those who practice homosexuality, and we Call for the European Union and the international community to immediately abandon any campaign to create a human right for homosexual conduct, and to restore religious freedom and family values to their proper superior status." - ''Riga Declaration on Religious Freedom, Family Values and Human Rights, authored by Scott Lively'' <ref name="dtf">http://www.defendthefamily.com/pfrc/archives.php?id=7300708</ref>

"Like Justice Robert Jackson and the jurists of two millennia, we reject the effort of self-serving people to choose their own morality in the face of revealed universal truth. And like modern environmentalists we can prophesy with assurance that removing social and legal protections for the natural family will have dire and long-lasting consequences for us all." <ref name="dtf" />

==References==
<references/>

[[category:political Activists]]

Scott Lively

2008-10-24T21:33:40Z

NewCrusader: If the citation is still needed after so long, it's not coming. Claim removed.

'''Scott Lively''' is an anti-[[homosexual]] behavior activist, president of Defend the Family International (a ministry with the stated objective to 'promote and defend the [[Bible|Biblical]] view of marriage and family' but an almost exclusive focus on homosexuality), director of ATM's Pro-Family Law Center,<ref name="nwv">http://www.newswithviews.com/conspiracy/conspiracy6.htm</ref> author of ''The Poisoned Stream: "Gay" Influence in Human History'' and co-author of ''The Pink Swastika: Homosexuals and the Nazi Party,'' which "documents the homosexual roots of Nazism and the central role of homosexuals in the Holocaust."

==Quotes==

"I advocate a high tolerance for the people who define themselves by their choice of a homosexual lifestyle, even while I promote a low tolerance for homosexual conduct." - In ''A Letter to the Lithuanian People''<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/news/scott-lively-warns-the-lithuanian-people-about-the-oppressive-homosexual-movement.html</ref>

" In reality, homosexuality is nothing more than same-gender conduct among people who are innately and unchangeably heterosexual. Homosexuality is thus biologically (and to varying degrees morally) equivalent to pedophilia, sado-masochism, bestiality and many other forms of deviant behavior." - ''Deciphering 'gay' word-speak and language of confusion''<ref name="nwv" />

"We Declare that the human rights of religious and moral people to protect family values is far superior to any claimed human right of those who practice homosexuality, and we Call for the European Union and the international community to immediately abandon any campaign to create a human right for homosexual conduct, and to restore religious freedom and family values to their proper superior status." - ''Riga Declaration on Religious Freedom, Family Values and Human Rights, authored by Scott Lively'' <ref name="dtf">http://www.defendthefamily.com/pfrc/archives.php?id=7300708</ref>

"Like Justice Robert Jackson and the jurists of two millennia, we reject the effort of self-serving people to choose their own morality in the face of revealed universal truth. And like modern environmentalists we can prophesy with assurance that removing social and legal protections for the natural family will have dire and long-lasting consequences for us all." <ref name="dtf" />

==References==
<references/>

[[category:political Activists]]

Sin (Fundamentalism)

2008-10-23T13:01:39Z

NewCrusader: /* Sin of the world */

: ''For a general discussion of the concept of sin and the view of it by other traditions, see [[Sin]].''

[[Sin (Fundamentalism)|Sin]], according to the teachings of most [[Fundamentalism|Fundamentalists]], is at the root of the tendency to set one's own will in opposition to that of [[God]] and the general deficiency of our own moral character compared to that of God. God is Perfect and Holy, and thus cannot tolerate any kind of blemish in His Presence.

Sin refers both to action (or inaction) and state of being. A particular sin is an action or inaction that does not conform to God's character, and especially any action that is committed with the foreknowledge that it is contrary to [[conscience]] or [[morality]] or divine [[law]]. Humans have inherent knowledge of right and wrong that was obtained at the time [[Adam]] and [[Eve]] ate of the fruit of ''[[Fall of man|Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil]]''. We commit "sin" when our actions violate these instincts. It is through sinful acts that we fall short of [[God]]'s intended design and will.

Such behavior displeases God and causes us to be separated from Him. This, then, is the state of being that the word ''sin'' also stands for: a separation from God, resulting from the harm done to our relationship with Him.

[[Human]] laws or the codes of conduct of a society are not always in keeping with God-given morality, and we are not absolved from judgment on our actions because society views them as acceptable. The foreknowledge of right and wrong is something that all humans have, and life is itself something of a measure or test to see how we will use this knowledge.

== True Meaning ==
The Greek word translated ''sin'' in the New Testament is '''ἁμαρτία''' (''hamartia''). ''Hamartia'' does ''not'' mean "crime" or "guilt" only; it means a ''failure'' or a ''fault'' of some kind. It literally means ''a missing of the mark at target practice''.

More generally, ''hamartia'' means ''any deviation, no matter how slight, from a perfectly desirable design or outcome.'' Thus sin is ''any thought or act, however innocent in intention,'' that does not meet the Divine standard. This ''includes, but does not limit itself to,'' all negligent, reckless, knowing, and intentional misdeeds.

== Evidence for Foreknowledge of Right and Wrong ==
That any human being might be expected to know ahead of time what is right and what is wrong, might seem incredible to any casual observer of human society. And yet the following points favor the notion of instinctual foreknowledge of violations of conscience:
*Any government promulgating a frankly murderous or otherwise oppressive policy toward any subset of its subjects must actively persuade its remaining subjects, usually through ''[[propaganda]]'', that such a policy is morally acceptable. The obvious example is [[Germany]] during the [[Second World War]]. In fact, many other examples, historical and modern, illustrate this point.
*No organized society has ever explicitly endorsed theft as a legitimate business practice.
*Attempts to ''justify'' such offenses as adultery, fornication, covetousness, or lying almost invariably fail. More typically, one caught engaging in such activity will try to ''excuse'' it by pleading some sort of extenuating or mitigating circumstance, or innocent intent (see above). Or else he will ''boast'' of his "right" so to act. Sadly, even some [[church]] leaders have taken such a brazen stance.
*By far the most salient statement concerning human foreknowledge of right and wrong comes from [[Paul]]. He wrote:
{{Bible quote|Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.|book=Romans|chap=1|verses=19-21|version=KJV}}

== Implications ==

The following are according to the most commin interpretation of fundamentalist churches, but not universially accepted by other branches of Christianity.

=== The First Sin ===
The [[Creation]] story ends with God's evaluation of the earth:{{Bible quote|And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=31|version=KJV}}
The word rendered ''very'' means "truly," not "extremely." In essence, God made everything ''perfect.'' Sin did not exist in this world, not because the world had no moral context, but because the world was in perfect compliance with it. ''Nothing'' was in the world that God did not put into it.

The Fall of Man changed everything:{{Bible quote|And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;|book=Genesis|chap=3|verses=17|version=KJV}}

God had given [[Adam]] and [[Eve]] strict warning ''not'' to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. This direct order from God provided the necessary moral context by which we recognize [[original sin]]--in essence, the ''first'' sin. By disobeying that order, Adam and Eve fell short. ''Thus sin came into the world.'' No longer, then, was the world "very good."

Two things then happened. First, Adam and Eve separated themselves from God. By so doing, they did "die"--spiritually, though not physically (at least not immediately). As mentioned above, God ''cannot'' tolerate sin in His Presence. Second, the world itself could no longer be perfect. By his sin, Adam sowed seeds of corruption, decay and decline, not merely for himself and Eve and their posterity but also for the entire world.

=== Condition of the World ===
==== Sin of the world ====
At first, the world was perfect. Now it is not. Indeed, prophecy says that it will never be perfect. Physical death exists in this world, and such death did not exist before. The explanation for untoward events traces back to this first event: God could no longer stay in the world to keep it running properly--and thus, like any engine or other machine left unattended, it began immediately to damage itself. This damage continues today.

Many [[creationist]] models incorporate this sin-induced damage as an explanation for such things as the long lifespans recorded prior to the flood, the origin of disease, predation and the apparent error of dateing based on [[uniformitarian]] assumptions.

==== Reconciliation of the world ====
The world is an impersonal entity. It cannot be reconciled. Therefore, at an as-yet undetermined date in the future, God will destroy it:{{Bible quote|But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.|book=II%20Peter|chap=3|verses=10|version=KJV}}

And then God will make a new world in which He will never allow sin ever again: {{Bible quote|And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.|book=Revelation|chap=21|verses=1-5|version=KJV}}

{{Bible quote|For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying. There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed. And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them. They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands. They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the LORD, and their offspring with them. And it shall come to pass, that before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear. The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.|book=Isaiah|chap=65|verses=17-25|version=KJV}}

Until then, the earth and the cosmos are fallen, and will continue to decline. Many [[creationism|creationists]] hold that the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] describes that decline in a mathematical way, and therefore that sin is the essence and trigger of [[entropy]]. Others would find it difficult to imagine a world in which the second law did not operate and instead would say that in the perfect state the outworking of entropy was counteracted by the direct intervention of God, as he might occasionally do even now. For example, consider this:{{Bible quote|And I have led you forty years in the wilderness: your clothes are not waxen old upon you, and thy shoe is not waxen old upon thy foot.|book=Deuteronomy|chap=29|verses=5|version=KJV}}

=== Condition of Man ===
==== The sin condition ====
As has been seen, [[Adam]] effectively ruined the world by his disobedience. But he did more: he affected the condition of man himself. [[Paul]] describes it best:{{Bible quote|As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.|book=Romans|chap=3|verses=10-12}}

Before [[God]], every person is guilty, because everyone has fallen short. More than that, no one ''ever'' seeks after God without Divine help:{{Bible quote|No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him:|book=John|chap=6|verses=44|version=KJV}}

==== Reconciliation ====
This ''total depravity'' of man (a position explained by [[John Calvin]]) is the reason why [[Jesus Christ]] had to come to earth and die. ''Without the shedding of blood, no remission of sin is possible.'' And no blood can suffice, except Jesus' own.

Now that this sacrifice has been made, salvation is available to anyone willing to accept it. ([[John Calvin]] held that the only ones who will accept salvation are those whom God saw fit to ''enable'' to accept it, while [[Jacobus Arminius]] holds that all men possess the free will to accept God's gift, or refuse it.) No action by man is necessary--''and no action by man would suffice.''

== Popular Misconceptions ==
Many persons, not necessarily in other religious traditions, confuse sin with ''wickedness.'' Wickedness is deliberate, intentional wrongdoing. A wicked person does more than merely miss the target--he deliberately aims wide of it as if out of spite. In any case, not being wicked is not enough. Since man cannot be perfect, he needs a substitutionary sacrifice--namely, that which [[Jesus]] provided.

Many religions include elaborate codes of conduct that represent attempts to present people with a target they can hit on their own power. But according to Fundamentalism, ''no one'' can hit God's target - to live without sinning requires total perfection of thought and deed, a standard no human has any possibility of achieving. Salvation from sin is by grace alone, through faith in [[Jesus Christ]], Who ''alone'' can say on anyone's behalf, "I paid his penalty in full, and I move that his deeds be stricken from the record."

== Related References ==
* [http://creationwiki.org/Sin Sin] by [[CreationWiki]]

[[Category:Christian Theology]]

Debate: Is it possible for God to be timeless?

2008-10-23T12:50:52Z

NewCrusader:

I have heard people in the other debate topics assert that God is the only logically possible cause of the universe, but is it possible for God to be entirely seperate to, yet completely responsible for the universe?

To me, it seems not. I see time as a continuum and the medium through which causality can exist. If you take away time, you take away all means of causality and thus in this way you cannot have a God who lacks time and yet still causes physical events.

== Yes ==
I used to think of time that way as well, but the theory of relativity (or some other related physics) appears to disagree: time is a dimension in which one can move, just like spatial ones. So if we believe that God can exist in all places, He could (must?) exist in all times as well.

I should point out that I have no evidence for this, but thinking of it that way helps me to organise my thoughts, such as they are.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:15, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

== I don't know, and nor do you ==

Perhaps God is just so far outside of human comprehension, trying to work this out is impossible. God ''is'', and that's all that really matters. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 08:50, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

Sex education

2008-10-22T15:21:25Z

NewCrusader: Fine, I'll just have to do this myself - one paragraph at a time, allowing for proper comment and discussion of each. Here's the first. Now read, comment, and if there is no contriversy I'll add more.

'''Sex Education''' is classroom instruction on [[human reproduction]] and [[sexuality]]. It is typicially taught by both public and private schools, with parents given the option of withdrawing their children if they feel the content to be inappropriate or have personal or religious objections.

The appropriate content for sex education is a subject of political dispute within the United States, and other countries. The greatest division is between the comprehensive and abstinance-only schools. Proponents of comprehensive sex education believe that instruction should include education on methods of contraception, as a means to prevent the twin threats of pregnency and the transmission of sexually-transmitted infections. Proponents of abstinance education maintain that instructing teenagers on contraception is implicitly endorseing sexual activity, espicially promiscuous and premarital sex, and so sex education should omit contraception and instead concentrate on aiding teenagers in avoiding pressure towards sexual activity until they are in a monogamous, married relationship.

In general, comprehensive education is favored by [[liberal|liberals]] while abstinance-only education is favored by [[conservative|conservatives]]

==Abstinence Only==
Federal funding for abstinence only education across the country has increased during the decade, but still does not equal the amount of money the government gives to a [[Planned Parenthood]], a single organization, each year.<ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/education/la-na-abstinence24apr24,1,5905418.story</ref><ref>http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/mmalkin/2008/mm_06041.shtml</ref>

== Sex Education in England ==
In England the National Curriculum [http://www.dfes.gov.uk] requires all schools to offer comprehensive sex education as part of Personal, Social and Health Education, from junior school on, but parents may choose to not have their children attend sex education classes.

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Sociology]]
[[Category:Sexuality]]

Talk:Essay:Liberal Denials about History

2008-10-06T18:40:12Z

NewCrusader: *grumble*

== Public school education in its current form is less than 100 years old. ==

So is penicillin. That doesn't make it a bad thing. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 18:15, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

: Then why don't liberals admit it about public schools, and question its long-term value (harm)?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:Can you provide any sources that show that the majority of liberals deny that the current public education system is less than 100 years old? As a liberal, and being in a fairly liberal community, I have never even heard that this was an issue. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 21:03, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

== This essay sparks interest, but... ==

...then we're left with no source or explanation, so the overall impression is a startled shrug. Which ''is'' a pity, so I offer my view in the hope that you could expand it.

For example, the Rhode Island point immediately triggers the question what makes you assume that this single cause (separation of church and state) among the undoubtedly many had the consequence (slave importer). Our entry about Rhode Island currently states that "Rhode Island was the first state to outlaw slavery", so what's to stop somebody from claiming that the separation of church and state caused this, too? Without any explanation or source, both conclusions are equally valid (and shaky).

The point about public school education in its current form being just 100 years old is fairly weak because my reaction was "...it seems to work pretty well, so what's the point?" You seem to assume that every conservative will go "Oh no! Public schools in their current form are horrible!", but... nope, sorry. :/ I'm not saying public schools are Heaven on Earth, but to me, this item looks out of place on a list about Liberal History Denials. It would help if you at least explained the alternative: What changed 100 years ago?

And if I'm not ''completely'' mistaken, liberals don't deny that chivalry was a big thing here (conversely, I never noticed conservatives pointing out that chivalry was customary throughout history) - it just happened to be a big thing in several other countries, too, so I don't see the need to go out of my way to point it out. It's sort of a given. But maybe I'm missing your point. Please enlighten me, I'm always open for new ideas!

Lastly, the "American Indians vs. Asians" thing... really needs a source. Who says they're "too different", for example? And on what basis? This sounds like a fairly complex evolution issue, so it ''really'' needs some background.

I'm fairly new here, and this essay strikes me as a collection of "inside jokes" (not in the "funny" sense, but in the "This will make little sense unless you also read my other fifty essays about these things" sense). So I would appreciate some expansion of these points. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 19:47, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

: As to your first point, there's no denying a correlation between the separation of church and state and slavery, though [[liberals]] will refuse to admit it. I've updated our Rhode Island entry to reflect that this tiny state controlled 60-90% of the African slave trade after the Revolution.

: Your other points are not any more open-minded. Public schools in their current form is less than 100 years old. It's a fact. The fact has significance. Admit it and teach it. If you think critical analysis of the results of this less-than-100-year experience is inappropriate, then welcome to the liberal mindset.

: Chivalry is not taught as part of history. It should be. Your view is unclear.

: American Indians are different from Asians in almost every significant way. Blood type. Interests. Every other measure you can think of. Deny it and join the liberal denial about history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

I have a few questions about these. I'll address them one by one for simplicity.
# Can one say for sure they are too different for one to have descended from the other? YEC theory postulates that everyone is descended from two people. Obviously major changes in such groups have occurred over the years, and very different groups must have common ancestry.
#Rhode Island was the biggest importer of slaves? That's news to me. Overall, I think you'll find Virginia, Georgia, and the Carolinas imported more slaves than Rhode Island ever did. I know you don't care for Wikipedia, but, for lack of a more convenient source, if you look at their [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_America Slavery in America] article, you'll see he highest slave population for any year in RI was less than a thousand, while in Virginia it at one point reached nearly half a million.
#Chivalry, in its most literal sense, dealt with etiquette among the gentry and nobility. America does not have a nobility, has never had knighthood, and has not had such a code. In its less formal sense: etiquette rules in general, manners, politeness (especially towards women), I don't think anyone denies its presence.
#As for the age of the public school system, I'm not sure if its denied; I just wonder the significance. If you're saying it's not adequately tried and true, well, I have to wonder, what is the alternative? Homeschooling is not an option for most people. Even when one parent can stay home with the child for 18 years, how competent will any one person be at teaching multiple subjects at an advanced level? I consider myself a pretty smart guy, but I couldn't teach most classes at a high school level. If I ever had a special needs child I wouldn't know where to begin. It seems to me there are 4 choices: public school, private school, home school, or no school. The last should not be an option, the middle two aren't available to everyone, so that just leaves public school. While its far from perfect, I think efforts should go towards improvement rather than dismissal.
Well, that's my thought. I hope you'll take the time to reply. Thanks. [[User:Sanders|Sanders]] 20:43, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::(Edit Conflict with Sanders, so some points might overlap)
::Andy, I believe you missed ''all'' of my points and simply replied by repeating your claims. But maybe it's my fault for not being clear enough. Paraphrasing Sun Tzu: "If words of question are not clear and distinct, if requests are not thoroughly understood, then the initial poster is to blame." So here we go again, more to the point (I hope):
::#"There's no denying it" is a very bad reply to a request for sourcing and explanation. If it's so obvious and undeniable, then you can surely produce at least a single source that explains (instead of just asserting) it. Or, since you arrived at that conclusion, you can surely explain it yourself. You're a teacher - would you tell your student that "there's no denying it" if they asked you "Could you explain how Rhode Island's position as #1 slave importer was a result of the church/state separation?"? I hope not.
::#I didn't doubt that "public school education in its current form is less than 100 years old". My questions were how things had been 100 years ago and what the point of this claim is. You don't even say what the results are, but you imply that I disfavor critical analysis of such results. In fact, that's why I repeatedly called for expansion of your points. I know you value conciseness, but in its current form, this essay only teases and hints, but fails to deliver. Which is why I made my initial comment in the first place (along with notes saying just that).
::#Chivalry... I really don't get why you want to stress it in a single country when it was widely spread. Unless your point is that it should be pointed out also for the other countries. I could agree with that. But either way, this strikes me as pointless. Also, your claim that it's not taught is weak: My History teacher pointed out that it was followed in the US and other countries as a basic concept, along with a brief primer about its roots. But from what I remember, it's more of a social issue and less of a distinct historic one in terms of impact (and even less of a distinct US History one), so I currently don't see the need for such emphasis. But I repeat: I'm willing to listen if you explain it. I'm open for new things. But simply repeating your short claims without any sort of source or background won't help.
::#A great response. I ask for background, a source and an expansion, and you basically reply with "Almost everything is different! If you deny this, then you're a Liberal History Denier!" Though I admit that the "Their interests are different!" bit cracked me up. I always like a teacher with humor. I can see it now. "Asians like Mahjong. American Indians didn't. Hah-ha!" :P Seriously, though, you're making a veeeeery strong claim here that deeply dips into evolutionary biology and ethnology, so in the interest of all your readers, I ask for a source.
::I hope this sums up my issues in a more clear way. I'm happy you replied, but I would be even happier if you actually replied to my questions/requests. :) --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 20:57, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::: DirkB, at the risk of belaboring the obvious, let me try again:
::: Point 1: religion teaches that slavery is wrong. Separating church and state means separating "slavery is wrong" from "state". The result is legalized slavery. Got it now? That's why Rhode Island imported up to 90% of the slaves. Don't continue to pretend you don't get the connection. Of course liberals are going to deny the connection exists, and perhaps so will you.
::: Point 2: there's no question here requiring a response. This is a fact that should be taught and discussed. But liberals won't.
::: Point 3: if you think your history teacher taught you about chivalry in colonial America, then please repeat that for our benefit here. I doubt you heard much about it.
::: Point 4: I said the blood types (and virtually everything else) is different between American Indians and Asians. You respond with silliness. You have free will to deny the truth. I'm interested in the truth and that's where you'll find me.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:37, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

(undent) Aschlafly, I assume that the Asian/Native American theory is taught because it is the consensus generally agreed upon by the experts. If it is so obviously wrong, what do you suggest should be taught in its place? [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 11:07, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

:I am curious about what is meant by "blood types". After all, all humans share the same blood types or groups (if it refers to A, B, O, AB). Or is it a reference to DNA? --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''Hajimemashite!'']] 12:40, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

On the Rhode Is. slavery question, I think this may be Andy's reference:

''Rhode Island, of course, was among the most active Northern colonies in importing slaves. Between 1709 and 1807, Rhode Island merchants sponsored at least 934 slaving voyages to the coast of Africa and carried an estimated 106,544 slaves to the New World. From 1732-64, Rhode Islanders sent annually 18 ships, bearing 1,800 hogsheads of rum, to Africa to trade for slaves, earning £40,000 annually. Newport, the colony's leading slave port, took an estimated 59,070 slaves to America before the Revolution. Bristol and Providence also prospered from it. In the years after the Revolution, Rhode Island merchants controlled between 60 and 90 percent of the American trade in African slaves.
http://www.slavenorth.com/rhodeisland.htm'' [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:09, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

==A bulleted list...==
A bullet list doesn't quite make it as an essay. While I'd like to think the author will be making additions and fleshing out his arguments, other [[Essay:5 Questions to Ask an Anti-Conservative|"essays"]] [[Essay:10 Ways Liberals Create Atheists|similarly]] are nothing more than [[Essay:Most Influential Persons|baldfaced assertions]] with little or no [[Essay:Electoral College|actual]] [[Essay:Conservatism Essential to Religion|substance]] or [[Essay:Greatest Mysteries of American History|well thought-out]] [[Essay:Hillary's Strategy to Win|arguments]]. Most seem nothing more than mere lists of things to be against, to link to internal articles (or worse other "essays"). <s>Good luck defending your lists Aschlafly, for without an inkling as to what thoughts may be behind your spate of "essays", readers will likely come to the conclusion that the author of such drivel cannot be a vital, energetic thinker but an intellectually lazy and shallow person who cannot put across a cogent argument and satisfies his impotent rage with lists of "bad thoughts".</s> [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 15:40, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
===NOTE===
The above was written by me, Christopher Campbell using my mother's account here. She only found out that I was using her account shen she tried to edit later on and found that she could not due to being blocked. At first she thought someone on the internet "hacked" her account and while it was tempting to let her believe this I finally fessed up to making the edit. 
My Mother will not let me have any internet accounts of my own that she hasn't personally set up and monitor. Nor will she let me have an account here at Conservapedia, (which is why I was forced to use her account). She said that the above proves that I am not ready to edit responsibly, showing (as it does) little regard for the feelings of Mr Schlafly and his efforts to make Conservapedia the best it can be.

'''I therefore publicly apologize to you Mr Schlafly for the great wrong I have done, "speaking" rashly and denigrating your encyclopedia without care as to you, your administrators and the other fine editors who are attempting to make Conservapedia a resource we all can be proud of.'''

Christopher Campbell 16:15, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
(EDT)

:::Well I think that (for one so young) it was an excellent, if somewhat abrasive critique. It is, however, best to critique the work and ideas not the man: drop the "drivel", "intellectually lazy" and "shallow" comments next time. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 10:35, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

== Dark Ages ==

Bullet point 7: "The so-called Dark Ages saw a great revolution in science and learning, brought about by the spread of Christianity throughout Europe and the establishment of networks of monastic 'universities'."

The first phrase is correct, but the rest isn't. The revolution in learning took place in Muslim countries in particular, as well as India and China although the latter two areas did not influence Europe directly until the late 13th century. Europe contributed very little original scholarship indeed for nearly six centuries. A list of notable scholars in Europe in the Dark Ages (by which I assume you mean from the end of the Western Empire in 476 to the early 11th century) would include Isidore of Seville, the great encyclopaedist (d.636), Bede, the historian (d.735), and Alcuin, the theologian and polymath (d.804). There may be a few others but these are probably the only three who stand comparison with the much large number of eminent Muslim scholars of that half-millennium (and even Alcuin would be doubtful in that regard). Europe was very much an intellectual backwater until Gerbert of Aurillac (later Pope Sylvester II from 999) brought Arab learning from Cordoba to Christian Europe.

Places like Seville around 600, Jarrow around 700 and Charlemagne's court at Aachen around 800 were centres of scholarship (qv Isidore, Bede and Alcuin respectively) but cannot by any stretch of the imagination be described as universities. The concept of a university as an educational institution which teaches and awards degrees in a wide range of subjects originated in the Muslim world. Those at Fez and Cairo, built in what Europeans call the Dark Ages, are still very much active. The establishment of the earliest universities in Christian Europe, e.g. Bologna, was clearly inspired by the success of universities in Muslim Europe (i.e. Sicily and Spain).

Bottom line: this bullet point should be deleted. [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 15:47, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

:You are incorrect in your interpretation. A study of Bede's life would show that Jarrow did not stand in isolation, but was part of a network of monastic 'universities' - and the term is used advisedly - that extended across [[Christendom]]. The emphasis in modern historical studies on [[Islamic]] scholarship is based upon a prevalent self-hating Liberal ideology that is unable to credit [[Christianity]] with any positive achievements, and retrospectively adorns the current enemy of modern democratic values with laurels. This is not top decry medieval Islamic scholarship, which had much of merit, but to rescue Christian science and scholarship from its current, politially-motivated neglect. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:53, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

::1. It sounds as though you need to do some reading about early mediaeval scholarship! Isidore certainly influenced Muslim scholars in Spain but, Bede apart, no Christian scholar from the mid-7th to early 11th century made an original contribution to scholarship comparable to those of Muslims such as Avicenna and Averroes or Jews such as Moses Maimonides.
::2. I don't understand your point about "the current enemy of modern democratic values". How does that relate to Islam in general? [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 16:56, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

==Conservative denials about history==
If liberals were to write their own version of this, it would probably accuse conservatives of lying about exactly the same subjects. Wouldn't it be better to make a serious historical claim, with references to academic analysis, verifiable sources, and such respectable things? It would certinly be better than just declaring that liberals are lying with a one-sentence claim and no backing evidence, even if they are. It makes conservapedia look stupid. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 14:40, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Sex education

2008-10-06T18:35:27Z

NewCrusader: I'm cutting a huge chunk out, in the hope that the resulting objections will stimulate a rewrite that will better reflect conservapedia values.

'''Sex Education''' is classroom instruction on [[human reproduction]] and [[sexuality]]. It is a very hot cultural issue in American politics because of a division between those who feel that it should teach only the facts relating to contraception and sexually-transmitted infection and those who favor a more moral curriculum based on abstinence.

Many Conservatives favor abstinence-only sex education, arguing that schools make it more socially-acceptable for sexual promiscuity through educating students. They also underscore the importance of monogamy and point to poor protective measures by many popular contraceptives. Other conservatives are against sex education in schools altogether, and would prefer the schools do not indoctrinate or promote any sexual practices; they tend to prefer instructing their children in sexual morality and sexuality themselves.

==Abstinence Only==
Federal funding for abstinence only education across the country has increased during the decade, but still does not equal the amount of money the government gives to a [[Planned Parenthood]], a single organization, each year.<ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/education/la-na-abstinence24apr24,1,5905418.story</ref><ref>http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/mmalkin/2008/mm_06041.shtml</ref>

== Sex Education in England ==
In England the National Curriculum www.dfes.gov.uk requires all schools to offer comprehensive sex education as part of Personal, Social and Health Education, from junior school on, but parents may choose to not have their children attend sex education classes.

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Sociology]]
[[Category:Sexuality]]

Talk:Religious rights of teachers

2008-10-05T22:11:41Z

NewCrusader:

A good point regarding the fact that it's not really a full bio of Freshwater, Ed...but it seems like an article on the religious rights of teachers should also feature more than one example. Are there any other good cases at the moment we could use to expand on the theme? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:48, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

:The expansion you made a moment ago is what I was looking for. Keep up the good work. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:31, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

--

"...marking students' arms with an 'X'..."

I'm sorry, but there's a photo of the burn [http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/students-branded-with-cross/2008/06/21/1214009142306.html here], and it definitely looks like a cross, not an X. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:AutoFire|form!]] 17:38, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

:To be honest, it looks more like a "7" than either of those to me. It's hard to tell what's part of the mark and what's freckles on the upper arm. The device he used doesn't exactly have pinpoint accuracy. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:49, 8 July 2008 (EDT)
::Does it matter? He burnt students. Perhaps that isn't clear enough: He '''burnt markings into the flesh of students'''. And here we are defending him just because we have this instinct to jump to the aid of anyone who claims to be a persecuted christian. Put asside all the religious concerns, and just think about that - is anyone who physically injures students fit to be a teacher? He is a danger, but Christians are being blinded to this by the deep desire to only see the best in 'one of our own' and leaders eager to hype up claims of persecution. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 17:53, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Judicial activism

2008-10-05T22:04:08Z

NewCrusader:

'''Judicial activism''' is when [[court]]s do not confine themselves to reasonable interpretations of laws, but instead create law. Alternatively, judicial activism is when courts do not limit their ruling to the dispute before them, but instead establish a new rule to apply broadly to issues not presented in the specific action. "Judicial activism" is when judges substitute their own political opinions for the applicable law, or when judges act like a legislature (legislating from the bench) rather than like a traditional court. In so doing, the court takes for itself the powers of [[Congress]] rather than limiting itself to the powers traditionally given to the judiciary.

The [[Warren Court]] was prominent for engaging in judicial activism or, in a stronger version of the term, [[judicial supremacy]]. The judicial supremacy of the Warren Court claimed that segregation was not constitutional in the case [[Brown v. Board of Education]] and so therefore unilaterally destroyed an institution that was an integral part of society and widely supported in the areas where segregation was legal. The Warren Court imposed its political opinions, forcing schools to become desegregated. This action caused minorities in the United States, specifically African-Americans, to be legally equal with white Americans. This type of judicial supremacy is typical of liberal courts trying to give every person in the United States their rights and liberties guaranteed in the constitution. If the Warren Court had practiced [[Judicial Restraint]], they would have seen that the U.S. constitution and its amendments do not specifically state any requirements regarding education, therefore, the supreme court has no official powers over the states' ability to regulate and maintain their respective educational services. African-Americans were not denied access to public education and so therefore the ruling by the Warren Court is judicial supremacy at its worst.

==Examples==
*[[Brown v. Board of Education]] - 1954 Supreme Court ruling ordering the desegregation of public schools.
*[[Griswold v. Connecticut]] - 1965 Supreme Court ruling establishing a constitututional right to posess, distribute and use [[contraception]].
*[[Loving v. Virginia]] - 1967 Supreme Court ruling requiring the legalisation of interracial marriage.
*[[Roe v. Wade]] - 1973 Supreme Court ruling establishing a constitutional right to [[abortion]].
*[[Lawrence v. Texas]] - 2003 Supreme Court ruling establishing a constitutional right to [[sodomy]].

==See Also==

*[[Judicial Restraint]]
*[[United States Supreme Court]]

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:United States Government]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court]]
[[category:law]]
[[category:judicial activism]]

Judicial activism

2008-10-05T22:03:48Z

NewCrusader:

'''Judicial activism''' is when [[court]]s do not confine themselves to reasonable interpretations of laws, but instead create law. Alternatively, judicial activism is when courts do not limit their ruling to the dispute before them, but instead establish a new rule to apply broadly to issues not presented in the specific action. "Judicial activism" is when judges substitute their own political opinions for the applicable law, or when judges act like a legislature (legislating from the bench) rather than like a traditional court. In so doing, the court takes for itself the powers of [[Congress]] rather than limiting itself to the powers traditionally given to the judiciary.

The [[Warren Court]] was prominent for engaging in judicial activism or, in a stronger version of the term, [[judicial supremacy]]. The judicial supremacy of the Warren Court claimed that segregation was not constitutional in the case [[Brown v. Board of Education]] and so therefore unilaterally destroyed an institution that was an integral part of society and widely supported in the areas where segregation was legal. The Warren Court imposed its political opinions, forcing schools to become desegregated. This action caused minorities in the United States, specifically African-Americans, to be legally equal with white Americans. This type of judicial supremacy is typical of liberal courts trying to give every person in the United States their rights and liberties guaranteed in the constitution. If the Warren Court had practiced [[Judicial Restraint]], they would have seen that the U.S. constitution and its amendments do not specifically state any requirements regarding education, therefore, the supreme court has no official powers over the states' ability to regulate and maintain their respective educational services. African-Americans were not denied access to public education and so therefore the ruling by the Warren Court is judicial supremacy at its worst.

==Examples==
*[[Brown v. Board of Education]] - 1954 Supreme Court ruling ordering the desegregation of public schools.
*[[Griswold v. Connecticut]] - 1965 Supreme Court ruling establishing a constitututional right to posess, distribute and use [[contraception]].
*[[Loving. v. Virginia]] - 1967 Supreme Court ruling requiring the legalisation of interracial marriage.
*[[Roe v. Wade]] - 1973 Supreme Court ruling establishing a constitutional right to [[abortion]].
*[[Lawrence v. Texas]] - 2003 Supreme Court ruling establishing a constitutional right to [[sodomy]].

==See Also==

*[[Judicial Restraint]]
*[[United States Supreme Court]]

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:United States Government]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court]]
[[category:law]]
[[category:judicial activism]]

Talk:Judicial activism

2008-10-05T22:01:24Z

NewCrusader: I garbled my post in editing, just fixing.

GREAT Chevron cite, dude! I love the definition.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:17, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I disagree with the definition. Roe v. Wade is "established precedent" now, but I wouldn't say that anyone who ever overrules a case (particularly that case) or who issues a ruling that appears to be contrary to it was a "judicial activist" To me, the core of "Judicial Activism" is inventing rights that are not established by the text of the Constitution or other law at issue, but that the judge thinks is "good policy" or otherwise thinks "should be" the law. I would say that overruling or ignoring precedent that itself established such a right is simple correction, rather than a new example of activism. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 07:40, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

It's hard to tell because the piece is so poorly written, but is this actually saying that racial segregation was "an integral part of society"? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 13:11, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
:It was, at the time. It doesn't matter if racism is right or wrong, it's just the judiciaries place to say. It's the legislatures. If the court had ruled differently, chances are that interracial marriage would have been made legal and racial discrimination and segregation prohibited by state laws and an act of congress - by the will of the people as expressed by their representatives, not the thoughts of judges, however well-intended. And if they hadn't been able to redefine marriage for legal purposes then, it would be much harder for them to do so now. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 17:58, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Judicial activism

2008-10-05T21:58:55Z

NewCrusader:

GREAT Chevron cite, dude! I love the definition.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:17, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I disagree with the definition. Roe v. Wade is "established precedent" now, but I wouldn't say that anyone who ever overrules a case (particularly that case) or who issues a ruling that appears to be contrary to it was a "judicial activist" To me, the core of "Judicial Activism" is inventing rights that are not established by the text of the Constitution or other law at issue, but that the judge thinks is "good policy" or otherwise thinks "should be" the law. I would say that overruling or ignoring precedent that itself established such a right is simple correction, rather than a new example of activism. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 07:40, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

It's hard to tell because the piece is so poorly written, but is this actually saying that racial segregation was "an integral part of society"? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 13:11, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
:It was, at the time. For a judge to legalise interracial marriage. It doesn't matter if racism is right or wrong, it's just the judiciaries place to say. It's the legislatures. If the court had ruled differently, chances are that interracial marriage would have been made legal by state laws and an act of congress - by the will of the people as expressed by their representatives, not the thoughts of judges, however well-intended. And if they hadn't been able to redefine marriage for legal purposes then, it would be much harder for them to do so now. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 17:58, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Religious rights of teachers

2008-10-05T21:54:07Z

NewCrusader:

A good point regarding the fact that it's not really a full bio of Freshwater, Ed...but it seems like an article on the religious rights of teachers should also feature more than one example. Are there any other good cases at the moment we could use to expand on the theme? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:48, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

:The expansion you made a moment ago is what I was looking for. Keep up the good work. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:31, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

--

"...marking students' arms with an 'X'..."

I'm sorry, but there's a photo of the burn [http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/students-branded-with-cross/2008/06/21/1214009142306.html here], and it definitely looks like a cross, not an X. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:AutoFire|form!]] 17:38, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

:To be honest, it looks more like a "7" than either of those to me. It's hard to tell what's part of the mark and what's freckles on the upper arm. The device he used doesn't exactly have pinpoint accuracy. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:49, 8 July 2008 (EDT)
::Does it matter? He burnt students. Perhaps that isn't clear enough: He '''burnt markings into the flesh of students'''. And here we are defending him just because we have this instinct to jump to the aid of anyone who claims to be a persecuted christian. Put asside all the religious concerns, and just think about that - is anyone who physically injures students fit to be a teacher? [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 17:53, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Religious rights of teachers

2008-10-05T21:53:52Z

NewCrusader:

A good point regarding the fact that it's not really a full bio of Freshwater, Ed...but it seems like an article on the religious rights of teachers should also feature more than one example. Are there any other good cases at the moment we could use to expand on the theme? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:48, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

:The expansion you made a moment ago is what I was looking for. Keep up the good work. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:31, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

--

"...marking students' arms with an 'X'..."

I'm sorry, but there's a photo of the burn [http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/students-branded-with-cross/2008/06/21/1214009142306.html here], and it definitely looks like a cross, not an X. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:AutoFire|form!]] 17:38, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

:To be honest, it looks more like a "7" than either of those to me. It's hard to tell what's part of the mark and what's freckles on the upper arm. The device he used doesn't exactly have pinpoint accuracy. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:49, 8 July 2008 (EDT)
::Does it matter? He burnt students. PErhaps that isn't clear enough: He ''burnt markings into the flesh of students''. And here we are defending him just because we have this instinct to jump to the aid of anyone who claims to be a persecuted christian. Put asside all the religious concerns, and just think about that - is anyone who physically injures students fit to be a teacher? [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 17:53, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Criticisms of Islam

2008-09-29T22:32:19Z

NewCrusader: Universial criticism.

Islam wants to take over the world? I think that's true for the majority of religions, and for all practical purposes true of atheism too. As well as political ideologies both left and right, liberal and conservative. World domination is a very popular goal. I'd try it myself if I could think of a good scheme. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 18:32, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Sex education

2008-09-29T22:12:11Z

NewCrusader: Grumble, grumble... this is not conservative.

Talk:Muslim pronunciation

2008-09-29T22:01:35Z

NewCrusader: ...

==Obvious Parody==
I marked this article for speedy deletion. This obviously is a parody of the discussion in the Talk:Main Page and cites only a talk page as a source.
--[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 17:14, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
:I have to wonder if the main page is a parody... The british pronounce it 'pakistan,' I pronounce it pakistan, and the American friend I have just spoken to pronounces it pakistan. Every time I've heard it on tv, it's been 'pakistan.' The whole idea of a slightly wrong pronounciation being evidence of someone's religion is just... are you familiar with Poe's Law? [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 18:01, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Sin (Fundamentalism)

2008-09-27T18:37:54Z

NewCrusader: Clarifications, and 'disclaimer'.

: ''For a general discussion of the concept of sin and the view of it by other traditions, see [[Sin]].''

[[Sin (Fundamentalism)|Sin]], according to the teachings of most [[Fundamentalism|Fundamentalists]], is at the root of the tendency to set one's own will in opposition to that of [[God]] and the general deficiency of our own moral character compared to that of God. God is Perfect and Holy, and thus cannot tolerate any kind of blemish in His Presence.

Sin refers both to action (or inaction) and state of being. A particular sin is an action or inaction that does not conform to God's character, and especially any action that is committed with the foreknowledge that it is contrary to [[conscience]] or [[morality]] or divine [[law]]. Humans have inherent knowledge of right and wrong that was obtained at the time [[Adam]] and [[Eve]] ate of the fruit of ''[[Fall of man|Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil]]''. We commit "sin" when our actions violate these instincts. It is through sinful acts that we fall short of [[God]]'s intended design and will.

Such behavior displeases God and causes us to be separated from Him. This, then, is the state of being that the word ''sin'' also stands for: a separation from God, resulting from the harm done to our relationship with Him.

[[Human]] laws or the codes of conduct of a society are not always in keeping with God-given morality, and we are not absolved from judgment on our actions because society views them as acceptable. The foreknowledge of right and wrong is something that all humans have, and life is itself something of a measure or test to see how we will use this knowledge.

== True Meaning ==
The Greek word translated ''sin'' in the New Testament is '''ἁμαρτία''' (''hamartia''). ''Hamartia'' does ''not'' mean "crime" or "guilt" only; it means a ''failure'' or a ''fault'' of some kind. It literally means ''a missing of the mark at target practice''.

More generally, ''hamartia'' means ''any deviation, no matter how slight, from a perfectly desirable design or outcome.'' Thus sin is ''any thought or act, however innocent in intention,'' that does not meet the Divine standard. This ''includes, but does not limit itself to,'' all negligent, reckless, knowing, and intentional misdeeds.

== Evidence for Foreknowledge of Right and Wrong ==
That any human being might be expected to know ahead of time what is right and what is wrong, might seem incredible to any casual observer of human society. And yet the following points favor the notion of instinctual foreknowledge of violations of conscience:
*Any government promulgating a frankly murderous or otherwise oppressive policy toward any subset of its subjects must actively persuade its remaining subjects, usually through ''[[propaganda]]'', that such a policy is morally acceptable. The obvious example is [[Germany]] during the [[Second World War]]. In fact, many other examples, historical and modern, illustrate this point.
*No organized society has ever explicitly endorsed theft as a legitimate business practice.
*Attempts to ''justify'' such offenses as adultery, fornication, covetousness, or lying almost invariably fail. More typically, one caught engaging in such activity will try to ''excuse'' it by pleading some sort of extenuating or mitigating circumstance, or innocent intent (see above). Or else he will ''boast'' of his "right" so to act. Sadly, even some [[church]] leaders have taken such a brazen stance.
*By far the most salient statement concerning human foreknowledge of right and wrong comes from [[Paul]]. He wrote:
{{Bible quote|Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.|book=Romans|chap=1|verses=19-21|version=KJV}}

== Implications ==

The following are according to the most commin interpretation of fundamentalist churches, but not universially accepted by other branches of Christianity.

=== The First Sin ===
The [[Creation]] story ends with God's evaluation of the earth:{{Bible quote|And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=31|version=KJV}}
The word rendered ''very'' means "truly," not "extremely." In essence, God made everything ''perfect.'' Sin did not exist in this world, not because the world had no moral context, but because the world was in perfect compliance with it. ''Nothing'' was in the world that God did not put into it.

The Fall of Man changed everything:{{Bible quote|And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;|book=Genesis|chap=3|verses=17|version=KJV}}

God had given [[Adam]] and [[Eve]] strict warning ''not'' to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. This direct order from God provided the necessary moral context by which we recognize [[original sin]]--in essence, the ''first'' sin. By disobeying that order, Adam and Eve fell short. ''Thus sin came into the world.'' No longer, then, was the world "very good."

Two things then happened. First, Adam and Eve separated themselves from God. By so doing, they did "die"--spiritually, though not physically (at least not immediately). As mentioned above, God ''cannot'' tolerate sin in His Presence. Second, the world itself could no longer be perfect. By his sin, Adam sowed seeds of corruption, decay and decline, not merely for himself and Eve and their posterity but also for the entire world.

=== Condition of the World ===
==== Sin of the world ====
At first, the world was perfect. Now it is not. Indeed, prophecy says that it will never be perfect. Physical death exists in this world, and such death did not exist before. The explanation for untoward events traces back to this first event: God could no longer stay in the world to keep it running properly--and thus, like any engine or other machine left unattended, it began immediately to damage itself. This damage continues today.

==== Reconciliation of the world ====
The world is an impersonal entity. It cannot be reconciled. Therefore, at an as-yet undetermined date in the future, God will destroy it:{{Bible quote|But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.|book=II%20Peter|chap=3|verses=10|version=KJV}}

And then God will make a new world in which He will never allow sin ever again: {{Bible quote|And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.|book=Revelation|chap=21|verses=1-5|version=KJV}}

{{Bible quote|For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying. There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed. And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them. They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands. They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the LORD, and their offspring with them. And it shall come to pass, that before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear. The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.|book=Isaiah|chap=65|verses=17-25|version=KJV}}

Until then, the earth and the cosmos are fallen, and will continue to decline. Many [[creationism|creationists]] hold that the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] describes that decline in a mathematical way, and therefore that sin is the essence and trigger of [[entropy]]. Others would find it difficult to imagine a world in which the second law did not operate and instead would say that in the perfect state the outworking of entropy was counteracted by the direct intervention of God, as he might occasionally do even now. For example, consider this:{{Bible quote|And I have led you forty years in the wilderness: your clothes are not waxen old upon you, and thy shoe is not waxen old upon thy foot.|book=Deuteronomy|chap=29|verses=5|version=KJV}}

=== Condition of Man ===
==== The sin condition ====
As has been seen, [[Adam]] effectively ruined the world by his disobedience. But he did more: he affected the condition of man himself. [[Paul]] describes it best:{{Bible quote|As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.|book=Romans|chap=3|verses=10-12}}

Before [[God]], every person is guilty, because everyone has fallen short. More than that, no one ''ever'' seeks after God without Divine help:{{Bible quote|No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him:|book=John|chap=6|verses=44|version=KJV}}

==== Reconciliation ====
This ''total depravity'' of man (a position explained by [[John Calvin]]) is the reason why [[Jesus Christ]] had to come to earth and die. ''Without the shedding of blood, no remission of sin is possible.'' And no blood can suffice, except Jesus' own.

Now that this sacrifice has been made, salvation is available to anyone willing to accept it. ([[John Calvin]] held that the only ones who will accept salvation are those whom God saw fit to ''enable'' to accept it, while [[Jacobus Arminius]] holds that all men possess the free will to accept God's gift, or refuse it.) No action by man is necessary--''and no action by man would suffice.''

== Popular Misconceptions ==
Many persons, not necessarily in other religious traditions, confuse sin with ''wickedness.'' Wickedness is deliberate, intentional wrongdoing. A wicked person does more than merely miss the target--he deliberately aims wide of it as if out of spite. In any case, not being wicked is not enough. Since man cannot be perfect, he needs a substitutionary sacrifice--namely, that which [[Jesus]] provided.

Many religions include elaborate codes of conduct that represent attempts to present people with a target they can hit on their own power. But according to Fundamentalism, ''no one'' can hit God's target - to live without sinning requires total perfection of thought and deed, a standard no human has any possibility of achieving. Salvation from sin is by grace alone, through faith in [[Jesus Christ]], Who ''alone'' can say on anyone's behalf, "I paid his penalty in full, and I move that his deeds be stricken from the record."

== Related References ==
* [http://creationwiki.org/Sin Sin] by [[CreationWiki]]

[[Category:Christian Theology]]

Lust

2008-09-27T18:35:48Z

NewCrusader: I shall make this longer, even though I expect it to be trimmed down again.

'''Lust''' can be defined as intemperate or irregular sexual desire, and is one of the [[Seven Deadly Sins]]. Often confused with [[love]], it is purely physical attraction for an individual, that is sometimes uncontrollable and completely unreasonable.

Lust, in it's most common expression, is the urge to initate sexual intercourse with another person. It may also manifest as the urge to view [[pornography]].

According to evolutionist views, lust evolved by [[natural selection]] as an instinct to increase the number of offspring - as those individuals more prone to lust would have more children than those less lustful, over time the prevailance of lustful traits would increase.

According to Christian views, lust is a consequence of the seperation of a person from God as a result of [[sin]], causing them to fall short of His standard. Some churches attribute lust to direct satanic involvement, or advocate various means by which unwanted lust may be controlled.

[[category:sin]]

Seven Deadly Sins

2008-09-27T18:14:54Z

NewCrusader: It's a Catholic thing, not all Christians.

In [[Roman Catholic]] tradition, the '''Seven Deadly Sins''' are considered to be the seven worst sins, which lead to damnation. They are:

*[[Pride]] (or Vainglory)
*[[Envy]]
*[[Gluttony]]
*[[Lust]]
*[[Anger]]
*[[Greed|Avarice]] (or Covetousness)
*[[Sloth (sin)|Sloth]] (or Acedia)

The [[Bible]] does not list them in this form, but they are commonly found in Medieval and [[Renaissance]] thought. Personifications or depictions of the seven sins (and their punishments in [[Hell]]) are also common in the art and literature of these periods, sometimes contrasted with the seven cardinal [[virtue]]s.

== External link ==

[http://www.deadlysins.com/sins/history.html A brief history of sin]

[[Category:Christian Theology]]
[[Category:Sin]]

Debate:Propaganda in childrens' television

2008-09-27T18:08:58Z

NewCrusader:

I was editing the article on the Wombles a while ago, and it occured to me that the program is in some ways liberal propaganda. I didn't want to sound paranoid so I didn't give much further thought to it, until it occured to me that a lot of childrens' programs seem to be suspicious in that regard. There is the very blatent Captain Planet, for a start. Then while reading the article on starfish here I noticed some have concerns regarding Spongebob Squarepants - though I cannot verify this myself as I refuse to watch such trash. Even the classic Sesame Street has that couple who appear worryingly like cohabiting homosexuals, and it's famous episode on death had a distinct lack of Christian worldview. Perhaps Conservapedia members should investigate for other examples? Parents rarely pay great attention to childrens' entertainment, so it's quite possible we are missing this hidden way in which values counter to our own culture are being slipped under the radar. I'm not suggesting that there is a great conspiricy here (Maybe a tiny one) - only that program producers tend to include their own values in the programs, and most people working in childrens' TV production seem to be leftists and lukewarm christians at best. - [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

Yes!!!!
Ugh! Soon they are gonna talk about how bad and evil war is, I'm allmost about to throw up! --[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 19:18, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
::That's probably attributable more to wanting to avoid contriversy. Show realistic war in a childrens' program, and get accused of traumatising them - thus programs are forced to take either the 'world peace' route of having all the characters oppose the war, or the 'toy soldiers' route where there is plenty of fighting, glory and patriotism but it's all really dumbed down and sanitised so much even the enemy doesn't die, and the good guys have a brilliently fun time playing with the guns and saving the country. Could you find some examples for me? [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 20:08, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

Captain Planet has been off the air for 15 years, Bert and Ernie are NOT gay, and what's your concern with old SpongeBob? As a parent and teacher, I'm more concerned that kids TV are nothing but commercials for toys. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 10:02, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

:I still see it on reruns sometimes, but 'niche' is insufficient to describe how rarely. My concern is that we really don't ''know'' what is on the TV.
:I grew up on the Wombles and later watched Captain Planet every morning. It served as a timer: mid-way through the episode was time to finish breakfast and get ready for school. I still don't know how most of them ended. Looking back, I can see that the two programs influenced what I thought at the time - I did the recycling fad, and the energy-saving fad where I annoyed my parents by turning the lights off every time a room was empty for ten seconds.
:The programs I grew up with are no longer shown often, but what are children today growing up on? I don't watch childrens' TV, I really have not the faintest idea what programs today teach, and I expect many parents to have a similar lack of knowledge. This ignorance is a concern. If liberalism could get into TV fifteen years ago, why couldn't it get in today? Is there any way to be sure, short of spending weeks watching children's TV to see what values they teach?
:Bert and Ernie... while not gay, are still two adult men who live together, which looks very suspicious and at the very least will create the impression that this is a normal arrangement. As for spongebob, no idea - someone else made that accusation on another page, I just repeated it here. I would never watch such rubbish. Also, you are right about them being over-commercial - but that's a completly seperate concern. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 13:04, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
::I'm an elementary teacher with a small child so I'm exposed to much more children's TV than I could care for. PBS has really good stuff, concentrating mostly on education and character development. I must disagree with you about Bert and Ernie. They are not adults, they play with toys and do other childish things. According to the PBS website, they're just friends. Besides, by the time a kid is old enough to know what a gay couple is, they wouldn't be watching Sesame Street anymore. Commercial TV runs the guantlet from educational to absolutely moronic. Some people don't like Sponge Bob because they think he's effeminite, but I don't see it. Sure there's liberalism in many shows, but there's also conservatism. It's up to the PARENTS to monitor what their kids are watching. And if you ever want to see a hilarious take on Bert and Ernie's relationship, check out the broadway play 'Avenue Q.' Thanks. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 22:52, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

I've always seen Clifford the Big Red Dog as a symbol of communism.
:Paranoid as I might be, even I don't believe that one :) [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 14:08, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Wernher von Braun

2008-09-25T20:26:28Z

NewCrusader: If you want to present someone as a spokesperson for Christianity, how about someone who *didn't* design missiles for Hitler?

[[Image:Wernher von Braun.jpg|right|thumb|250px|Wernher von Braun photographed in 1970]]
'''Wernher von Braun''' (1912-1977) was the father of the American space program, and the first director of the Marshall Space Flight Center.

Von Braun was one of the most important rocket developers and champions of space exploration during the period between the 1930s and the 1970s, encouraged by reading the science fiction of Jules Verne and H.G. Wells, and the science study of Oberth, "Die Rakete zu den Planetenräumen" (By Rocket to Space) (1923). Beginning as a teenager, von Braun worked on space flight, becoming involved as early as 1929 in the German rocket society, Verein fur Raumschiffarht (VfR).<ref>http://history.msfc.nasa.gov/vonbraun/bio.html</ref> As a means of furthering his desire to build large and capable rockets, in 1932 he went to work for the German army to develop ballistic missiles. He received a Ph.D. in physics on July 27, 1934.

Von Braun led the “rocket team” which developed the [[V-2]] ballistic missile for the Nazis during [[World War II]], which were manufactured at a forced labor factory called Mittelwerk. The V-2's were later used to bomb England with devastating effect.

Before the Allied capture of the V–2 rocket complex, von Braun arranged for the surrender of 500 of his top rocket scientists, along with plans and test vehicles, to the Americans. For fifteen years after World War II, von Braun worked with the U.S. Army in the development of ballistic missiles. As part of a military operation called [[Project Paperclip]], he and his rocket team were rescued from defeated Germany and sent to America where they were installed at Fort Bliss, Texas. There they worked on rockets for the U.S. Army, launching them at White Sands Proving Ground, New Mexico. In 1950 von Braun’s team moved to the Redstone Arsenal near [[Huntsville, Alabama]], where they built the Army’s Jupiter ballistic missile.

In 1960, his rocket development center transferred from the Army to the newly established NASA and received a mandate to build the giant Saturn rockets. Accordingly, von Braun became director of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center and the chief architect of the Saturn V launch vehicle, the superbooster that would propel Americans to the Moon.

Von Braun also became one of the most prominent spokesmen of space exploration in the United States during the 1950s. In 1958, he played a key role in the launching of America's first satellite.

He became the director of NASA, the U.S. guided missile program and
founded the National Space Institute. He became a naturalized United States citizen and received the National Medal of Science in 1975.

== Quotes ==

Von Braun observed:<ref>http://www.amerisearch.net/index.php?date=2004-06-16&view=View</ref>

"The laws of nature that enable us to fly to the Moon also enable us to destroy our home planet with the atom bomb. Science itself does not address the question whether we should use the power at our disposal for good or for evil. The guidelines of what we ought to do are furnished in the moral law of God."

Wernher von Braun continued:

"It is no longer enough that we pray that God may be with us on our
side. We must learn to pray that we may be on God's side."

In considering Von Braun's thoughts on the subject of morality, it should noted that he was a willing scientist in developing long-range weaponry for use by the Nazi government against civilian targets and made use of forced labor for manufacturing.

In the foreword to his ''Anthology on the Creation and Design exhibited
in Nature'', Wernher von Braun stated:

"Viewing the awesome reaches of space...should only confirm our belief in the certainty of its Creator. I find it difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe."

== References ==

<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Von Braun, Wernher}}

[[Category:Scientists]]
[[Category:Space Exploration]]

Whale

2008-09-25T20:17:35Z

NewCrusader: Just a little tidying.

[[Image:800px-Baleen Whale Physical Characteristics svg.png|right|thumb|400px]]
'''Whales''' are marine mammals of the order [[Cetacea]].

== Description ==
Whales are separated into the toothed whales (which includes [[dolphin]]s, [[porpoise]]s, [[narwhal]]s, [[beaked whale]]s and [[sperm whale]]s) and the whalebone, or baleen, whales. The latter are cetaceans, mostly very large, which, instead of teeth, have baleen (whalebone) to filter small prey from the water; they are what people generally think of when the word whale is used. The whalebone whales include the rorquals - the [[blue whale]], fin whale, sei whale, Bryde's whale, [[minke whale]], [[grey whale]]; the [[humpback whale]]; and the various [[right whale]]s.

Although whales are famed for the massive size reached by some species, such as the blue whale (the largest animal to ever live), others are relatively small, like the pygmy right whale which grows to about 20 feet <ref> [http://www.acsonline.org/factpack/PygmyRightWhale.htm]American Cetacean Society website</ref>. Though whales have many traits in common with fish (including fins and tails) they are [[classification system|classified]] as [[mammal|mammals]] under the [[Linnaean taxonomy]] classification system because they breathe air and lactate. Whales have a number of remarkable features including:

* they decide when to breathe, rather than breathing unconsciously
* they sleep 8 hours a day, yet need to be conscious to breathe
* they can communicate with each other by making remarkably loud noises
* these extraordinary noises can travel for miles under water
* the females nurse their calves while swimming underwater
* the males have a unique cooling system for their internal reproductive organs
* whales, along with humans and horses, are some of the few mammal species that do not possess [[baculum]] (penile bone)
* some have two blow-holes, but others only have one
* the blow-holes pass air above water, yet resist intense pressure underwater
* they have massive brains, much larger than the brains of other mammals

=== Taxonomy ===
There are two kinds of whales: toothed whales of the suborder Odontoceti (which includes [[dolphins]] and [[porpoise]]s), and whalebone (baleen) whales of the suborder Mysticeti.

Toothed whales include:
* [[Orca|Killer whales]]
* [[Sperm whale]]s
* [[Narwhal]]s
* [[Pilot whale]]s

Baleen whales include:
* [[Blue whale]]s
* [[Gray whale]]s
* [[Humpback whale]]s
* [[Fin whale]]s
* [[Right whale]]s
* [[Minke whale]]s

== Origins ==
The question of how whales and their relatives could have evolved from terrestrial [[mammal]]s has taxed evolutionary biologists since [[Charles Darwin|Darwin's]] suggestion that they may have evolved from ancient bears.
In more recent times molecular and fossil evidence has been used to suggest that modern whales and their relatives arose from ancient [[Artiodactyla|artiodactyls]] (even-toed ungulates) with the closest living relative of all whales being [[hippopotamus|hippopotami]].<ref>[http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/41080/molecular_clock_divergence_estimates_and_the_fossil_record_of_cetartiodactyla/index.html] Theodore, JM (2004) Molecular Clock Divergence Estimates And The Fossil Record Of Cetartiodactyla The Journal Of Paleontology 78:39-44</ref>
This kinship has been termed the whippo hypothesis.
Evolutionary biologists estimate the last ancestor of whales and hippos lived about 25 million years ago,<ref> [http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IAtransitional.shtml] UCLA Berkley Understanding Evolution for Teachers website</ref> which contrasts with the [[Young earth creationism|young earth creationist]] position that whales were [[creation|created]] about 6000 years ago when [[God]] created the [[earth]].<ref>Sarfati, Jonathan [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3834/106/ Whale evolution?] ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 5.</ref><ref>Batten, Don, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1776 A whale of a tale?] ''Journal of Creation'' 8(1):2–3, April 1994.</ref><ref>Williams, Alexander, and Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1862 Not at all like a whale], ''Creation'' 27(2):20–22, March 2005.</ref>

== Whales in literature ==

=== The Bible ===

<blockquote>
''Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.'' Jonah 1:17
</blockquote>

The great fish that swallowed [[Jonah (prophet)|Jonah]] is often thought of as being a whale, although the translation of 'great fish' is not a precise designation of species but may indicate any physically large, ocean-going creature. The physical difficulty of having a human be swallowed by a whale and survive the intense pressure of diving, lack of air and acidic environment of the stomach has led some to suggest the creature may be uniquely and specially prepared by [[God]] for the purpose. Alternatively, Jonah may have been simply protected by supernatural means.

=== Fiction ===

Arguably the most famous book about whales is [[Herman Melville]]'s ''[[Moby-Dick|Moby Dick]]'', about a whaling-ship captain obsessed with hunting down the sperm whale (Moby Dick) which had bitten off one of his legs.

== See Also ==
*[[Orca]]
*[[Dolphin]]

== References ==

<references/>

{{Nb zm whales}}

Video games

2008-09-24T23:36:24Z

NewCrusader:

'''Video games''' are electronic games commonly played by a wide portion of the population.<ref>[http://www.pan-o-matic.com/blog/?p=45 Only a third of videogamers are under 18]</ref> A large number of young adults, having grown up in the era of video games, also play. Some video games such as [[sports]] games and educational games are harmless [[fun]] and can actually be beneficial to a child's development, especially if they allow more than one player. Some games though are violent and sexually explicit and have attracted the attention of family groups and [[conservative]] [[Christian]]s. Games such as [[Grand Theft Auto]] are very violent, sexually explicit, feature [[criminal]] behavior and some even encourage it. [[Law]]s have been passed to limit young people's access to these violent games but these laws are either rarely enforced or overturned by judges due to the [[First Amendment]].<ref>http://gamepolitics.livejournal.com/148962.html</ref> Some people argue that violent video games cause violent behaviour in some children, especially those under 16 whose mind is still not fully developed, but such a link has yet to be conclusively proven.
Serious crimes, including murder, have been associated with video games. For example, a 14-year-old brutally murdered a video arcade employee one morning and his cousin stands trial for murdering the store manager when he entered the store shortly thereafter.<ref>http://www.nj.com/starledger/stories/index.ssf?/base/news-5/1212467732102240.xml&coll=1</ref>
In the [[United States|USA]], the majority of games carry ratings from the [[ESRB]], a video game ratings organization.

== Various genres ==

Video games in the course of their existence have grown from the simple arcade style games, and have become more detailed and separated from one another. Genres can now include [[first person shooters]], [[racing]], [[Simulation game|simulation]], [[role-playing]], [[sports]], [[action]] and many others. Even then, games can combine genres, such as "Mass Effect" (Role Playing and Third Person Shooting), or not fit nicely into any genre, like "Katamari Damacy".

== Popularity & Controversy ==

Games have risen in popularity over the years, as is shown in the rise of video games sales from the 1980s until today. This has brought with it a various amount of controversy as the video game industry continues to grow with its original player base.

===Violence===

Most of the controversy comes from the rising trend toward violence in video games, as pioneered by [[Doom (video game series)|Doom]], [[Quake]], and the [[Grand Theft Auto]] series. One man in particular, [[Jack Thompson]], has imposed a one-man crusade against video games, which has made him a target of both the online gamer community and of the mainstream media.

At least one study has shown that, contrary to the position mentioned above, kids who don't play video games at all seem to show more violent tendencies. Of course, as expected, those who played violent video games for large amounts of time also showed violent tendencies, however the study claims that this is a "risk marker", not an actual cause. <ref>http://wii.qj.net/New-research-reveals-kids-who-don-t-play-videogames-at-all-are-more-at-risk-of-violent-tendencies/pg/49/aid/118505 New research reveals kids who don't play video games at all are more at risk of violent tendencies</ref>

Multiple studies have shown a correlation between violent video games and levels of real life violence, caused by exposure to the aforementioned video games.<ref>http://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-anderson.html</ref>

===Sexuality===

Although nudity is not prominent in [[western]] video games, there are various products containing this kind of material. Additionally, a large quantity games contain overly-sexualized characters (for example, female characters wearing revealing clothes) or references. One notable target of controversy is the [[Grand Theft Auto]] series after a patch was released that allowed the player to engage in a minigame containing explicit sexual material. Other sources of this criticism relate to the game [[Tomb Raider]] as it was one of the first games where a female character (the protagonist) is depicted with large breasts and advertised as a sex symbol.<ref>Ashley, Robert. "The Secret History of Videogame Sex." Official Playstation Magazine Feb. 2006: 96-99.</ref>

== Video Games & Society ==

As video games become more popular, their impact on society becomes ever more present. A prime example of this is the massive ad campaigns for the [[Halo (game)|Halo]] series, as well as [[Grand Theft Auto]]. Advertising, merchandising, and even social pressures have changed in the ever-growing influence of video gaming.

Due to their popularity, various corporations have begun placing advertisements for their products within the context of the game. [[Second Life]], an Internet-based virtual world, has blurred the lines between real-world and virtual world, and companies such as Adidas, Reebok, and Dell have set up virtual stores selling real-world products within the game. [[Reuters]] also operates a news bureau reporting news in the game.

== Faith in Video Games ==

Faith in Video Gaming has, as a rule, either led to the creation of new and dynamic antagonists, or video games that are mediocre, such as ''Spiritual Warfare'' and ''Bible Adventure'' for the Nintendo, or ''The Bible Game'' for various systems. ''Bible Adventure'' in particular is infamous for it's poor design and playability.

The Bible, or other such religious texts, tell a story spanning many different viewpoints. Turning these ideas into a video game, however, most often leads to games that tend to bore most video game audiences.

Religion has, however, taken a prominent place amongst the various heroes and villains in video games. The [[Breath of Fire Series]] and the [[Shin Megami Tensei]] games, in particular, use God as a main antagonist in many of its incarnations. Other games to use religion, in some way, include Final Fantasy, [[Left Behind: Eternal Forces]], [[Black and White]], ''Heaven and Hell', [[Xenogears]], and [[Okami]].

Games may include a fictional religion as part of the setting if the use of a real religion may invite undesireable contriversy.

Video game reviewers have sometimes unjustly attacked and reviewed games where real-world religion plays a notable role. One of the most prominent examples of this is the game [[Left Behind: Eternal Forces]].<ref>http://www.gamerevolution.com/review/pc/left_behind</ref>

==Popular Video games==
*[[Assassins Creed]] - Taking place, after a fashion, during the [[Crusades]]. Play as Altair, and kill leaders from both sides to stop a deadly plot.
*[[Age of Empires]] - An [[Real-Time Strategy|RTS]] in which the player leads an ancient civilization. Slightly violent.
*[[Call of Duty]] - A [[FPS]] in which a player is either a soldier in World War II or a soldier involved in the War on Terror.
*[[Civilization]] - A family-friendly strategy game in which the player leads a civilization from it's birth, and into the future.
*[[Donkey Kong]] - An early platform game in which Jumpman tries to save his girlfriend from a barrel-flinging ape named Donkey Kong. Both Donkey Kong and Jumpman, who was renamed Mario Mario, went on to star in several other successful video games.
*[[Final Fantasy]] - A very popular [[RPG]] series in both the [[United States]] and [[Japan]]. Some games may not be suitable for children.
*[[Gears of War]] - Mankind has been utterly annihilated by unknown race of beings. Not suitable for children.
*[[Grand Theft Auto]] - A game series about several different characters who perform missions to rise to the top by using violence and other methods.
*[[Guitar Hero]] - A game where players play the role of the [[guitar]]ist in a band. Uses a special controller in the shape of and played similarly to a guitar. Contains music and other themes not appropriate for children.
*[[Half-life|Half-Life]] - First Person Shooter series about Gordon Freeman, a luckless scientist turned hero-from-desperation. Contains violence
*[[Halo]] - A trilogy of games following a super soldier during a future war. Contains [[violence]].
*[[Harvest Moon]] - Farm Life simulator, with many sequels spreading from various platforms. Character runs a farm, raises animals, and can eventually marry. Until recent incarnations, games had no violence. Rated E [6+] to T [13+].
*[[The Legend of Zelda]] - A popular series of fantasy action-adventure games.
*[[Mass Effect]] - A science fiction RPG rated "M" for blood, language, partial nudity, sexual themes, and violence.
*[[Medal of Honor]] - Player is thrust into the front lines of World War II.
*[[Mortal Kombat]] - Player-vs-player fighting game which introduced extremely violent, bloody and gory finishing moves called "fatalities" to the genre.
*[[NHL]] Series - This series from EA Sports as well as other NHL series are very popular, especially in Canada.{{fact}} Most are family friendly with less violence as seen on NHL hockey on television (which actually can get quite violent). There is, obviously, no sexuality.
*[[Pac-Man]]. An old maze game. It was very popular with kids and adults back in the eighties, and like most old video games it's a clean, family friendly, fun game for everyone.
*[[Portal]] - A popular first person shooter/puzzle game using the same game engine as Half-Life 2 involving teleportation.
*[[Resident Evil]] - Survival/horror video game series, revolving around viral zombies and the survivors of the zombie attacks. Copious blood, gore, and violence present. As of date, all games in series have been rated M [17+].
*[[The Sims]] - A light-hearted life simulator with mild violence and some sexuality. Recommended for 13 and up.
*[[Super Smash Brothers]] - Series of Nintendo Animated fighting games. Follows no specific story, mixing characters from different franchises in wide environments. Contains animated, no-blood violence.
*[[Soul Calibur]] - A weapon-based fighting game. Revolves around the tale of two weapons, Soul Edge [Cursed] and Soul Calibur [Blessed], and those who fight for control of the weapons.
*[[Street Fighter]] - One-on-one [[martial arts]] fighting game series, where a player selects one of various martial artists and battles other players or against computer-controlled characters. Since this game has mildly revealing dresses for the female fighters and sometimes a little blood during fights, though nowhere as over-the-top as [[Mortal Kombat]], this game is recommended for teens.
*[[Super Mario Bros.]] - Side-scrolling platform game series by [[Nintendo]]. Players play as Mario and Luigi, two Italian-American plumber brothers from [[Brooklyn]], who explore the Mushroom Kingdom in order to rescue Princess Peach from the evil Bowser Koopa. This game has no violence (except in fantasy form) and no sexual content, so it is suitable for all ages.
*[[Tomb Raider]] - Series of games following the adventures of Lara Croft. All have been rated "T" (Teen) due to mild violence.

==See Also==
*[[Video game controversy]]
*[[Jack Thompson]]

==References==

<References/>

[[Category:Entertainment]]
[[Category:Video Games]]
[[Category:Computers]]

Talk:Santa Claus

2008-09-24T23:14:16Z

NewCrusader:

==The eventual debate==

I know what talk pages are like here, and sooner or later we are going to get into a debate about how acceptable Santa is - does he detract from the celebration of Christ's birth, influence of pagan imagery, undermining future faith in christ by giving children a myth they will have to outgrow, and so on. So, before any of that starts... please, before anyone starts debating, lets at least get the page into a good condition on the non-contriversial bits! Once the history is detailed, the links in, the details done (I want to see a list of Santa movies), then is the time for debate. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 19:40, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

:Santa doesn't exist. --[[User:JESUSCHRIST|JESUSCHRIST]] 20:08, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
::I didn't mean that debate - that's an easy one. I just know that a significent number of Christians have 'issues' with Santa, for various reasons theological. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 19:14, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

Debate: Do Atheist believe they have a soul?

2008-09-24T23:11:45Z

NewCrusader:

A soul is seperate from the body. God has given us an individual soul that departs us when we pass from this life. Do Atheists believe in having a soul?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:32, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

:No. We are material beings. Mind, spirit, soul are functions of the brain. This isn't much of a debate for a atheist. [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 22:37, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

:I can think of a few ways it could be justified, but they would have to be a strange atheist indeed. If you want one, your best bet would be one of the new-age types - they have such a grab-bag, you can probably find one that claims to be an atheist while still being effectively a theist of some description, just not willing to admit it. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 19:11, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
No, I myself do not believe that we have a soul. For me, your consciousness is simply a function of millions of years of chance and random wiring in your brain - picking the good features that made your ancestors more intelligent, leaving the less intelligent ones to set fire to themselves or however stone age man killed himself through his own stupidity. Your ancestors bred, passed on their better intelligence, etc. etc. until one day you were born self-aware. That self-awareness is just the result of random wiring, and when you die, nothing will seperate from your body and go to an afterlife. All that will happen is that all those electrical pulses that accidentally happen to give you self-awareness, along with those that tell your heart to keep beating and your diaphragm to keep pulling at your lungs, will stop firing. Nothing else will change - it'd be just like flicking off a lightswitch.

I've been asked how I can possibly sleep at night, thinking that my existance is bound to be short and, should I die during my sleep, I simply won't exist anymore. This doesn't trouble me because hey, I won't care that I'm dead, because I'll be dead. Yes, I'd really like to keep living, but once I'm dead it really won't bother me. If I had an aftelife to go to, I'd miss everything I left behind on Earth. So as far as I'm concerned, nothing leaves your body when you die - all of your consciousness is still there, in the same way your contacts stay on your phone after you've turned it off. Except you can't turn a human back on again.

Yes, it's depressing, but my conscience tells me that it must be so - I can't lie to myself and believe in heaven or a soul. If Christians are right (out of the countless religions on Earth, if Christianity turns out to be the correct religion) then I'm sure an all-forgiving, benevolent God will see that I've led a life free of major sins and have always striven to do what I believe to be right. Why would he punish me for falling for the traps that, by all rights, he put there for me, like all those pesky fossils? [[User:LibAsCanBe|LibAsCanBe]] 18:53, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
:Because God isn't obliged to make sense to your thinking. He is the source of morality - he has the right to send you to hell for violating his rules. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 19:11, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

Propaganda

2008-09-24T23:04:53Z

NewCrusader:

[[Propaganda]] ([[Latin]] ''propaganda'' feminine ablative gerundive of ''propago'' I am spreading) is:

# Any idea, fact, rumor, or lie, or a wider body of same, which one circulates, publishes, or otherwise spreads by deliberate conscious effort in order to advance or hinder any given cause. This includes activity by a government to instill fear of that government's enemies, either in time of [[war]] or as a prelude to war, especially if the information that the government is promulgating is false.
# The act of circulating, publishing, or otherwise spreading any of the above with the manifest intent to advance or hinder a cause, or help or injure a person.

== History of the term ==

The first recorded use of the term, according to Merriam-Webster, was as a shortened name of the ''Congregatio de Propaganda Fide'', literally, "The congregation for spreading the faith." This group, part of the Vatican staff, is in essence the missions board of the [[Roman Catholic Church]]. The founder of this board was Pope Gregory XV.

Thus, originally, the term ''propaganda'' was a neutral term. It meant simply the act of ''propagating'' a viewpoint, the process for doing the same, or a group specifically charged with such activity.

Today, propaganda is anything under the above headings employed to advance any religious or political cause, or to damage an opposing cause. But the word ''propaganda'' now has a decidedly negative connotation. Whatever is spread must not merely be in aid of one cause and/or opposed to another, but must also be ''false, misleading, and/or out of its proper context.'' Or, if what is spread is true, then it is spread in a ''manner unbecoming a truthful witness.'' As such, it includes [[Logical fallacy|logical fallacies]], ''unsubstantiated'' rumors, and other sayings that the teller/spreader knows, or ought to know, are lies. It also includes modes of presentation that, through negligence, recklessness, knowledge, or intent, give offense, especially to the holders of contrary views.

== Types of propaganda ==
The specific sayings or modes of presentation that constitute propaganda are legion. The common element in them is an appeal to ''emotion'' rather than to [[logic]]. Truth or fact, logically presented, might stir the emotions--but a presentation ''manifestly intended'' to stir the emotions demeans the information being presented. Of course, if the information is false to begin with, then propagandistic methods might be the only methods that would serve.

<blockquote>Angels are bright still, though the brightest fell. Though all things foul would wear the look of grace, Yet grace must still look so.</blockquote>
: ''[[MacBeth]]'' IV.iii.

Propaganda typically takes any of these forms, or a combination of them:

# Name calling. This is the crudest and least savory form of [[Logical fallacy#Argumentum ad hominem|argumentum ad hominem]]. It consists of labeling the other cause, or a generic or particular adherent of that cause, with a noun or adjective having a decidedly negative "buzz" or "charge." Name-calling is also a part of the [[Logical fallacy#Genetic fallacy|genetic fallacy]] of endorsing, or casting doubt upon, a proposition merely by calling attention to its source, when the nature of the source does not bear on the quality of the propositions that come from that source.
# Half-truths, or lies of ommision, in which facts which support the distributor are spread while deliberatly neglecting facts which would pose difficulty.
# Testimonials. This is a form of [[Logical fallacy#Proof by authority|argumentum ab auctoritate]]. A "celebrity endorsement" is a prime example. So, too, is any speech or essay by one publicly celebrated as an athlete, actor in any form of [[theater]], or other such person, on a subject in which the author has no legitimate expertise.
# [[Loaded question|Loaded questions]].
# Distortions of fact.
# Extreme pronouncements, which are a form of [[Logical fallacy#Overgeneralization|over-generalizations]].
# Intimidation. This may include [[Logical fallacy#Proof by numbers|arguing from the numbers]] or reminding an opponent of the power of the particular individual or group engaging in the intimidation--or of an individual or group for which one claims to speak.
# Using abridged or out of context quotes to give a false impression, aka [[Quote mining]].
# Sayings that, however factual, fall outside the scope or even off the topic at hand. A [[Law|lawyer]] would say that such facts are "incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial"--because they do not serve to advance a [[logic|logical]] argument, are not properly related to the case at hand, and do not matter.
# Outright lies. Dr. [[Josef Goebbels]], Minister of Propaganda for [[Adolf Hitler]], famously observed that if one tells a lie loudly enough and often enough, people will believe it rather than believe that anyone could lie so outrageously.

== Uses of propaganda in society today ==
Propaganda has now become the favorite method of [[politics]]. Both politicians and the commentators that support them routinely engage in it. This has contributed, especially in the [[United States]] but also in other democratic republics throughout the world, to a coarsening of civil discourse and, some say, a severe weakening of civility.

In addition to civility, the idea of truth suffers from the habitual use of propaganda. Current-events organs that willfully publish propagandistic content not only contribute to the problem, but also demean themselves. In one famous example ([[Rathergate]]), a [[television]] broadcast network circulated for weeks certain memoranda, the contents of which were damaging to the incumbent President of the [[United States]] ([[George W. Bush]]), though those who obtained those memoranda knew, or ought to have known, that they were forgeries.

[[Theater]] has been an instrument of propaganda since before such things as current-events organs existed. Significantly, however, whenever theater has lent itself to propaganda, it has always demeaned itself. Even [[William Shakespeare]] was not immune to this. His play ''[[The Merchant of Venice]]'' is, as any objective observer must attest, a piece of [[Anti-Semitism|anti-Semitic]] propaganda of a very crude sort. Critics have historically decried it as one of the least becoming of Shakespeare's works.

== Counter-propaganda ==
The best contrary testimony against propaganda is the truth. This typically means revealing the full, previously undisclosed context and exposing [[Logical fallacy|logical fallacies]]. Confusingly though, skillfully produced propaganda may itsself be masked as counter-propaganda.

Beyond this, it includes discernment of news organs that allow themselves to be utilized for propaganda purposes, discernment of propagandistic theater projects and refusal to patronize the same, and discernment of the content of political commentary, and its judgment, not merely on matters of fact, but also on the ''presentation'' of that fact. As has been said above, presentation even of perfectly relevant fact in a manner intended to manipulate the emotions, demeans the facts thus presented and also demeans the presenter. Above all, therefore, those who decry propaganda ought not engage in it themselves, nor give even the appearance of the same.

== Related References ==
* [http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=Propaganda Propaganda] in the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
* [http://www.creationsafaris.com/crevbd.htm#propaganda Propaganda Tactics] at "The Baloney Detector" at Creation-Evolution Headlines

== See Also ==
* [[Logical fallacy]]

[[Category:Sociology]]

Talk:Santa Claus

2008-09-23T23:40:19Z

NewCrusader: New page: ==The eventual debate== I know what talk pages are like here, and sooner or later we are going to get into a debate about how acceptable Santa is - does he detract from the celebration of...

Santa Claus

2008-09-23T23:23:29Z

NewCrusader: It's a list!

[[Image:Thomas Nast Santa Claus.JPG|300px|right|thumb|Santa Claus, by Thomas Nast]]
[[Image:Christmas Eve 1862.jpg|thumb|'''Christmas Eve 1862.''' Nast shows the wife and husband thinking of each other on Christmas Eve. The illustrations in the top corners show Santa visiting homes and military camps.]]
: ''This article is about the American legendary secret Christmas gift-giver. For the real man behind this legend, see [[Saint Nicholas]].''

'''Santa Claus''', or simply "Santa", is an [[United States of America|American]] popular cultural icon, probably of [[Holland|Dutch]] origin. He has been a regular staple of the American observance of [[Christmas]] for about two centuries or more, and exported to prominence in much of the world.

== Origins ==
The ultimate basis of Santa Claus is [[Saint Nicholas]], the [[Roman Catholic Church|Roman Catholic]] [[Bishop]] of [[Myra]]. In the ninth century AD, coincident with the [[Muslim]] invasion and re-invention of [[Rome|Roman]] [[Asia Minor]] as the [[Ottoman Empire]], the bones of Saint Nicholas were transported to [[Europe]]. The many legends about this bishop--including a persistent legend about the "[[manna]]" coming from his body after his death--fostered the growth of new legends of Saint Nicholas being somehow larger than life.

[[Holland|Dutch]] settlers in [[New Amsterdam]] brought with them the tradition surrounding this new legend of Saint Nicholas, whom they called ''Sinter Klaas'' in their language (and still do today).<ref name=Santa>Anonymous, "[http://www.lnstar.com/mall/main-areas/santafaq.htm Santa Claus Facts, Origins, and Fun Tidbits]," ''Lone Star Internet'', 2006. Retrieved April 16, 2007</ref> With the British takeover of [[New Netherland]] by troops loyal to the then-incumbent [[Duke of York]] (hence the name [[New York]]), this mythical character gained a new name: Santa Claus.
In the early nineteenth century, at least three prominent Americans contributed to the Santa Claus legend we know today:

# [[Washington Irving]]
# [[Clement Moore|Clement C. Moore]], author of ''[[The Night Before Christmas]]''<ref name=TNBC>Clement Clarke Moore, "[http://www.lnstar.com/mall/main-areas/Night_B_Xmas.html The Night Before Christmas (A Visit by St. Nicholas)]," 1823. Retrieved April 16, 2007, from [http://www.lnstar.com/mall/main-areas/santafaq.htm Santa Claus Facts, Origins, and Fun Tidbits]</ref>
# [[Thomas Nast]], the famous [[cartoon]]ist, who, in 1881, drew the classic [[portraits|portrait]] of Santa Claus that survives today. (The image of Santa was progressively elaborated by illustrator Thomas Nast, who depicted a rotund Santa for Christmas issues of Harper's magazine from the 1860s to the 1880s.)

== Features of the Santa Claus Legend ==
[[Image:Santa Claus 2.gif|right]]
The hallmarks of the legend of Santa Claus include:
# A village located at the [[North Pole]], containing a toy factory and other facilities for the production and distribution of toys via a sled driven by flying reindeer.
# An uncanny ability to know whether any child has been "good" or "bad," typically in the form of a list of all children, appropriately catagorised. The means by which this is achieved is rarely elaborated on.
# Rewards for the good, and punishment for the bad. Traditionally, the good children receive toys and the bad lumps of coal. Due to the unfamiliarity of a lump of coal to modern children, some variations substitute other undesirable gifts.
# A requirement for belief: Santa is said to deliver only to those who believe in him. Non-believers get nothing.
# Secret comings and goings to make deliveries, via the chimney. In homes without fireplaces, some flexibility is required.
# Placement of small candies and similar "party favors" in children's stockings. Children are encouraged to leave a gift in return on Christmas eve - tradition dictates a mince pie, a glass of sherry, and one or more carrots for the reindeer.
# Accomplishment of all this order fulfillment and delivery on one night of the year: the night of December 24-25.

== External links ==

*[http://www.the-north-pole.com/history/ History of Santa Claus]
*[http://www.moroni10.com/Jesus-santa.html How the Claus Stole Christmas], Kelly Bingham, ''The Signpost'', Nov 30, 2005

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Culture]]