Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate: Why have conservatives let themselves get a bad name?

2010-01-21T18:13:57Z

Nonobu:

{{debate}}
::
I'm young (22) and exposed to a large group of liberals (in college) but it seems to me that the conservative movement has had a real problem with dirty tricks. Nixon was famous for it, outside of watergate his staffers ordered large numbers of pizzas for his opponents to pay for and invited foreign dignitaries and the like to the campaign events of his opponents so they would show up and be turned away at the door. The Neocon movement has embraced torture despite the fact that the US pretty flatly declared that no circumstances of threat could justify torture back in the 80's when we were the great nation leading the world away from torture. Conservatives are supposed to embrace personal liberty and small government, but many want draconian laws limiting free speech and think its alright to give govt. the power to enforce them. Unwarranted surveillance and sending troops to war with out a declaration from congress. This isn't conservative, we are not holding on to our constitution or our values, we are giving them up one by one to do something that looks clever. I see it in religion too, a great many people seem to have a religious outlook on existence that is based on tricking God into giving them eternal life, and attitude where they can go through life being awful in Gods name and then repent and be fine and that Jesus will forgive them because they are sinners. Personally I am a very forgiving individual, but if I learn that someone is going to do something to hurt me and assumes that I will forgive them because they ask me too I am likely to tell them just where they can stick there apology; If you premeditate remorse in to your plan to do something wrong as far as I am concerned no one with even a fraction of all knowing could possibly see that remorse as true rather than an insult on top of the prior wrong doing. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 16:13, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

: It is because a lot of conservative principles are abhorrent things like opposition to equal rights for everyone, railing against food stamps, and killing middle eastern people. Also if you are not a WASP, you are an America-hating commie, according to the conservative talking heads on tv. [[User:Nrupert|Nrupert]] 13:58, 11 December 2008 (EST)

:: Nixon was a liberal Republican just as Bush and the neo-conservatives are. Brendanw is right about neoconservatism, I frequently tell people that Bush is an "FDR pro-business liberal" and they laugh at me, when in reality neoconservatism was a word invented by & for the anti-Johnson, anti-hippie, pro-business left-wingers of the 1940s (i.e. FDR's Bretton Woods and wanting to end Social Security after the Depression). In addition, most people don't understand how monetary policy and inflation work. (In elementary school until late high school, I could not understand why someone would be "pro-business" instead of pro-poor, and called myself a "Democratic Communist" lol)

:: As for the religion issue, I think people hate Christianity anyway. As a matter of fact, I have yet to meet an atheist who is not motivated by specific hate for specifically Christianity. My father suggests their respect for freedom coupled with hate for Christianity might be Satan-influenced. Who knows.

:: Racism is an issue with many conservatives, I hate to say it but it is a problem we have to face in order to remove a stereotype. While most people want to deal with illegal immigration, reverse discrimination, and preservation of language and culture for non-racist reasons, some seem to be motivated by a subtle racism. For example, I don't know if you've ever heard the Richard Bergis staged prank calls (available on YouTube), but one describes the problem of this subtle racism perfectly. The pranksters tell Bergis that there will be a black NASCAR driver, and at first he starts out making racist jokes, then it's "Can't white people have one thing for themselves?" and finally a slew of insults, racial slurs, and swearing. Now this is exaggerated and (judging by the other ones) fake, but you get my idea. If we are to defeat this stereotype, people who support paleoist ideas have to make it clear that they are not motivated by racism or anti-Semitism and why.

:: And most importantly, biases of left-wing media outlets such as CNN and the once-libertarian-leaning MSNBC must be effectively challenged and exposed by Fox News and talk radio. The left criticizes us for "entertainment news" and reliance on personalities with opinions, but unlike the left' supposed lack of bias we admit it's "opinion". Blogs can help as well in getting the public to realize that there is no "objective news" and each side has an agenda. -[[User:Danq|danq]] 19:10, 19 September 2009 (EDT)

Now, I'm a realist. I'm conservative on certain issues and liberal on others. Let me define the two terms the way I view them. Conservative: keeping things the same, tradition, embracing what works realistically at a given time. Liberal: Thinking outside of convention, newness, rebelliousness to norm. I have both qualities, its part of being human. I believe in gun ownership and also the right to burn the flag. I do not lean to one side or another like the media. The media and politics have forced people to pick sides. But the biggest thing, in my view, that gives conservatives a bad name is that most individuals that declare they are conservative do not think outside the box and impede good progress. Don't forget, the american revolution was a liberal move. Also, many conservatives I know let nationalism and religion cloud true reason. Most liberally minded people think outside the box and rebel and cause much pain for themselves, BUT in doing that searching they find truths and ideas that challenge those who do not challenge convention but merely accept it for what it is. Conservatives have a bad name because they refuse to see things from a liberal viewpoint. Instead they blame it on the devil or something like that. This is the 21st century, its high time our minds start questioning. --Nonobu

:Thanks for your candid analysis, but it sounds like you're on a path to atheism, and 99% of atheists end up being liberal. This may be the 21st century, but evil hasn't magically disappeared. Censoring the Bible, the most logical book ever written, doesn't make it any less true.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:57, 6 January 2010 (EST)

Mr. Shlafly, it's an honor to meet you.
I am not against the bible but you cannot rule out other religions that add to the vast scope of the human experience. I was raised lutheran and went to a lutheran school for most of my life. The Bible does have logical teachings. There is "evil" in the world but saying that it stems from the devil is a belief, not a fact. It can be a fact to many conservative people who will fight for it, and that's the problem. There is no evidence and that is frowned upon by many people. What I meant by it's the 21st century is that we have reached a growth in civilization where it is time to look for new answers to old problems. I believe that people's actions and thoughts can hurt the world around us, be it aggression or mere ignorance, but being atheist does not con-notate a bad thing but merely a lack of belief in what there is not enough evidence for. They rebel to tradition. Philosophically, what evidence do you have outside the bible that evil appeared in the 1st place? -That being something a liberal would ask. I would also like to hear your concise opinion on what a liberal is. Also, here's a link to an interesting video: http://www.ted.com/talks/devdutt_pattanaik.html -- Nonobu

:Lack of [[faith]] is the single greatest cause of depression and despair. There have been famous [[atheists]], some of whom went crazy. The output of that belief system is mostly harmful. Contrast that with the output of Christianity. How many atheistic hospitals have been built compared with Christian hospitals, for example? That is virtually zero compared with thousands.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:51, 7 January 2010 (EST)

There have also been famous christians, some of whom went crazy. I can argue against the output of religion as much as I can against atheism. Atheism and liberalism by nature are to offset convention and cause a tempest, call it growing pains. The night is always darkest just before the dawn, you cannot have newness without destroying what was there before. Therefore, Rome changing from pagan to christian also had a harmful output. It is all about perspective. I agree with your hospital bit, but there are almost no atheist hospitals because there is no atheist church that gives contributions. Christianity is also more organized. Atheists are normally against any spiritual organization. As for lack of faith causing depression, I would have to agree and disagree. It has been proven that people with faith live longer and happier lives. Religion is the opiate of the masses. It can be mind control and it can be wrong but it can make us feel confident and gives us drive. Atheists usually have no religious motivation, atheists are wandering and exploring. As somewhat of an atheist, I do not mind that searching because every stone I turn over has another truth. I do not mind sacrificing a comfortable, structured life to enable myself to see the complexities of this world. Jesus taught how to live your life. I agree with his teaching of love and we should strive to be as loving and tolerant as him. But God, a creator, that is a different story altogether...
Let me bring up conservationism and liberalism again. Conservatives get a bad name because of their blatant bias. A liberal can form a bias over time but the natural liberal has NO bias. Liberals are searching for new answers and thinking outside of convention. Conservatives will do whatever they can to uphold convention no matter how unrealistic it may be. They will target opponents personally. Lets look at the root words of liberal and conservative. Conservative: CONSERVe, CONvention. Liberal: LIBERAte, deLIBERAte, LIBERty. Conservativism is to conserve tradition and liberalism is to free oneself, deliberate and discuss complexities. All in all, liberals use critical thinking to answer questions, conservatives seem to use the answers of tradition and their bias as what is normal based on how they have been conditioned over the years in their social surroundings. FOX news targeted the children who were singing about Obama and called it "indoctrination". The facts in that situation is that the children were given permission slips which all parents signed and they sung about every president. FOX merely looked at children singing a song about Obama and wanted to relate to nazi germany. I'm sorry but that is blatant BIAS! Look us the definition of bias and you will find that it is a belief in something based on unfairness and narrow-mindedness. Being open to ideas, being liberal is NOT having a bias. ---Nonobu

:Well here's a question, regarding the output of atheism and Christianity, and the dark before the dawn. How long a time of negative output do you allow atheism before you change your mind and say that atheism is likely not capable of great positive output? Christianity began to have positive output within the first few hundred years of its existence. Has atheism, in the form of Enlightenment thinking and modern secular humanism had the same positive output? If you think it has do you have any examples? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:27, 8 January 2010 (EST)

:Nonobu, your argument leaves out libertarians, neoconservatives, some paleoconservatives (like Raimondo), Jews, atheists, agnostics, gays, probably even pagans and Muslims, and plenty of others who would call themselves conservatives and combining it all under the Christian Right. Plenty of conservatives favor change, even forward change. For example, neoconservatives are against laissez-faire capitalism and could support left-leaning pro-business economic policy. Plenty of conservative think tanks can make these arguments. There are varying reactions to technology in a world changing since 1776, namely with regard to stem-cell research and human cloning, and even with copyright policy, from the original time-limited government grant to recent views of a private property right. And with the conservatives supporting greater individual rights, your own life, and the life of the ones you love, can change in a non-Christian manner with or without government intervention. Also, you forget that "liberalism" was originally a term for the libertarianism of the Founding Fathers and not support for welfare programs - most countries still call the Right "liberal democrats" and the Left "social democrats". If you define "bias" as not being open to change, you are leaving out plenty on the Right who are. -[[User:Danq|danq]] 23:24, 14 January 2010 (EST)

My argument isn't necessarily to target any groups but individual's philosophies that are liberal and conservative. I'm simply saying that bias is antithetical to keeping an open mind. - I think that conservativism gets a bad name because of websites like this. There is a small group within the conservative demographic that agrees with everything on here. But to label this site as "conservative" gives all the rest of the people in America who consider themselves conservative a bad name. That conservapedia bible project... really?? rewriting the bible to fit an ideology is ridiculous at the least. I can go on and on. This site has its work cut out for it. And to reply to AddisonDM, the positive output christianity had equaled the negative input it added to other groups. Modern secularism is opening people's minds to more realistic and less superstitious ideas. We are making decisions based on rationality and not on religion. Christianity had bad affects just like atheism has bad affects. Christianity changed paganism forever and rationality will change christianity forever. Its the evolution of human society. ---Nonobu

:Nonobu, I urge you to get out more. There are twice as many "[[conservative]]s" as "[[liberal]]s", and in the latter category are many people who are obvious hucksters, like [[Al Gore]], or people who don't say anything meaningful, like [[Barack Obama]], or people who refuse to open their mind. Realize that conservatives give to charity at a higher rate than liberals, and the next time you or a loved one benefits from that charity, thank a conservative and open your mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:27, 16 January 2010 (EST)

::I agree with Andy here, the only people who view conservatives in a bad light are liberals. I am not concerned that a (small and getting smaller) group who have rejected all logic would wish to give my conservatism a bad name. [[User:DwayneD|DwayneD]] 14:32, 16 January 2010 (EST)

:Nonobu, there are a variety of people on Conservapedia, but I do agree that it is much more populated by the Religious Right. (I always recommend people looking for information favorable to creationism here.) Most liberals I know are permanently stuck with the false stereotype you are trying to hide, and no matter what you tell them, there is no way in their minds for conservatives to be charitable, color-blind, intelligent, educated, not from the South or not a Bible Christian. For example, according to a liberal, if you are Republican, you don't care about the poor, and you cannot possibly care about helping the poor if you are a Republican. As for the Conservative Bible Project, I too am not a fan - I have seen stuff I don't like, and personally I feel that having fiery King James alongside a "nicer" TEV or NIV solves the archaic language issue perfectly. But I keep quiet, and there's so much else here which I as a Catholic conservative am perfectly comfortable with, and I'm sure atheist/agnostic conservatives such as yourself can find something you'll enjoy here too. -[[User:Danq|danq]] 23:16, 18 January 2010 (EST)

I enjoy coming here for a good laugh and to point out ridiculousness and contradiction. I watch FOX news for the same thing. I am not alligning with any party and I see the good and the bad of being conservative or liberal. Classical liberalism is about personal freedom and promotes that government protect an individual's pursuit of happiness under the law. classical conservatism is about using government control to promote virtue or a certain morality, and that government comes from God. Liberalism spawned the scientific method that works according to our sense of logic and is always improving. Conservatism in America is too focused on moral purity based on a God that they can't even prove exists. Their attempts at proof are subjective in nature and anything they find that is objective does not match up with the scientific method. Then because It doesn't work with the method, they blame it humanities lack to perceive God because of our shortcomings, or blames it on a Liberal conspiracy. However, they forget that human perception has formed their definition of God anyways. Contradiction and denial of logic- mostly endorsed by the conservative media. That is why conservatives have gained a bad name. And Shlafly, you should open your mind and "get out more"- like out of your basement in New Jersey before you insult my intelligence like that again. Also, you haven't shown that you have an open mind. I am trying to have an honest debate.-Nonobu

Debate: Why have conservatives let themselves get a bad name?

2010-01-16T06:23:00Z

Nonobu:

Debate: Why have conservatives let themselves get a bad name?

2010-01-09T00:48:44Z

Nonobu:

Debate: Why have conservatives let themselves get a bad name?

2010-01-06T20:40:11Z

Nonobu:

Debate: Why have conservatives let themselves get a bad name?

2010-01-06T19:51:33Z

Nonobu:

Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?

2010-01-06T19:21:30Z

Nonobu: /* Honestly, */

{{debate}}

If Jesus were alive today, what end of the political spectrum would he identify himself with? [[Conservative]] or [[Liberal]]? Please back up any assertions with references to the Gospels.

== "WTF?" ==
... would be the reply of Jesus. Seriously, the way Christianity has changed is sacrilegious. Basically all New Testament books are bunk. "St." Peter is pretty unChristly. The books of the Bible were written many years after the events and have been changed over the years. A little bit here and there creates a lot of change. I very much doubt that Jesus went around claiming some of the stuff he did in the later Gospels. How does this relate to politics? Not much, I was rambling...

I think Jesus would not care for what politics is now. He wouldn't align himself to any particular party. --[[User:Kirby|Kirby]] 23:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Kirby; the very idea of left and right wing was non existant in those days. In fact, it is blasphemy for any group to claim him as their own. As a conscientious Christian, I find it nothing short of disgraceful when the Religious Right try to twist his word to legislate their own prejudices. There was no provision in the Bible for opposing slavery - this has been twisted by wingnuts in order to get a Christian endorsement of it. Some of the most extreme white supremacists in South Africa and America have used the Great Flood to demonstrate that Blacks come from one of the animals, as the only humans who travelled aboard the ship were clearly white, as their lineage can be traced to the caucasian King David.

Now, the Religious Right use Christianity in order to legislate against homosexuals. I believe that if Christ were around today, he would storm out of the houses of government in much the same way he stormed out of the Temple. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 20:26, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

== Communist ==
Since he thought everyone deserved a second chance, he would want that to apply to our economic system as well! That way, anyone who desired wealth and was willing to contribute productive to society should be held equal to all other such people.
To allow a "redeemed" person to suffer for past poor financial decisions is to hold back forgiveness.

Besides, the notion of God today is so reminiscent of Lenin's cult of the personality.

== Conservative ==
Where else would He find a home? [[Liberal]]s deny Him. They deny His [[creation|creative]] role,<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=1|version=NASB}}</ref> and they deny the need for Him as Lord and personal Savior. They actually think that if they're good, they'll go to heaven--and that is simply wrong.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=3|verses=10-12|version=KJV}}</ref>

1. Not all "liberals" deny Christ. There are many of us who are quite orthodox in our Christian faith and yet support some (not all) liberal causes. [[User:Burgeson|Burgy]] 15:04, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Moreover, [[Jesus]] would never countenance the behaviors in which [[liberal]]s routinely engage, and encourage others to engage.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Matthew|chap=5|verses=27-30|version=NASB}}</ref>
Jesus never said that a man could divorce his wife with a word. He did mention a specific circumstance that applied only to the [[Judaism|Jewish]] custom of engagement, which was less than a marriage but far more than the engagement we know today.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Deuteronomy|chap=24|verses=1-4|version=KJV}}</ref> Jesus now practically abolished divorce entirely.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Luke|chap=16|verses=18|version=KJV}}</ref> Liberals think divorce ought to be free and easy.

The "rehabilitation" of the thief consisted of salvation, and ''not'' of returning him to human society. Jesus was demonstrating that anyone could gain salvation if he would but repent--as this thief did.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Luke|chap=23|verses=42|version=KJV}}</ref>

Lastly: the reference to stumblingblocks<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=14|verses=13|version=KJV}}</ref> has nothing to do with "affirmative action." Rather it has to do with not putting temptation to [[sin]] in one another's way. But to a liberal, no one commits sin by engaging in the traditionally decried vices. Rather, one commits sin merely by having too much money (a thing Jesus never said) or by making the world less wild or by otherwise disagreeing with a liberal.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
: It is dangerous to use Matthew 5:27-30 to condemn liberals - one need only look at the current set of conservatives running for election to see multiple marriages and the occasional affair.
: You appear to have misread what I said about divorce - "In Jesus's time, it was possible for a man to divorce his wife with a word." Jesus was against divorce. Again, one need only look at the current conservatives running for election to show that divorce is quite common outside of the liberal circle.
: Let us look at [[Conservative]] to see what the stance there is and how this relates to Jesus's ministry.
:* National defense and high military spending -- Jesus did not side with the Jewish sect that was trying for military overthrow of Rome. All of his acts were non-violet.
He didn't use violets?!--[[User:The vigilante|The vigilante]] 10:40, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:* Economic allocative efficiency (as opposed to popular equity) -- I would suggest reading Mark 10:21-25 to see the stance on what the rich should do.
:* Stronger law enforcement and anti-crime laws, including the death penalty -- Look at John 8:3-11 to see Jesus speaking out against the death penalty (and further rehabilitation of those who commit crimes).
:* Abandonment of public schools in favor of private, particularly using tuition vouchers -- Jesus taught any who came to him without asking for payment. He much more closely resembles a public school teacher than someone advocating only private institutions to teach school.
: Given these it is reasonable to say that he was a very progressive individual for his time and even today his teachings show himself to be much more in line with the liberal platform than the conservative one. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:53, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Well put, Mtur. I can't help thinking that if Jesus were alive today and tried that "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" bit in front of a crowd of angry Fundamentalists, the symbol of His death would be a rock. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 00:13, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
I can't help thinking that if Jesus were alive today, he'd read some of the posts here and rush to the nearest mosque to convert.-Neuro

HE IS DEAD GET OVER IT!{{Unsigned|Leninrules}}
:No, He isn't. But He knew you would think that, and said so to His Apostles.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Would Jesus consign to any party? I do not believe so. The combination of politics and religion was never meant to be. And besides, Jesus would never force any of his laws on anyone. You cannot force a person to love Jesus, and Christ knowing this would not force anyone to follow his teachings. Christ was about personal choice. --

----Erm, hello majority of verses here?----
Multiple thousands of verses on poverty can't simply be omitted because some one has a fascination with a few choice ones in Leviticus. Social, you can argue up and down all day, because he lived thousands of years ago, but economically, there's no debate: liberal.{{Unsigned|Applestooranges}}
:That's not all there is to it. Never once did Jesus say that the king ought to keep a royal welfare roll and pay for it out of the people's taxes. Taxes, in fact, exist to pay the full-time salaries of the police and the military. {{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=13|verses=6-7|version=NASB}}--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:30, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:: In ancient Rome, there was a program called the ''annona''. This was an attempt by the Roman leaders to eliminate poverty in Rome and in part had the government give free grain to about 1/3 of the population of the city. The question of "is it the government's role or the church's role or the individual's role to do charity and take care of people" we see it is a combination of all three. In particular, [http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/George_W__Bush_Welfare_+_Poverty.htm George Bush] advocates transferring of tax money to religious and non-religious charities with no strings attached. It is unfortunate that in today's world many churches have forgotten their roots in charity and benefactors to the community[http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Winter/Seek-wc.htm] and instead spend their resources trying to convert people by speaking of damnation rather than showing them compassion and living the right way themselves. There is a difference between paying people who are able to work but don't to get away with laziness and helping those who cannot work for whatever reason (If you want Paul's take on this, read 2 Thessalonians 3:8-15). --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::That's all very well. But would Jesus say that ''the government'' ought to involve itself in charity, or lay and collect taxes for that purpose? That is the distinction that conservatism makes. And it is a distinction that Paul would have made.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

There is ''no way'' that Jesus would come out on the side of the [[abortion]]ists. He'd be pro-life for sure. [[User:Vossy|Vossy]][[User_talk:Vossy|speak]] 02:03, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal ==
As stated in [[liberal]] he would clearly fall in the liberal end.
* equal rights for men and women, including participation by men and women in the military
** Starting at Mark 5:25, you have Jesus administering a woman who was menstruating for twelve years. This woman was unclean in Judaic tradition and it was not proper for a man to be talking to a woman who was not family.
** Beginning at John 4:7 Jesus talks to a Samaritan woman. It was not proper for a Jewish man to talk to a foreign woman - there were three strikes against her, unclean, foreign and a woman. In Matthew 15:22 Jesus again talks to a foreign woman, this time a Canaanite for whom he healed her daughter.
** Jesus also accepted women as students. With Luke 10:38, Jesus instructed Mary, the sister of Martha.
** In Luke 13:16, Jesus refers to a woman as a "daughter of Abraham". This phrase occurs no where else in the Bible and parallels the term "son of Abraham" that is often used to describe men.
** With Luke 7:35, Jesus forgives the sins of a woman and refers to all people as children of wisdom.
** Many of the stories that Jesus told and later was mentioned in Acts has a man and a woman (rather than just a man). Luke 2:25-38 Luke 4:25-38 Luke 4:31 Luke 7:36 Luke 17:34
** In Jesus's time, it was possible for a man to divorce his wife with a word. In Mark 10:11-12 Jesus says that a man does not have this right and treats men and women as equal.
* distributing wealth from the rich to the poor
** It should not be necessary to iterate the number of times Jesus's ministry is helping the poor. One need only read the Beatitudes in Luke 6:20 and 6:24 to see his take on this subject.
* government programs to rehabilitate criminals
** The most famous rehabilitation of a thief on the cross to whom he says "To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." Luke 23:43.
** There are other accounts of Jesus talking with criminals and outcasts from society.
*taxpayer-funded rather than private medical care
** Again, it should not be necessary to iterate the number of times that Jesus healed people who were poor and could not afford proper care. If anyone is sick, they should be healed.
* support of government programs such as welfare
** This closely relates to the distribution of wealth to the poor.
* support of affirmative action
** Much like that mentioned in equal rights (above), Jesus spent much time with foreigners - people of other races. He makes no distinction in teaching them, and most famously in the story of the good Samaritan.
** Moving from the Gospels to the writings of Paul, Romans 14:13 says "Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way." Affirmative action seeks to remove these stumbling blocks that have been placed by society in the past.
--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:This page has a colossal joke on it, and you're it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::I thought Mtur made some very clear well sourced argument and that this rebuttal is a little uncivil. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:10, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::You thought wrong. We see here some classic misconstructions of Scripture of the type that always comes from unbelievers.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 00:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Well you are certainly the model of Christian humility Terry.--[[User:Tehstone|Tehstone]] 17:01, 12 September 2007 (PST)
:::::I meet error by firm and swift correction. You're more than a little late replying to my point, anyway.
:::::The one thing that Jesus ''would not'' do is to task the civil government with enforcement of "being nice to people," or even suggest that that was any of the civil government's business.
:::::He ''would'' say that the civil government exists to restrain evil--and you do not restrain evil by letting it run amuck.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:22, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
::::Whoa, whoah. You called for cites from the Gospels to support positions; you said nothing about about the constructions to be placed on the quotes. How is it that you get to decide whether or not these are correct interpretations? [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 03:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

While a few of the beatitudes are in Luke chapter 6:20-24, the complete sermon of the beatitudes can be found in Matthew chapter 1:1-12. --[[user:steponme1623|steponme1623]] 11:15, 16 March 2007

Though I'm guessing Jesus wouldn't want to get involved in our ugly political system at this point in time, I would imagine that he would tilt left. I can't imagine him supporting the war; in Romans 12:19, he says:
<blockquote>
Romans 12:19 Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord.
</blockquote> Even more simply, one of the commandments is not to kill. There is no way he would support the way our conservative president has sanctioned both revenge and killing.

Also of the government, the Bible says:
<blockquote>
Isaiah 10:1-3 – "Ah, you who make iniquitous decrees, who write oppressive statutes, to turn aside the needy from justice and to rob the poor of my people of their right, that widows may be your spoil, and that you may make the orphans your prey! What will you do on the day of punishment, in the calamity that will come from far away?"

And of helping people in general:
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Deuteronomy 15:7-11 -- If there is among you anyone in need, a member of your community in any of your towns within the land that the Lord your God is giving you, do not be hard-hearted or tight-fisted toward your needy neighbor. You should rather open your hand, willingly lending enough to meet the need, whatever it may be. Be careful that you do not entertain a mean thought, thinking, "The seventh year, the year of remission, is near," and therefore view your needy neighbor with hostility and give nothing; your neighbor might cry to the Lord against you, and you would incur guilt. Give liberally and be ungrudging when you do so, for on this account the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake. Since there will never cease to be some in need on the earth, I therefore command you, “Open your hand to the poor and needy neighbor in your land.”
</blockquote>
So Jesus would also agree with the notion that politicians should not marginalize the poor and that people should help the poor in general. Although no mention of government is made in the last verse I mentioned, government is not excluded from helping people. And that eliminates any argument that the government should not help the poor because they are lazy and don't deserve it.

So, without a doubt, I would say that Jesus, if he'd even vote, would be Liberal. --[[User:Arod|Arod]] 01:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

He'd have to be on the left -- all those stories about giving away all but the rags on your back and working for the poor. Though he would probably be anti-abortion, pornography and so on. It's quite possible, after all, to be a religious Left-winger with some or many conservative views. --[[User:AppalledBystander|AppalledBystander]] 06:47, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Jesus was the original Bobby Kennedy. How could he support corruption, deceit, republicans? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:00, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

== Neither ==
Jesus was a religious figure, not a political figure. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 21:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:Just because he was a religious figure does not mean that he did not have a stance on various social issues that can be placed on a political spectrum. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:09, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Considering what was said above, and also his own teachings (as according to the bible), I don't think Jesus would claim a political status. Although I could see him leaning more to a conservative side as far as abortion and gay marriage is concerned. (No one is quite sure what Jesus thought of gay marriage but with biblical allusions I would say he was against it)--[[User:Goose89|Goose]] 22:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I would have to say, he'd probably be more neutral, and be like your average American and have a little mix of both. He'd be for gun control, as he didn't promote violence and certainly wouldn't embrace the right for someone to take the life of someone else. Abortion, he'd be against of course. Gay marriage... well he didn't tell hookers to stop being hookers did he? I think that would be an interesting thing to think about. I really don't think he'd give a hard-lined no. He would certainly think though that both liberals and conservatives need to be much kinder to each other. And he honestly... probably wouldn't like our president. If anyone is wondering why, I'll gladly tell you why I think so.--[[User:Ronnyreg|Ronnyreg]] 06:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:Actually, He ''did'' tell hookers to stop being hookers. In the same breath He told men to stop picking them up, and He ''also'' told men to stop looking at women ''as if'' they (the men) wanted to pick them (the women) up.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Matthew|chap=5|verses=28-30|version=NASB}}</ref>
:And as regards weapons control, He once said that any man who didn't carry a sword ought to get one.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Luke|chap=22|verses=35-37|version=NASB}}</ref> That doesn't sound like being a proponent of gun control to me.
:And why wouldn't He like our President? On the contrary, He'd say that George W. Bush was and is doing exactly what a man in governing authority should do.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::I think he'd be telling Dubya to get the mote out of his own eye before he tried taking a beam out of another's. Or, to paraphrase, 'sort yourself out first.' [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 03:17, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::You got your motes and beams mixed up, but that's a minor quibble. The major point is this: you seem to be suggesting that the [[United States]] deserved to be attacked in the [[World Trade Center incident]]. That incident was the start of a war of [[Islam]] against [[Christianity]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:18, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Not for a minute do I think the United States 'deserved' to be attacked as it was on 9-11 (and a damned tense day it was - we were stood-to within minutes of the first strike and reverted to a lower alert status about three days later). However I do think Mr. Bush's response was not appropriate. The first principle of war is to correctly identify and locate the target. Target identification was not a problem - bin Laden and al-Qaeda promptly claimed responsibility for the attack - but localizing the target was and still is. And Iraq was entirely peripheral to the attack, particularly since the existence of WMDs in that country has become increasingly doubtful. As for your assertion that this is a war between Islam and Christianity, I also call that into question. There are any number of devout Muslims living and working in America, and serving in her armed forces. This is asymetric warfare against a numerically small band of extremists who came up with an effective way to strike at a powerful nation. At that, they didn't originate the idea; Tom Clancey did, in his book '''Debt of Honor''' - and he got raked over the coals by some who considered him to be almost a co-conspirator, because he had the nerve to write a fictional work exposing and discussing a potential weakness. Myself, I think if the administration of the day had paid attention to what he said, there might have been some thought given to how to avoid or deflect such an attack. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 16:11, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::You need to publish this on the Talk page of the article on the Iraq War. Not that I agree entirely with your analysis, but it still needs to be where a lot of people can read it and comment on it. That's all I have time to say right now, but I wanted you to know that I had seen it--and that I appreciate your intellectual honesty.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:22, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I think if Jesus was alive today he would be very disappointed in all of us for arguing and bickering so much about a religion with care, compassion, and love as its fundamental principles. Not sure what he would say about politics except that it must be the devil's work.
-Gasmonkey

Totally agreed. He didn't really follow any set authority. He might identify with causes of both sides, but he would never become involved in something as corrupt as politics, on either side.
-mikeyc252

He won't need to. When he returns, he'll just take over. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 00:11, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Scrap? That's the most logical thing I've seen on here so far. And I must say that I agree. --[steponme1623|steponme1623]] 11:22, 16 March 2007

It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven.[http://www.plyrics.com/lyrics/reaganyouth/jesuswasacommunist.html]]

Politics are human. Jesus is devine.--[[User:Mister Bug|Mister Bug]] 19:59, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::According to Revelations 19 Jesus is Lord of lords and Kings of kings so if he were here he would be setting up his own kingdom. And this is what is taking place in Revelations 19. Jesus is coming to the earth and when he gets here he will establish his kingdom. This is what we see Jesus doing in the Gospels of the Bible; he is establishing his kingdom by shedding his blood for his followers. Jesus is a king. [BJE]
Jesus would be independent. he would not support the war, so he might vote liberaly to insure it's end[[User:Pastafarian2|Pastafarian2]] 22:36, 8 January 2008 (EST)

== Anarchist ==
Jesus would realize that politics keep about 49% of the country unhappy with each decision. And what would Jesus want for his people other than to be happy? {{unsigned|Caboose84}}

I don't think Jesus cared about politics. Give Caesar back his money, and live a Christian life. The early disciples ran small anarchist communes according to Acts, but I think Jesus was too much concerned with having his followers feed the hungry voluntarily rather than creating efficient government programs to do it. Because of this, I think the lack of government and private property was his eventual goal, since if people are kind and voluntarily accept the authority of God, you wouldn't need either. -[[User:Danq|danq]] 18:45, 19 September 2009 (EDT)

== Socialist ==
Jesus was clearly embroiled in politics. Furthermore, Jesus was also set against the hierarchy of the time. Jesus was a radical, he may not have advocated violence, but he was certainly associated with leading Jewish "terrorists" of the time, even if it was to convince them to be pacifist.

Jesus main perogative was to address the failures of the market system established by Judaism, this does not mean Judaism was evil or anything of the sort. He simply developed the humanitarian aspect of the market. As such, Jesus was the first "socialist", or to a secularist, a leading left-wing thinker. there could be an arguement he simply reasserted aspects of Judaism, which he felt were not being upheld by the leaders of the faith.

From this perspective, a socialist would believe that if Jesus were here, he would be shocked at the idolisation of one person. That he was the cause of so many wars, and his work could be used against the people he sought to help. To Jesus, it would be the community that is most important. {{unsigned|JamesII}}

::A great place to see this is on the [[Social Democracy of America]], SDoA [http://www.socialdemocraticpartyofamerica.org/politicalspectrum.htm political spectrum] page which clearly shows the different levels from left to right within Christianity. {{AtleeYarrow}}

==Libertarian==
I get the definite feeling from the Sermon on the Mount that Jesus would be in favor of [[free trade]] and yet I think he'd be a pretty hippy dippy supporter of [[peace and love]]. [[User:Babbit|Babbit]]

== Stop it everyone ==
I'm fairly sure that trying to 'claim' Jesus in a political point-scoring game is fairly sacreligious. 'He would say' is putting words into his mouth; 'he did say' (eg Matt 5:43-48) is better. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]
: Is the question of what the ministry of Jesus says about the social issues are facing us in today's world not a valid one? That it is perfectly acceptable to quote the Bible as fact for historical references but not for social and moral ones? If the Bible is to be taken as literal truth or the source of salvation then it is important to look at what is said.
: The Old Testament is full of fire and Brimstone, but the New Testament is one of love and compassion - a new covenant with the Lord. In Galatians 5:6 we see Paul saying that one part of the Jewish law is not key to being saved (and by extension nor is the rest of it), that Jesus is part of a new covenant.
: I would be most disappointed if it was only acceptable to quote the Bible when it supports one vision and not others. How else is one to learn what salvation as a Christian means? Is it not the right thing to do to try to rehabilitate criminals? to protest the death penalty? to give to the poor? to make health care available to everyone?
: It is one thing to try to stamp out that which we do not like. It is quite another to try to promote that which is good. I would contend that it is better and more in tune with the new covenant to first promote good within ourselves and others than attempting to damn them. Matthew 5:44 is an excellent example of this. Luke 9:52-56 (especially verse 56) is an important read - "For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them."
: And so, I say again, that it is appropriate to look at the ministry of Jesus and how our own elected officials live up to that ideal and promote it in their legislation. It is this way, promote his ministry to the rest of the country and set an example of that love of all our citizens as an example for the rest of the world. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I'll say this for you, [[User:Mtur|Mtur]]: in the above presentation, you're scrupulously honest. I cannot agree that Jesus would side with you as regards the death penalty, government-enforced charity, or the proper policy regarding prisons and prisoners. (I can't use the actual, official word for this last discipline, because it sounds, frankly, obscene. But I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.) But I know now, from the above, that your theories arise from confusion as to exactly Who Jesus is, and the nature of His ''actual'' Mission.

:: That Mission is not primarily about charity; nor is it about the redistribution of wealth. That's a common-enough mistake. But Jesus' displeasure was not about the mere ''possession'' of great wealth but rather the ''worship'' of wealth. Some people actually think that money will buy them happiness. It won't, and it certainly won't buy them salvation--a thing that Jesus attempted to tell people again and again. But no reading of Scripture convinced me that He would confiscate people's substance for confiscation's sake.

:: Nor is charity the mission of government. {{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=13|verses=1-7|version=NASB}} tells us what the mission of government is: to stop by force people who employ force to do wrong against others.

:: Charity is an individual's business. Furthermore, I would argue--purely inductively, I admit--that God does not bless government welfare programs.

:: You spoke of rehabilitation. In this connection, let me quote the actor Burt Lancaster, in his romanticized portrait of Robert Stroud, the ''Birdman of Alcatraz''. Rehabilitation means ''to re-invest a person with dignity''. Where is the ''dignity'' in being an habitual client of the government? An empty belly can be as strong a chain as tempered steel. I see nothing ''dignified'' about the dormitory-style "housing projects," or the spectacle of people lining up at grilled windows for their latest allotment of food coupons and so on. Yes, people do line up--and they vote for those who will keep that money coming, with no thought to where the money is coming ''from''--but they pay a price more terrible than you can imagine. I know it, because I have seen it--up close and personal, as a temporary clerk in a welfare office, and as a clinical clerk in a charity hospital.

:: But for all that, at least in your last presentation you asked the right questions.

:: Be assured of this: a day will come when Jesus will rule directly on this earth. What place any of us will have in His regime, I will not speculate here. But on the ''nature'' of his regime I don't have to speculate; I have Scripture to give me some very strong hints. He will probably own all means of production, distribution, and exchange. He will build that "True Communism" of which the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics|Soviet Union]] long boasted--and ''only'' He will be able to make it work. Why? Because only He can be trusted with that kind of authority. Only He can examine qualifications, and ''assign'' people to various tasks, and make sure that everyone gets just what he needs, no less and no more than is good for him.

:: Any human who thinks he's up to that task is a strutting pretender, and not to be trusted. That's why we support [[capitalism]]--because it is the worst economic system ever invented, ''except'' for all the others that have human beings running them. (Furthermore, the Parables of the Talents and the Minas depend on a form of capitalism being in place, so no, Jesus did not condemn capital ''per se''.)

:: Until the day that Jesus rules directly on this earth, we do the best we can. But we do not do it by vesting in any government such powers as belong properly only to Him.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 21:32, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Give Unto Caesar What Is Caesars, Give Unto God What Is Gods. Give Unto Republican & Democrats What Is Republicans & Democrats, Give Unto God What Is Gods.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:35, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
Was Jesus a politician? No!! Would he be a politician today? Of course not!! All politics lays on a bed of corruption.... did Jesus say, "the Roman laws are bad, let's petition the Romans to change the law"? Of course not, the thought is absurd -- Jesus said "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" because Jesus intended for his followers to work outside the corruption of any political system.... supporting a set of values and using the coercive power of the state to enforce those values on non-believers are two different things.... [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 12:50, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

== Political words of Jesus ==
This debate is pretty ridiculous. Here is the political position of Jesus:

:Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant

:"Give to Ceasar what is Ceasars and to god what is gods"
:--[[User:Yellowlamp|Yellowlamp]] 18:48, 28 January 2008 (EST)

==Ahem==
Do you people have any idea why there are atheists? It isnt because of a broken home, or gays or anything. It is because of conversations like this. Attempting to turn Jesus into a political figure is the reason Gandhi said "I like your Christ, not your Christians. Your christians are so unlike your christ." With this argument, you are turning Jesus into a glorification of yourself. You are saying, "I AM JESUS". This debate is completely outside of respect and common sense. You claim you are trying to be more like this Jesus fellow you always blab about, but you are actually trying to turn jesus into yourself. You are just like Huckabee. "Jesus would support the death penalty, get drunk, watch nascar, and shoot the homasexuals". You are all idiots. And it makes me sick that you ACTUALLY belive what you are saying is right. And makes me want to move to Canada.

Yours, in all ways.
--[[User:MrSmiley|MrSmiley]] 15:09, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Well said! --[[User:Sforzando|Sforzando]] 12:32, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

==Monarchist==

Hey, his official title '''is''' "King of Kings". --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 15:46, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

==Honestly,==

Personally, I see him as a liberal. Now, it's not to be rude or mean or going against the wind here, but seriously, I've always seen Jesus more as a friend than as my King. I respect him, but I don't fear him. God is love, and you cannot fear that.

Anyway, back to the controversy, I find him a liberal because according to what I've read he was a reasonably layed-back guy. He preached equallity, [[Hippie|peace and love]]. Not that Jesus was a hippie, I also see him as very moralistic and very conservative in that sense. I just see.. a liberal believing in democracy and absolute freedom (the only thing God gave only to man was the ability of choice, absolute freedom).

But the Bible says that Christians are specifically supposed to fear God. How do you get around that? [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:57, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

Agreed. Jesus went against convention: Liberal -Nonobu

==Faulty Question==

Jesus is alive today. (The Resurrection.) [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:00, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

== References ==
<references/>

== He wouldn't. ==
He'd probably be a beggar, or a helper of the poor. He'd laugh and scoff at the televangelists making millions, who live in houses covered in gold.

And the vast majority of people here are just taking the idea of Jesus (Atheist here) and going "Yeah, he'd love this or this or this!" mostly because, well, he can't speak for himself. It's like when a person dies and people go "He'd be okay with this or this or this." I oughta know, I've seen in firsthand. --[[User:GunnerRecall|GunnerRecall]] 16:52, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

== The Fact That This Would Even Be Asked... ==
...is sickening. It shows that certain types of "christians" are fake, or naive. We have politicians claiming to be so religious to incite all the funementalists to go vote for them. It's disturbing. These religious and "family values" politicians are totally fake, ad these fundies who vote simply for religion have no concept of what it really takes to be a government official. As for this debate specificly... Jesus would laugh in your face. Politics have no business in what He would concern Himself with, which is most certainly NOT who to vote for.[[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 19:22, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

== He already answered ==

In the Synoptic gospels, there is the account of Jesus being tempted by the devil following his baptism. One of the temptations that Satan used was political power, which Jesus refused. Although, if he came back and were asked today, I do not think that he would care. --[[User:LincolnShuddered|LincolnShuddered]]

==Wait Till He Returns==
You will get a pretty good picture of His style of Government in Heaven. [[Baronvonbob]]

Debate: Is it possible for man to live a moral life without religion?

2010-01-06T16:58:38Z

Nonobu: /* Yes, it is possible */

{{debate}}

'''NOTE - PLEASE READ THE PREMISE SECTION BEFORE POSTING REPLIES - THANK YOU.'''

==Premise==

The inspiration for this debate topic comes from several sources, and is not meant to be an attack on religion. The main inspiration was contemplation about the novel ''The Lord of the Flies''. Is it the basic nature of man to devolve into savagery without moral guidance, or, given enough time, would man develop a moral framework to live by because of the inherent benefits to society? If so, could this happen without religion to frame the moral values against?

The related question is that if one assumes that religion is required for man to live a moral life, then what are the essential characteristics that religion must have in order for its adherents to live a moral life. Catholics, Jews, Protestants and Muslims follow different tenets of faith, but it would be wrong to call someone immoral simply because they are devout in one faith and not another. That implies that there's a common baseline of morality to certain faiths, and that a person who follows those aspects of that faith would be leading a moral life.

The purpose of this debate is not to come up with simplistic yes/no or right/wrong answers, but to use a thoughtful question to allow members of the CP community to express their views on the subject so that others can develop new insights from reading them.

==Yes, it is possible==

I don't want to write volumes here so I am going to refer people to a good book on this topic that I read recently. It is "Primates and Philosophers" by Frans de Waal. De Waal is a primatologist. The premise of the book is that the great apes exhibit behaviors that are the basis of moral action. So morality appears to have a evolutionary basis. De Waal also points to cross cultural studies of moral decision making that suggest that some moral thinking is basically hardwired and not dependent on cultural belief systems (including religious beliefs). It's pretty fascinating stuff.

The common belief seems to be that the theory of evolution and the phrase "survival of the fittest" means that brute force and violence are the route to evolutionary success. In fact, all sorts of physical and behavioral adaptations can be successful. In the great apes, social behaviors that promote cooperation, empathy and sharing have proven to be successful strategies for survival. [[User:MikeAndrews|MikeAndrews]] 09:52, 19 January 2009 (EST)

:I believe it's absolutely possible. Whether one believes that we carry a divine spark or not, the reality is that we are all born as atheists in the sense that we have no knowledge of who or what to worship until we are taught by others. There is no reason to believe that a child could not be raised in a society where there no exposure to religion, but a thorough grounding in ethical values instead, and have that child grow up to lead a fulfilling and productive life. Cooperative society works better than every-man-for-himself anarchy, and that social factor along with the rule of civil & criminal law would be enough incentive to do the right thing or face material consequences. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 19:54, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Yes, I daily witness others that seem to live a proper life. Most consider a person moral if they are a law-abiding citizen. I can split hairs on morals. Can you live a moral life without knowing morals? In the Roman Catholic Act of Contrition it says "in what I have done and what I have failed to do." You can be a good person but fail to reach Heaven because your good human nature is not enough. Having morals is not enough, you need God in your life.--[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 20:59, 19 February 2009 (EST)

:I'm not sure that a law-abiding life and a moral life are the same thing. If I want to kill, steal, and otherwise do horrid things, and I only refrain because I'm afraid of getting caught and punished, am I, in fact, a moral person? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:14, 19 February 2009 (EST)

::That's the irony of it. You didn't commit a crime (law-abiding) but want to or fear the consequences (not moral). You are still perceived as being good when in fact you are not. Or the person that wants to do crime thinks they are moral for not committing the crime, they are still not. Can you be good without religion? Yes --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 21:47, 19 February 2009 (EST)

:::I think it's possible to be good without being religious, Jpatt. I was raised a Roman Catholic, and was taught (in my case at least) that because of original sin and man's inherently flawed nature, I was born into a less-than-moral state and had to use my life to follow God's guidance back into morality and grace. Could it also be true, though, that living a moral life for its own sake reaps its own rewards in this life?
:::I've just been laid off from my job, for example, and have to spend the next 30 days training my colleagues to take over my functions to get my severance package. It could be tempting to make the least possible effort at training so that when I'm gone, the company will acutely feel the loss. That's not the moral thing to do, though, and I'm giving the transition my best effort. What's relevant is that I'm not doing it because a poor effort would cost me my severance, I'm doing it because I like my colleagues and don't want their performance to suffer because I didn't help equip them to succeed. You can be just as missed by leaving on a high note of professionalism as you can by leaving with a petty "since you don't need me, you figure it out" bailout. The former helps you more in life, though, because it's a small world and people have long memories. You can find that in life it's better to do the moral thing for the long term happiness and benefits it brings to you, and not just to avoid negative consequences. Making the moral choice in how I leave this job has nothing to do with religion, but it's a moral choice all the same. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 23:10, 19 February 2009 (EST)

::::I agree 100%, I forgot my 'yes' at the end of my last statement. Sorry to hear about the job, certainly not good news. I'll be praying for you this week, new employment at the same pay scale. --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 23:36, 19 February 2009 (EST)
:::::Thanks for the kind thoughts - being cut in a weak economy isn't fun, but this happened once before to me in the 1990's and the job I landed in turned out to be better than the one I was laid off from. My hope isn't so much for a job with the same pay, but one that doesn't cost me time with my family. I have some special-needs kids, and I'd take a pay cut to be able to telecommute or work on flex-time as I do now to be there when they need me. The companies that offer this will be rewarded by incredibly loyal employees. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 23:47, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Doesn't anybody read Kant anymore? Helloooo, categorical imperative? Kant doesn't mention religion at all in his works, and he's 99% right in his moral philosophy that says, basically, do not do anything that, if universally applied, would eventually contradict itself. Murder without reason, for example, fails this rule. [[User:Ckral|Ckral]]

Yes. In Dante's "Inferno", the very first level of Hell is Limbo, realm of the virtuous pagans. They are not punished there, but then, they lack paradise. Dante’s work is not an authoritative source, but his ideas are reasonable and I agree with them. In Biblical times, surely in the all the lands without Christianity there were some virtuous people, and if there were even just one, God would not consign him to eternal torment in Hell.-David

Yes. I do. In short, my morals rely on respect. The argument that we need religion for morals is because of a fear of a higher power punishing us for breaking laws of morality. Morality is a social construct depending on environment, not always a spiritual one. -Nonobu

==No, it is not possible==

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here. While I believe it is possible for an individual man not to profess a religion and still live according to a code of morals, I do not believe that it is possible for Man, collectively, to do so. Simply put: I believe that the development of concepts of morality and justice are so inextricably linked to religion as to be inseparable.

The moral man who does not profess faith in God is nonetheless informed by religious concepts of morality; thus, he is NOT living a moral life without religion. He is simply living a moral life in which religion is not the central fact. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:05, 19 February 2009 (EST)

:Those are interesting thoughts, but let me put an alternate premise forward. Most religions tend to have common values, like prohibitions against murder, stealing, deceit, etc. Given how wildly different some faiths can be, monotheism vs. pantheism for one example, isn't it more likely that man is inclined to develop moral codes that grow in sophistication along with their societies, and that these common, human-centric values are superimposed on different faiths rather than different faiths coincidentally arriving at the same moral codes? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:32, 19 February 2009 (EST)

::I would suggest that such a hypothesis is at least partially testable, thus:
:::1. Is there historical evidence of a civilization where concepts of morality and justice developed in the absence of religion, or before religion?
:::2. Is there evidence that a civilization can maintain concepts of justice and morality in the long term in the absence of religion?
:::To the best of my knowledge, no such evidence exists. Moreover, in the absence of God, I would want to know ''why'' those moral codes seem to be relatively universal. I think that you have to really strain credulity to claim that they're all due to biological imperatives. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:12, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Debate: Is it possible for man to live a moral life without religion?

2010-01-06T16:58:12Z

Nonobu: /* Yes, it is possible */

{{debate}}

'''NOTE - PLEASE READ THE PREMISE SECTION BEFORE POSTING REPLIES - THANK YOU.'''

==Premise==

The inspiration for this debate topic comes from several sources, and is not meant to be an attack on religion. The main inspiration was contemplation about the novel ''The Lord of the Flies''. Is it the basic nature of man to devolve into savagery without moral guidance, or, given enough time, would man develop a moral framework to live by because of the inherent benefits to society? If so, could this happen without religion to frame the moral values against?

The related question is that if one assumes that religion is required for man to live a moral life, then what are the essential characteristics that religion must have in order for its adherents to live a moral life. Catholics, Jews, Protestants and Muslims follow different tenets of faith, but it would be wrong to call someone immoral simply because they are devout in one faith and not another. That implies that there's a common baseline of morality to certain faiths, and that a person who follows those aspects of that faith would be leading a moral life.

The purpose of this debate is not to come up with simplistic yes/no or right/wrong answers, but to use a thoughtful question to allow members of the CP community to express their views on the subject so that others can develop new insights from reading them.

==Yes, it is possible==

I don't want to write volumes here so I am going to refer people to a good book on this topic that I read recently. It is "Primates and Philosophers" by Frans de Waal. De Waal is a primatologist. The premise of the book is that the great apes exhibit behaviors that are the basis of moral action. So morality appears to have a evolutionary basis. De Waal also points to cross cultural studies of moral decision making that suggest that some moral thinking is basically hardwired and not dependent on cultural belief systems (including religious beliefs). It's pretty fascinating stuff.

The common belief seems to be that the theory of evolution and the phrase "survival of the fittest" means that brute force and violence are the route to evolutionary success. In fact, all sorts of physical and behavioral adaptations can be successful. In the great apes, social behaviors that promote cooperation, empathy and sharing have proven to be successful strategies for survival. [[User:MikeAndrews|MikeAndrews]] 09:52, 19 January 2009 (EST)

:I believe it's absolutely possible. Whether one believes that we carry a divine spark or not, the reality is that we are all born as atheists in the sense that we have no knowledge of who or what to worship until we are taught by others. There is no reason to believe that a child could not be raised in a society where there no exposure to religion, but a thorough grounding in ethical values instead, and have that child grow up to lead a fulfilling and productive life. Cooperative society works better than every-man-for-himself anarchy, and that social factor along with the rule of civil & criminal law would be enough incentive to do the right thing or face material consequences. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 19:54, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Yes, I daily witness others that seem to live a proper life. Most consider a person moral if they are a law-abiding citizen. I can split hairs on morals. Can you live a moral life without knowing morals? In the Roman Catholic Act of Contrition it says "in what I have done and what I have failed to do." You can be a good person but fail to reach Heaven because your good human nature is not enough. Having morals is not enough, you need God in your life.--[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 20:59, 19 February 2009 (EST)

:I'm not sure that a law-abiding life and a moral life are the same thing. If I want to kill, steal, and otherwise do horrid things, and I only refrain because I'm afraid of getting caught and punished, am I, in fact, a moral person? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:14, 19 February 2009 (EST)

::That's the irony of it. You didn't commit a crime (law-abiding) but want to or fear the consequences (not moral). You are still perceived as being good when in fact you are not. Or the person that wants to do crime thinks they are moral for not committing the crime, they are still not. Can you be good without religion? Yes --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 21:47, 19 February 2009 (EST)

:::I think it's possible to be good without being religious, Jpatt. I was raised a Roman Catholic, and was taught (in my case at least) that because of original sin and man's inherently flawed nature, I was born into a less-than-moral state and had to use my life to follow God's guidance back into morality and grace. Could it also be true, though, that living a moral life for its own sake reaps its own rewards in this life?
:::I've just been laid off from my job, for example, and have to spend the next 30 days training my colleagues to take over my functions to get my severance package. It could be tempting to make the least possible effort at training so that when I'm gone, the company will acutely feel the loss. That's not the moral thing to do, though, and I'm giving the transition my best effort. What's relevant is that I'm not doing it because a poor effort would cost me my severance, I'm doing it because I like my colleagues and don't want their performance to suffer because I didn't help equip them to succeed. You can be just as missed by leaving on a high note of professionalism as you can by leaving with a petty "since you don't need me, you figure it out" bailout. The former helps you more in life, though, because it's a small world and people have long memories. You can find that in life it's better to do the moral thing for the long term happiness and benefits it brings to you, and not just to avoid negative consequences. Making the moral choice in how I leave this job has nothing to do with religion, but it's a moral choice all the same. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 23:10, 19 February 2009 (EST)

::::I agree 100%, I forgot my 'yes' at the end of my last statement. Sorry to hear about the job, certainly not good news. I'll be praying for you this week, new employment at the same pay scale. --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 23:36, 19 February 2009 (EST)
:::::Thanks for the kind thoughts - being cut in a weak economy isn't fun, but this happened once before to me in the 1990's and the job I landed in turned out to be better than the one I was laid off from. My hope isn't so much for a job with the same pay, but one that doesn't cost me time with my family. I have some special-needs kids, and I'd take a pay cut to be able to telecommute or work on flex-time as I do now to be there when they need me. The companies that offer this will be rewarded by incredibly loyal employees. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 23:47, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Doesn't anybody read Kant anymore? Helloooo, categorical imperative? Kant doesn't mention religion at all in his works, and he's 99% right in his moral philosophy that says, basically, do not do anything that, if universally applied, would eventually contradict itself. Murder without reason, for example, fails this rule. [[User:Ckral|Ckral]]

Yes. In Dante's "Inferno", the very first level of Hell is Limbo, realm of the virtuous pagans. They are not punished there, but then, they lack paradise. Dante’s work is not an authoritative source, but his ideas are reasonable and I agree with them. In Biblical times, surely in the all the lands without Christianity there were some virtuous people, and if there were even just one, God would not consign him to eternal torment in Hell.-David

Yes. I do. In short, my morals rely on respect. The argument that we need religion for morals is because of a fear of a higher power punishing us for breaking laws of morality. Morality is a social construct depending on environment, not always a spiritual one.

==No, it is not possible==

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here. While I believe it is possible for an individual man not to profess a religion and still live according to a code of morals, I do not believe that it is possible for Man, collectively, to do so. Simply put: I believe that the development of concepts of morality and justice are so inextricably linked to religion as to be inseparable.

The moral man who does not profess faith in God is nonetheless informed by religious concepts of morality; thus, he is NOT living a moral life without religion. He is simply living a moral life in which religion is not the central fact. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:05, 19 February 2009 (EST)

:Those are interesting thoughts, but let me put an alternate premise forward. Most religions tend to have common values, like prohibitions against murder, stealing, deceit, etc. Given how wildly different some faiths can be, monotheism vs. pantheism for one example, isn't it more likely that man is inclined to develop moral codes that grow in sophistication along with their societies, and that these common, human-centric values are superimposed on different faiths rather than different faiths coincidentally arriving at the same moral codes? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:32, 19 February 2009 (EST)

::I would suggest that such a hypothesis is at least partially testable, thus:
:::1. Is there historical evidence of a civilization where concepts of morality and justice developed in the absence of religion, or before religion?
:::2. Is there evidence that a civilization can maintain concepts of justice and morality in the long term in the absence of religion?
:::To the best of my knowledge, no such evidence exists. Moreover, in the absence of God, I would want to know ''why'' those moral codes seem to be relatively universal. I think that you have to really strain credulity to claim that they're all due to biological imperatives. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:12, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Debate:Should students learn a foreign language?

2010-01-06T16:33:49Z

Nonobu:

{{debate}}

Would Latin, Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic be considered examples of foreign languages? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:40, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

No, I don't see a real point. I'd rather kids learn German, Arabic, Farsi, Mandarin, or some other useful language in school rather than Italian, Spanish and French. I'd also rather we start teaching kids foreign languages much earlier before English Language patterns are set.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 19:45, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Spanish can be useful down in South-West US, places such as Arizona or New Mexico, so I don't see the problem with it.. But French is such a commonly taught language in North America; how useful is it really? Anyways, I quite agree with what Elamdri states.--[[User:Blzorav|Blozrav]]
:When I say useful, I mean languages that are more sought after in the business and government spheres. Yeah, Spanish can be helpful if you work at McDonalds in New Mexico, but other than that, your limited. German and especially Mandarin are the other two languages of big business besides English. Farsi and Arabic are important languages right now for anyone looking into careers in government, military, and espionage.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 19:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::You do know that there are countries to the south of the United States right? You do know that these countries represent one of the largest trading blocks to the United States? Just wondering. --[[User:Raytrotter|Raytrotter]] 20:09, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:::They aren't going to be NEARLY as important in the near future as Southeast Asia is.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:24, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::Having worked at a Burger King in New Mexico, I'm pretty sure it's not going to be all that useful. If you want to work at a decent restaurant here, though, Spanish might help. Or, you know, if you want to attempt to talk to the people who do the jobs you don't want to do, keep the American economy from collapse, etc. [[User:IMFromKathlene|IMFromKathlene]] 01:18, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I was being sarcastic. Of course Spanish is useful, but it is more of a region specific language. If you aren't doing business in the southwestern United States, then its practically pointless. Someone like me in the Midwest has no use for it. French and Italian are so pointless they aren't even worth mentioning.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:24, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Unless you plan on, say, doing business with people who speak those languages. We're a country of immigrants, so we're going to have quite a few people who aren't speaking English here. Additionally, the more international the world becomes the more useful-- moneywise as well as culturewise-- it will be to be able to communicate with people who don't speak English. Expecting everyone to learn our language just because we have a puffed up idea of ourselves is naive at best and xenophobic at worst. [[User:IMFromKathlene|IMFromKathlene]] 03:31, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Your mistaking what I say. For starters, most people learn those languages in high school. Now, how many high school students honestly know they want to do business with people that speak that language? Besides, for the most part, if your an immigrant to the United States, you pick up the basic English needed to survive or you have your children do it for you. With most immigrant families that I have come across, the native tongue dies out after the first generation, because the children simply learn the English and rarely speak the older language. It isn't a bad thing to expect everyone who lives IN the United States to learn English. And honestly, because it is the established lingua franca, I don't see much harm in asking people around the world to agree to an already established common language (unless your really into all that Revelations stuff). If we don't do it now, we might loose our chance if China surpasses us.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:41, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::High school students don't know a lot of things about what they do with their lives-- that doesn't mean we should put off letting them choose between Statistics and Calculus until they decide what business they want to go into. I really wish they would've done more foreign language stuff when I was a little kid, though-- I might just be bitter/annoyed at myself that I still don't know Spanish despite having lived in New Mexico for almost 17 years. Oh, and one other thing-- I seriously doubt we're going to have a problem with people needing to learn Chinese. Chinese is terrifyingly difficult. Japanese, Arabic and Farsi, though-- we're going to need a lot more people speaking those really soon.
:::::::I dunno, what happens if China does become the economic juggernaut that some have predicted?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

PS: Oh, and I have one other reason I want everyone to use Spanish: maybe English will come to its senses and pick up a second person pronoun other than "ya'll." Ustedes FTW.[[User:IMFromKathlene|IMFromKathlene]] 03:53, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::English language tip: the correct spelling of the second-person pronoun in English is "y'all", not "ya'll". Go back to Mexico where you belong, Kathlene!! --[[User:Madonna|Madonna]] 09:49, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Ah, okay, I get what you mean. Thanks! --[[User:Blzorav|Blozrav]]

Generally speaking, yes. Being bilingual never hurts. People whose native language is English/American have a sort of choice since it's a very widely-used language. Everybody else should at least learn English as a second language. For the English-speaking people, I'd suggest French, German, or something like that, if just to appreciate how easy English is. ;) Overall, it depends on what you want to do, like Elamdri pointed out. But being able to communicate in a language other than your first one can be a true asset. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:04, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:In my opinion, being bilingual is just a boon really. There's always going to be SOMEONE who knows the language, so really, unless we come across some sort of shortage on translators, we really don't have a problem. Plus, English is pretty much the lingua franca these days. If you go almost anywhere worth going on this rock, you can probably get by just knowing English ("Getting by" in not really the best way to travel though, so its best to invest in some sort of guide if you can). I would however advise against French. Its rather case specific in it's use, and like Spanish, some English and Italian, it's Latin based, meaning that the words share common roots. This makes Spanish, French, and Italian somewhat easier to learn for English speaking students. Thus, people who speak these as a second language are more "dime a dozen." Non Latin based languages, especially the Asia and Middle Eastern languages, are much harder for English speaking students to learn. This means that people who aren't from those regions, who know those languages, are in higher demand. Also, jobs that tend to require those specific skills tend to be much more high profile careers.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Your best bets for a second langauge would be any language formerly used by a colonial power. Spanish, French, German, Portugese, and Dutch are languages that are spoken throughout the world. Some variant of Chinese or Japanese would be helpful too, but good luck learning Chinese languages.

In my experience, Spanish is very useful in business and German not at all. I even have several German clients (Deutsche Bank, Bayerische Hypo- und Veriensbank, Commerzbank, Dow Olefinverbund GmbH, and others, but (i) the people who work there disproportionately speak English and (ii) outside of Germany, Switzerland and Austria, virtually no one else does. While I have no clients based in Spanish speaking countries, the number of business opportunities that arise in Latin America are quite substantial. They have an abundance of natural resources and often need first-world help to exploit them. I *wish* I spoke Spanish (or Portuguese, for Brazil alone). --[[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 03:34, 09 April 2007 (EDT)
:Key word there being '''exploit'''.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

In order to really understand another country or culture it is mandatory to speak its language.

[[Media:Example.ogg]]== YES ==

Yes you should learn one other language then your own, it REALLY makes your mind work hard
and raises the level of your understanding of many things.
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 20:08, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

I'm currently learning both Spanish (in which I'm pretty fluent) and Mandarin (which is way less difficult than some people say it is; no crazy verb tenses to worry about), and I definitely agree that knowing a second language is very important in today's world. The whole "everyone should speak English" idea is wildly outdated. If you compare English verb morphology and possessives to other languages, you see why. English, unless it's your first language, is probably the most difficult language to learn. While I don't meet people every day who only speak Spanish or Mandarin, it's still useful to know the languages and learning a foreign language is intellectually stimulating.
--SapphoChan17

If our country is gaining immigrants and trading with more countries than ever before, learning a second language would be essential to maybe gain a better job or promotion, or maybe to meet new people.
--JPBrick

This being my first edit I apologise if I'm somehow messing up the structure. Being European I figured it might be interesting to add something about my perspective on languages. Since Europe is roughly of the same size as the US (on a very general scale that is), but consists of some 50 nations using some 30 languages our situation is very different from the US, where even the largest neighbour to the North mainly speaks the same language. In Europe most people learn at least one foreign language from third or fourth grade. Personally I took English for ten years (3rd to 12th) and German for 5 (7th to 11th), then some Russian while in the military, and Dutch as an exchange student in the Netherlands during college. Having countries with different languages virtually around the corner shows you the use for knowing languages in a more direct way than a remote possibility in your future professional life. I do believe however that knowing a foreign language is never 'bad' as in being a waste. As someone pointed out above it is not possible to fully understand a culture without knowing the language of the culture. Which language to start with is of course a matter of discussion. Considering the growth of the Chinese impact I guess you could say everone should learn Chinese of some form, but in the US I assume Spanish (or possibly French) might come to more immediate use.
I'd also like to point out that the more languages you know, the easier it becomes to learn more.
--SwedeSteve

Yes, learning a foreign language expands young minds and allows them to learn from other perspectives. In an ever globalizing world, whether you support globalization or not, learning a foreign language is useful for communication. When children grow up they are bound to meet foreigners at some time in their lives. Also, learning a foreign language cause students to use their brains in different ways. It has been proven that different parts of the brain "light up" when people start thinking in different languages. Of course learning a foreign language should be optional but I highly recommend it. I took latin and I'm not going to be a doctor or anything but it gave me an understanding of the origins of the english language and increased my vocabulary. Language and writing is the foundation of civilization and we should do our best to enhance our understanding of the world. -Nonobu

Only if they desire to learn one--[[User:TedM|TedM]] 23:22, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Only if they desire to live in a global community --[[User:LincolnShuddered|LincolnShuddered]]

Debate:Should students learn a foreign language?

2010-01-06T16:32:47Z

Nonobu:

{{debate}}

Would Latin, Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic be considered examples of foreign languages? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:40, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

No, I don't see a real point. I'd rather kids learn German, Arabic, Farsi, Mandarin, or some other useful language in school rather than Italian, Spanish and French. I'd also rather we start teaching kids foreign languages much earlier before English Language patterns are set.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 19:45, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Spanish can be useful down in South-West US, places such as Arizona or New Mexico, so I don't see the problem with it.. But French is such a commonly taught language in North America; how useful is it really? Anyways, I quite agree with what Elamdri states.--[[User:Blzorav|Blozrav]]
:When I say useful, I mean languages that are more sought after in the business and government spheres. Yeah, Spanish can be helpful if you work at McDonalds in New Mexico, but other than that, your limited. German and especially Mandarin are the other two languages of big business besides English. Farsi and Arabic are important languages right now for anyone looking into careers in government, military, and espionage.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 19:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::You do know that there are countries to the south of the United States right? You do know that these countries represent one of the largest trading blocks to the United States? Just wondering. --[[User:Raytrotter|Raytrotter]] 20:09, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:::They aren't going to be NEARLY as important in the near future as Southeast Asia is.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:24, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::Having worked at a Burger King in New Mexico, I'm pretty sure it's not going to be all that useful. If you want to work at a decent restaurant here, though, Spanish might help. Or, you know, if you want to attempt to talk to the people who do the jobs you don't want to do, keep the American economy from collapse, etc. [[User:IMFromKathlene|IMFromKathlene]] 01:18, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I was being sarcastic. Of course Spanish is useful, but it is more of a region specific language. If you aren't doing business in the southwestern United States, then its practically pointless. Someone like me in the Midwest has no use for it. French and Italian are so pointless they aren't even worth mentioning.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:24, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Unless you plan on, say, doing business with people who speak those languages. We're a country of immigrants, so we're going to have quite a few people who aren't speaking English here. Additionally, the more international the world becomes the more useful-- moneywise as well as culturewise-- it will be to be able to communicate with people who don't speak English. Expecting everyone to learn our language just because we have a puffed up idea of ourselves is naive at best and xenophobic at worst. [[User:IMFromKathlene|IMFromKathlene]] 03:31, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Your mistaking what I say. For starters, most people learn those languages in high school. Now, how many high school students honestly know they want to do business with people that speak that language? Besides, for the most part, if your an immigrant to the United States, you pick up the basic English needed to survive or you have your children do it for you. With most immigrant families that I have come across, the native tongue dies out after the first generation, because the children simply learn the English and rarely speak the older language. It isn't a bad thing to expect everyone who lives IN the United States to learn English. And honestly, because it is the established lingua franca, I don't see much harm in asking people around the world to agree to an already established common language (unless your really into all that Revelations stuff). If we don't do it now, we might loose our chance if China surpasses us.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:41, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::High school students don't know a lot of things about what they do with their lives-- that doesn't mean we should put off letting them choose between Statistics and Calculus until they decide what business they want to go into. I really wish they would've done more foreign language stuff when I was a little kid, though-- I might just be bitter/annoyed at myself that I still don't know Spanish despite having lived in New Mexico for almost 17 years. Oh, and one other thing-- I seriously doubt we're going to have a problem with people needing to learn Chinese. Chinese is terrifyingly difficult. Japanese, Arabic and Farsi, though-- we're going to need a lot more people speaking those really soon.
:::::::I dunno, what happens if China does become the economic juggernaut that some have predicted?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

PS: Oh, and I have one other reason I want everyone to use Spanish: maybe English will come to its senses and pick up a second person pronoun other than "ya'll." Ustedes FTW.[[User:IMFromKathlene|IMFromKathlene]] 03:53, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::English language tip: the correct spelling of the second-person pronoun in English is "y'all", not "ya'll". Go back to Mexico where you belong, Kathlene!! --[[User:Madonna|Madonna]] 09:49, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Ah, okay, I get what you mean. Thanks! --[[User:Blzorav|Blozrav]]

Generally speaking, yes. Being bilingual never hurts. People whose native language is English/American have a sort of choice since it's a very widely-used language. Everybody else should at least learn English as a second language. For the English-speaking people, I'd suggest French, German, or something like that, if just to appreciate how easy English is. ;) Overall, it depends on what you want to do, like Elamdri pointed out. But being able to communicate in a language other than your first one can be a true asset. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:04, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:In my opinion, being bilingual is just a boon really. There's always going to be SOMEONE who knows the language, so really, unless we come across some sort of shortage on translators, we really don't have a problem. Plus, English is pretty much the lingua franca these days. If you go almost anywhere worth going on this rock, you can probably get by just knowing English ("Getting by" in not really the best way to travel though, so its best to invest in some sort of guide if you can). I would however advise against French. Its rather case specific in it's use, and like Spanish, some English and Italian, it's Latin based, meaning that the words share common roots. This makes Spanish, French, and Italian somewhat easier to learn for English speaking students. Thus, people who speak these as a second language are more "dime a dozen." Non Latin based languages, especially the Asia and Middle Eastern languages, are much harder for English speaking students to learn. This means that people who aren't from those regions, who know those languages, are in higher demand. Also, jobs that tend to require those specific skills tend to be much more high profile careers.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Your best bets for a second langauge would be any language formerly used by a colonial power. Spanish, French, German, Portugese, and Dutch are languages that are spoken throughout the world. Some variant of Chinese or Japanese would be helpful too, but good luck learning Chinese languages.

In my experience, Spanish is very useful in business and German not at all. I even have several German clients (Deutsche Bank, Bayerische Hypo- und Veriensbank, Commerzbank, Dow Olefinverbund GmbH, and others, but (i) the people who work there disproportionately speak English and (ii) outside of Germany, Switzerland and Austria, virtually no one else does. While I have no clients based in Spanish speaking countries, the number of business opportunities that arise in Latin America are quite substantial. They have an abundance of natural resources and often need first-world help to exploit them. I *wish* I spoke Spanish (or Portuguese, for Brazil alone). --[[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 03:34, 09 April 2007 (EDT)
:Key word there being '''exploit'''.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

In order to really understand another country or culture it is mandatory to speak its language.

[[Media:Example.ogg]]== YES ==

Yes you should learn one other language then your own, it REALLY makes your mind work hard
and raises the level of your understanding of many things.
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 20:08, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

I'm currently learning both Spanish (in which I'm pretty fluent) and Mandarin (which is way less difficult than some people say it is; no crazy verb tenses to worry about), and I definitely agree that knowing a second language is very important in today's world. The whole "everyone should speak English" idea is wildly outdated. If you compare English verb morphology and possessives to other languages, you see why. English, unless it's your first language, is probably the most difficult language to learn. While I don't meet people every day who only speak Spanish or Mandarin, it's still useful to know the languages and learning a foreign language is intellectually stimulating.
--SapphoChan17

If our country is gaining immigrants and trading with more countries than ever before, learning a second language would be essential to maybe gain a better job or promotion, or maybe to meet new people.
--JPBrick

This being my first edit I apologise if I'm somehow messing up the structure. Being European I figured it might be interesting to add something about my perspective on languages. Since Europe is roughly of the same size as the US (on a very general scale that is), but consists of some 50 nations using some 30 languages our situation is very different from the US, where even the largest neighbour to the North mainly speaks the same language. In Europe most people learn at least one foreign language from third or fourth grade. Personally I took English for ten years (3rd to 12th) and German for 5 (7th to 11th), then some Russian while in the military, and Dutch as an exchange student in the Netherlands during college. Having countries with different languages virtually around the corner shows you the use for knowing languages in a more direct way than a remote possibility in your future professional life. I do believe however that knowing a foreign language is never 'bad' as in being a waste. As someone pointed out above it is not possible to fully understand a culture without knowing the language of the culture. Which language to start with is of course a matter of discussion. Considering the growth of the Chinese impact I guess you could say everone should learn Chinese of some form, but in the US I assume Spanish (or possibly French) might come to more immediate use.
I'd also like to point out that the more languages you know, the easier it becomes to learn more.
--SwedeSteve

Yes, learning a foreign language expands young minds and allows them to learn from other perspectives. In an ever globalizing world, whether you support globalization or not, learning a foreign language is useful for communication. When children grow up they are bound to meet foreigners at some time in their lives. Also, learning a foreign language cause students to use their brains in different ways. It has been proven that different parts of the brain "light up" when people start thinking in different languages. Of course learning a foreign language should be optional but I highly recommend it. I took latin and I'm not going to be a doctor or anything but it gave me an understanding of the origins of the english language and increased my vocabulary. Language and writing is the foundation of civilization and we should do our best to enhance our understanding of the world.

Only if they desire to learn one--[[User:TedM|TedM]] 23:22, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Only if they desire to live in a global community --[[User:LincolnShuddered|LincolnShuddered]]

Debate:Should marijuana be legalized?

2010-01-06T13:43:22Z

Nonobu: /* No */

==Yes==
Yes, it's less addictive than nicotine, less harmful than alcohol, and thousands of people go to prison for possession. If it were legalized, scum bag drug dealers would be out of jobs, the price would plummet, drug lords would be nothing, the cops would be freer to pursue the hard drugs, and the prisons would be emptier. Smoking marijuana certainly isn't something I'd advocate, but I'd rather be an occasional weed smoker than a habitual tobacco smoker. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 11:29, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

It seems to be working in the Netherlands quite well, the few dealers there only sell to minors who're not allowed to buy it in a store.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Lots of things work better in the Liberal Netherlands.
If you compare the Netherlands with a less liberal small, densely populated western European democracy, like Britain, you see that of binge drinking, teenage pregnancy, and drug abuse are much higher. The UK, with it's tougher stance on alcohol, prostitution and illegal drugs has been voted by UNICEF as one of the worst places in the western world to be a child. The US is not far behind. This survey suggests that a more liberal society is a happier, healthier and safer society for children.[http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/021407HA.shtml].
--[[User:Eyupdutch|Eyupdutch]] 11:22, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::I do not understand why we see this and the prohibition against alcohol as separate issues. I know I am more of a libertarian for saying this, but why do we have the right to stop a consenting adult from doing this in the privacy of their own home? That just seems stupid to me. As for all the arguments in favor of a continued ban, what have they amounted to? More money to drug dealers, more people in prison, etc.... I would much rather see people try it, find out it is basically the same as alcohol (in terms of a ''buzz'') and then move on with their lives. And the vast, vast majority would move on. It is not addictive in the way tobacco is. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Cannabis would become less dangerous if the government could regulate it. If say, you traded the right to drive for the right to smoke pot, there should be fewer accidents caused by marijuana intoxication. If it's legal, the government can set a limit on how much is too much, like blood alcohol content. Lives of government officials would be saved from the war on drugs. Money would move away from the black market and places like Columbia. Plus, the government could tax it for extra revenue.--[[User:Smedricksman24|Smedricksman24]] 03:00, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

The way I see it marijuana is just as-or less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco products and they're legalized so why not marijuana too? --[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 04:22, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Legalize it so you can regulate it.

Totally! Not only for medical reasons...people will stop drinking and driving and move onto smoking and flying...one other thing though:
What about the smoking ban, I mean, will people be able to smoke in public places or will there be special areas in cities, or will we have the same rules that we do about smoking cigarettes.
Also, one question, does the smoking ban include cigars 'cos they are P.I.M.P whereas cigarettes are rather townie.
Just a wondering :) [User:bealecr] 15:57, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

It should be legalized, because it's none of the government's damn business what I do on my own property so long as it stays on my own property, and does not make me violent or suicidal or such.... That differentiates marijuana from cocaine, heroin, opium, pcp, lsd, even perscription drugs of abuse.... Plus, if it's legal it can be regulated more effectively - people smoke pot now and they go to drug dealers to get it, dealers who also want to sell them more dangerous drugs.... but if it is legal, people will go to the corner drugstore to get it from someone who won't even sell cigarettes to a 17-yr old. So I say make it legal for persons over 21 to buy, and if a handful do irresponsible things because of it, punish those irresponsible things, not all of society!! [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 23:38, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

By outlawing drugs, we have effectively turned over a huge section of the economy to criminals. Because they operate outside effective regulation, they pursue unethical marketing practices that are not allowed by legitimate businesses. They operate a multi-level marketing system where new users are recruited through free samples and peer pressure, and the victims can be any age. Once regular users, the victims then have an incentive to recruit other victims to pay for their habit. When new drugs arrive they use the distribution systems which are already set up, which is why cocaine penetrated the US market so quickly in the 1980s. The result is that outlawing drugs leads to higher usage. That is why the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada have higher rates of drug use and addiction than the Netherlands.

In addition to the damage that drugs cause, the activities of drug dealers have created an even greater crime problem as they battle for control of this profitable business. And of course many drug users turn to crime to support their habits.

Furthermore, it is a huge waste that the United States keeps one percent of its population in prison, mostly for drug-related offences, let alone the huge financial costs of law enforcement.

All of these are the unintended consequences of the failed War on Drugs.

Unfortunately it is easier to follow perceived common sense than to accept the evidence. Drugs are banned because they are harmful, but the ban is not working, merely making a bad situation worse. --[[User:The Four Deuces|The Four Deuces]] 21:36, 16 November 2007 (EST)

Yup IMO ,hey btw [[DrDaniel]]

yes, the cannabis trade is thriving, even if its not legal, and if the goverment tapped it, we could make massive amounts of money through taxation and regulation. Pot is also a fairly harmless drug if used responsibly. Sure its a danger if you get behind the wheel, but so it talking on your cell phone, eating and drinking, or many legal drugs like antihistamines and cough medicine. It is also literally impossible to OD on (unless you have 100% pure THC delivered at a high volume through an IV) nad has few negative health effects if used through a vaporizer or eaten. Sure there are people who smoke massive amounts of it, but the same is true with many legal substances. Besides that, hemp is an enomrmously useful plant--[[User:BenBr|BenBr]] 20:58, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

Speaking from an economic stand point yes. And here's how you do it. You leagalize not just mary jane, but most, or all drugs. You then take it and tax the holy hell out of it. you can even raise the prices depending on the toxicity of the drug. This is something that will actually raise revenue, unlike everything else the government does to try and make money. Because lets face it, the government is just as bad as the people who pay off credit cards with credit cards. I would not be surprised to hear "I didn't know what to do with the money, so I ate it" from the treasury. mattfelton

==No==

I'm not sure what my opinion on this matter is, but one serious issue that does need to be considered is that marijuana use at an early age has long-term effects on the brain. Legalizing marijuana may make it more likely for children in that younger age bracket to gain access to pot. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:39, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:Long-term effects on the brain? OH, you must mean Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol and Cannabidiol's neuroprotective and antioxidant properties. [http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=20965]

::It would be easier for minors to get access to alcohol if it were still prohibited. Bootleggers/importers don't care who's buying, as long as they have money.

Not really, even in the Netherlands you have to be at least 18 (identification is required) before you can buy weed legally.

If you're still a minor, you're gonna have to get it from a dealer, just as you would if weed were illegal, with the difference that in the country with legal weed there just are less dealers per capita because they have no adult costumers. [[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

: If you're a minor you'll do the same thing minors do to get alchohol in the US now, get an overage friend to supply you/act as a proxy. Much easier than going to a dealer. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:52, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:: It's actually a lot harder for me to get alcohol than it is to get marijuana. I can't find anyone who will buy me alcohol ever whereas all the dealers that live by me are some of the "friendliest" people I know. [[User:Rotskep|Rotskep]] 20:47, 12 November 2008 (CDT)

I'm coming down on "no" as well. Then again, I'd ban cigarettes too.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:53, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Cigarettes are patriotic, because they have a rich history in America and the government approves of them. Marijuana is unpatriotic and evil, because the money goes to terrorists and, even worse, Illegal Immigrant aliens. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 23:28, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:Though I suspect you are trolling by saying illegal aliens are worse than terrorists, you have to realize that most marijuana smoked in America is grown in America. Who would buy from a drug lord in Columbia when you can buy from Joe Schmoe down the road who grew it in his own home? ([[User:Pebusman|Pebusman]] 00:05, 11 April 2008 (EDT))

:Wait, are you serious Joe? I don't mean to bash on what you believe, but I find that to be a tad...."silly". [[user:thegovernator|thegovernator]]

Cigarettes are the result of slave labor and 400,000 American's deaths each year. Marijuana is one of the ingredients of Christ's anointing oil, know in the bible as kaneh bosm. Marijuana has also resulted in zero deaths from OD or even cancer, look it up if you don't believe me, the truth is out there.[[User:Independentthinker|Independentthinker]] 14:15, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Marijuana is a dangerous gateway drug. If it were legalized, there would be awful consequences. [[User:HClinton|HClinton]] 20:24, 9 November 2007 (EST)
:you mean more personal freedom and less people getting criminal records for being in possession of a dried up flower? ([[User:Pebusman|Pebusman]] 00:05, 11 April 2008 (EDT))

I'm a noob at this editing thing so please go easy on me.
NO, marijuana should not be legalized just as I believe alcohol shouldn't being legal either. But, our government has too much to gain from the legalization of alcohol and as a result it will never become illegal. I'm well aware they tried it once before during the Prohibition and it simply didn't work. Marijuana is another drug just like alcohol and will only add to the many problems we already see in our society as a result of alcohol related injuries, deaths, illnesses, and public intoxication. Why add fuel to the fire? I believe too many people are already addicted to alcohol because it is so easily accessible to the general populace. I know of at least a handful of people that are alcoholics by definition. Should marijuana become legal we will only see more addictions and ultimately more problems associated with it. Last but not least, I don't want my tax dollars supporting yet another unnecessary item should marijuana become legal, not to mention the medical costs associated with it. Federal funding of abortion and the NEA are already more than I can stand to waste my tax dollars on. --[[User:Watchman|Watchman]] 23:07, 8 January 2008 (EST)
:Think about how much tax money is spent on the war on drugs, and then think about how much money the government could make off taxing marijuana, Marijuana is a multi billion dollar industry. ([[User:Pebusman|Pebusman]] 00:05, 11 April 2008 (EDT))
No. We don't need our government telling our children that its alright to burn your brain and body. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 00:09, 11 April 2008 (EDT)
:We don't need our government telling us what we can and can't put into our own bodies.([[User:Pebusman|Pebusman]] 00:24, 11 April 2008 (EDT))
:: Why not? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:06, 11 April 2008 (EDT)
:::May 25, 1981, 13 sailors were killed on the flight deck of USS ''Nimitz'', prompting the Navy to institute a "zero tolerance" policy regarding illegal drug use. Were drugs used indicriminantly by several of those sailors? Yes. Was marijunana used? Possibly. The point, Pebusman, is you might as well hang up getting your pro-joint views accepted here. It's not going to sit well with me at all. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 06:52, 11 April 2008 (EDT)
::::I am zero-tolerant to narcotics abuse, and double-zero-tolerant (its not a real word, I just made it up, but you get the point) to narcotics abuse in the Armed Forces. In my own service, I saw too many accidents caused by illicit drug use, including several fatal ones. A few years back, one of a pair of sentries accidentally shot his buddy through the abdomen at "point blank" range with a 9mm Sterling submachine gun. Although the victim survived and eventually recovered (''physically'' - the ''mental'' trauma remained with him for a long time afterwards, and I once came across him sobbing in the washrooms with fear just before he pulled another sentry duty) the "shooter" - an otherwise great guy, well-liked, due to be married tested positive for cannabis. While on subsequent leave under investigation, he drove his car head-on into a wall in an act of apparent suicide. A sad end to a young life. Many lives were affected by that instance of someone smoking a joint when they shouldn't have. As for the Nimitz incident, I think it should also be pointed out that, while some deck crew members tested positive for cannabis, it is widely held that it was pilot error which ''caused'' the incident. The illicit drug use was uncovered ''as a result'' of the crash. Just to clarify. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 13:23, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::Those are both sad stories but those are both problems that the navy/armed forces/what ever need to deal with on their own. As for ordinary citizens, the government should have absolutely no right to tell us what we can or can not put in to our bodies so long as we don't hurt anyone else. Innocent pedestrians and other drivers get killed every year as a result of drinking and driving, why don't we make that illegal? [[User:Rotskep|Rotskep]] 21:07, 11 November 2008 (CDT)

Yes, I think it should be legalized for a few reasons. Just watch the film: Traffic.

==Comments==
But we must remember that baning a product does not make it go away, most of the time it simply creates an illegal market for such things. As mentioned above legalizing marijuana would allow the government to regulate it. It would also make it less of a "gateway drug" as trying it would be a lesser issue if it were leagal. And as for banning cigaretts, while I do agree that no good comes out of them for the person smoking them (and the people around them)our econamy must (unfortunately) be considerd. How do you purpose to supplement the jobs of the tabacco farmers and sales people should cigarettes be banned? But on the other hand it is a little scary to think that our society is trying so hard to lose touch with reality.--HKK
:Banning a product ''does'' make it go away—most of it at least (and given suitable enforcement). Sure, there will always still be ''some'' around, but surely ''some'' is better than ''a lot''? I mean, you might as well "regulate" rather than "ban" things like assault, robbery, arson, etc. But of course we don't, because our goal, even though we don't expect to ever achieve it 100%, is to eliminate those things, because they are inherently ''wrong''.
:Additionally, regulation brings a whole slew of new problems. For example, if it still harms people (as it will), doesn't that make the government responsible for that harm? And "regulation" also means "banning" in limited ways. For example, if you "regulate" it, you probably still ''ban'' it for minors. Doesn't that undermine the principle? Doesn't that still encourage a black market? And even for adults, do you allow them total unrestricted access? As soon as you apply some restrictions (maximum quantities, limited strength, whatever), you are opening a black market for those who don't want to abide by those restrictions.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:08, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Please do not compare marijuana to things like assault, robbey, arson, etc. Those things do harm to other people, whereas smoking marijuana harms only the user. I for one believe people should be able to do whatever they want so long as no unconsenting party is hurt in the process. Legalize it for use in private residencies, but throw people caught using it in public in the drunk tank for a while. And banning things, at least in marijuana's case, does NOT make it go away, it was named the country's #1 cash crop, take a look: [[http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=2735017&Business=true]] ([[User:Pebusman|Pebusman]] 00:22, 11 April 2008 (EDT))
:::: Why the distinction between "other people" and "the user"? In both cases harm is being done. Okay, so you "believe people should be able to do whatever they want so long as no unconsenting party is hurt in the process". I don't believe that. Why is your belief correct and mine not? Of course, this is ignoring that marijuana ''does'' harm others. First, somebody under the influence could lose control (e.g. while driving) and harm someone else. Second, a person harming ''himself'' causes distress for those that care for them. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:06, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

::Philip, I would direct your attention to the article on [[Prohibition_in_the_United_States#Enforcement|The U.S. Prohibition Act]], in the hopes that it will cause you to mull over your stance a bit. If you read this Conservapedia article, you will see that while banning ''may'', ''in theory'' cause something to go away, it has a strong history of expensive failure. The expenses of such failure are not only monetary, but also manifest as extreme tolls taken on the happiness of those living amongst the struggle caused by the banning. -[[User:Simple|Simple]] 10:35 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007
::: That actually supports what I was saying, insofar as I said "given suitable enforcement". One of the problems with the American prohibition is that they left enforcement in the hands of revenue collectors! It might have been a totally different situation if the police had been able to enforce it. From what I've read on the prohibition, despite the poor enforcement, and despite the crime gangs that rose up to take advantage of that niche, overall crime dropped so much that prisons were being closed, hotel revenue went up as families were now prepared to visit them, sales of children's shoes went up, as there was household money available for them instead of it going on grog, and many other positive results. That is, as I said above, banning it ''did'' make it go away (for the most part)! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:46, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

::::First off, I should point out that it is unlikely that the U.S. Government would have repealed the Prohibition Act had the positive effects outweighted the negative. Secondly, while you are correct in saying that I have supported the initial plausibility of your theory, I have distinctly cited U.S. history which suggests more strongly that the banning theory is entirely unpractical. In the end, it is not the ''theory'' that is significant, but whether or not the theory holds water when applied. In this case, it has not. -[[User:Simple|Simple]] 10:55 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007

::::You might also note that, during the Prohibition, alcohol was still available to those who sought it. Do you think that making alcohol harder to obtain stopped even one desperate alcoholic from obtaining it? I find such a proposal unlikely. More likely, such families would have suffered terribly - forced to deal with crime lords, paying higher prices for a bootleg alcoholic product. Such products would have been produced in less sanitary conditions, and quite possibly laced with other substances to increase their 'potency'. I cannot imagine that causing a subset of the American population to suffer thusly, all the while funding organized crime, could possibly be a good thing. If you look closely, you can see that this situation resembles the modern marijuana situation significantly. -[[User:Simple|Simple]] 11:01 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007

:::::The U.S. Government didn't repeal Prohibition; it was the people, via a referendum (okay, there would have been an associated act involved). But by your logic, (a) why would the people have voted for prohibition in the first place, if it was so bad, given that quite a few states already had it (i.e. the "experiment" was already tried) before it went national, and (b), why did the people vote for a pro-prohibition presidential candidate ''after'' it came in, if it was so bad?
:::::The answer, as I understand it, is that powerful media groups (i.e. newspapers; there was no TV then) (perhaps they were [[liberal]]?) campaigned for an end to prohibition because the media owners wanted to ease their tax burden by creating another source of revenue for the government, by taxing alcohol. Their propaganda campaign of disinformation was so successful that to this day most people think that prohibition was a failure.
:::::I was also citing U.S. history, so we are on an equal footing there. I understand that it ''did'' work—the theory ''did'' "hold water" when applied.
:::::Yes, alcohol was still available (one of the flaws of the legislation was to ban the sale of it, not the manufacture of it!), and the ''desperate'' alcoholics could still get it. But most people—they had voted for it, remember—weren't that desperate, and most simply gave it up, so the use of alcohol dropped to a tiny fraction of what it had been. The ''relatively'' small amount of bootlegged grog of dubious "quality" was far outweighed by the vast majority no longer imbibing this poisonous depressant drug.
:::::Yes, it does have similarities with the modern situation with marijuana. Which is one reason why marijuana should stay banned.
:::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:15, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::At this point, our disagreement seems to be largely a debate on whether or not the history we have been taught is accurate. I am no historian, and cannot argue on this level. That said, I offer a different point: assuming that you are accurate in saying that substance banning is ''mostly'' effective, and is good for ''most'' people, we have still confessed that it is an imperfect and expensive solution. What I suggest is that there may well be a more effective alternative: education. Translating "given suitable enforcement" to "given suitable funding", my experiences lead me to believe that ''properly'' educating kids to the pitfalls of substance abuse (and by educating I don't mean 'Marijuana is bad, okay?') we can achieve a more satisfactory solution. -[[User:Simple|Simple]] 11:33 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007
:::::::I agree with the education angle, but educating people that it's bad, and legalising it, sends contradictory messages. Both education and banning are needed. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:56, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::::Philip - using that logic, presumably you'd like to see alcohol and tobacco banned then? As far as I can see from the evidence, the harm caused by these substances is, if anything, more than the harm caused by marijuana. And yet we deal with the harmful effects of alcohol and tobacco by educating people into knowledge of their harmful effects, and acknowledging that (with alcohol at any rate) there are positive benefits to be gained from a moderate and rational use of it.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 12:34, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::::: Yes, I'd like to see alcohol and tobacco banned. The only qualifier I'd put on that is that ''politically'', you would not get away with banning alcohol at present, and perhaps not tobacco yet, although we are probably getting close to that (in Australia at least). To put it another way, banning them might be a slow process of erosion of availability and education before the actual banning, but banning them ought to be the goal.
::::::::: I'm not convinced of many of the claims that there are benefits from using moderate amounts of alcohol, for three reasons:
:::::::::* Reported studies (in newspapers) claiming to show benefits from drinking wine fail to mention whether the benefit would still be achieved by drinking non-alcoholic wine. That is, is the benefit in the alcohol, or something else in the drink?
:::::::::* Apparently at least some studies claiming to show benefit from drinking wine were done by comparing the health of drinker with non-drinkers, and the latter groups frequently include people who used to drink heavily, but have become teetotallers because of how it was affecting their health.
:::::::::* Reported studies usually fail to mention whether the benefits outweigh the problems. Alcohol is both a dependence-forming drug and a depressant (unlike caffeine, for example which although mildly dependence-forming is a stimulant), which is a dangerous combination, and also makes the drinker thirsty! How much more diabolical can it get? More, actually, because it's also poisonous! (The [[Woman's Christian Temperance Union]] here in Victoria buys (or used to buy) pure alcohol to use in education programs, and were restricted to buying small quantities per year because of its classification as a poison. Yet it is freely available mixed into drinks!!) So are the reported benefits so great that it's worth putting up with all the problems?
:::::::::With regards to tobacco, I probably don't need to explain the problems with that, except to point out acceptance of tobacco 40 years ago was at similar levels to acceptance of alcohol today, in my opinion.
:::::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 13:38, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
Marijuana is more dangerous due to physcodelic effects [[User:Eljawa|Eljawa]] 10:24, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
You mean psychedelic? Can you explian how this makes it dangerous?

All I can say about marijuana is this... may God have mercy upon the person that I catch ever trying to sell marijuana to my kids. --[[User:Watchman|Watchman]] 22:40, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

This is more of a control issue verses if it is bad or good. The war on drugs first started as a discimination practice against the Mexicans. When you live in a FREE country you should be able to do what you want in your own home. We are not talking about getting high and going to work. Alcohol and tobacco is not done there either. Just in the privacy of your home. Smoking is already banned in California if you live in an apartment. If you pay rent I still consider this to be your home. Do you think people actually stopped? You should arrest those criminals? And if you want to ban mind altering substance, kiss cheese good bye because it acts like morphine on the brain. Lets decriminalize instead of legalizing and leave the Government out of it. They control enough already. It is all about control and nothing to do with the substance. After all it is a natural product and not a man made concotion. Other drugs will crop up in its place if it is too scarce. Why do you think Meth came around? Proper law enforcement should be substituted with education on the effects. Education not propoganda. I did read where there is one entire northern Califorian county that exclusively relies on Marijuana for its economy.
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

"Lets decriminalize instead of legalizing." I know somebody who is always telling me we should decriminalize marijuana, but she has thus far been unable to effectively articulate what the heck the difference between decriminalization and legalization. Can you help me out? --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 15:26, 5 December 2009 (EST)

If you legalize it, you can tax and regulate it. Decrimimalization is while it is still illegal, therefore can't be regulated and taxed, the crime carries no penalty.

Ah, okay. Honestly, that doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Assuming that the government has, at any time, the authority to legalize, tax, and regulate the stuff anyway, why not just legalize, and NOT tax or regulate. That way those people who obey the law as a matter of conscience aren't disadvantaged. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 15:58, 5 December 2009 (EST)