https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=PeterUkerConservapedia - User contributions [en]2026-09-23T03:10:04ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.35.14https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&diff=918781Counterexamples to an Old Earth2011-09-21T14:10:23Z<p>PeterUker: Undo revision 918780 by DavidZa (talk)rv censorship of counterexample</p>
<hr />
<div>It takes only one "counterexample" to disprove the theory of an [[Old Earth]].<ref>Most of the "evidence" for an [[Old Earth]] is based on claims that lack testability, as in [[radiometric dating]], and hence would not even satisfy minimum requirements for admissibility in court.</ref> As with any logical proposition, one contradiction disproves the proposed rule. If each of 37 counterexamples has merely a 10% chance of being valid -- an underestimate -- then the probability that the Earth is billions of years old is less than 3.8%. With the total of these counterexamples at 37, '''they demonstrate that the Earth must be young with a likelihood of greater than 96%'''.<ref>The same analysis can be applied to the [[Young Earth]] theory, but no valid counterexamples have been found in centuries of atheist attempts. In addition, there are over 100 evidences of a young [[earth]] and [[universe]] (Please see: [http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth ''Age of the earth: 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe'']).</ref><br />
<br />
The motivation for [[atheist]]s to insist on falsely teaching that the Earth is old is to pull students away from [[God]]'s immediate presence, and to turn them away from [[Jesus Christ]]. Also, they are motivated, and biased, by the fact that their [[evolutionism|evolutionist]] theories require a world which is billions of years old. <br />
<br />
== Counterexamples ==<br />
The growing list of counterexamples to the theory of an [[Old Earth]] includes:<br />
<br />
=== Astronomy ===<br />
# The [[moon|Moon's]] orbit is a very strong counterxample: The moon is receding from the [[Earth]] at a rate<ref>"Measurements show that the Moon is receding from Earth at a rate of about 3.8 centimeters per year." [http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html Measuring the Moon's Distance] ''Apollo Laser Ranging Experiments Yield Results'' by Fred Espenak, GSFC Planetary Systems Laboratory (LPI Bulletin, No. 72, August, 1994).</ref> that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely four billion years ago, causing instability in its orbit, tidal catastrophes on Earth, and other problems that would have prevented the Earth and the Moon being as they are today.<br />Additionally, the [[moon]]'s orbit is becoming increasingly and unexpectedly eccentric, suggesting a lack of long-term stability.<ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.0212</ref> This disproves the theory of an [[Old Earth]] even further.<br />
# [[Spiral galaxies]] appear to be young, and only implausible proposals of the existence of [[dark matter]] can reconcile the spirals with a belief in an old universe.<br />
# The planetary orbits in the Solar System - including Earth's - are unstable and unsustainable over the long periods claimed by Old Earth believers.<ref>[http://www.newsweek.com/id/201582 Newsweek: "An embarrassing little secret of astronomy ...."]. (Newsweek has inexplicably taken down its article, but it is quoted by Google and other links)</ref><ref>[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7248/full/nature08096.html Existence of collisional trajectories of Mercury, Mars and Venus with the Earth] by J. Laskar & M. Gastineau, ''Nature'' 459, 817-819 (11 June 2009). Believers in an Old Earth speculate that the instability would not result in problems in a billion years, but other computer simulations could be developed to demonstrate multi-body instability for the solar system far more recent than that.</ref><br />
# At least one [[spiral galaxy]] spins in the direction opposite to the spin of its tail, suggesting an age too young to have generated the tail and contradicting the theory that the tails of spiral galaxies were formed over a long period of time.<ref>[http://www.unisci.com/stories/20021/0207023.htm "Hubble Shows Galaxy Rotating In The Wrong Direction"]</ref><br />
# The primary reaction in the [[Sun]] is the fusing of [[hydrogen]] to make [[helium]], but the ratio of these is too high for the Sun to have been burning for millions of years.<br />
<br />
=== Biology ===<br />
# The intelligence of humans is rapidly declining, whether measured by SAT scores,<ref>''See, e.g.'', David G. Savage, "The Long Decline in SAT Scores," Educational Leadership 290 (Jan. 1978). [http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_197801_savage.pdf]</ref> music, personal letters,<ref>E.g., Civil War letters.</ref> quality of political debates,<ref>E.g., contrast the Lincoln-Douglas debates with debates today.</ref> the quality of news articles,<ref>''The Federalist'' was written for the newspaper audience in the late 1780s, but is far too intellectual for newspapers today.</ref> and many other measures. This means that if one goes back far enough, intelligence will end up reaching ridiculously high, if humans were supposedly hundreds of thousands of years old.<br />
# The age of onset of [[puberty|sexual maturity]] is rapidly changing, suggesting that life is in a short-term rather than long-term equilibrium.<ref>For evidence of a rapidly changing age for sexual maturity in fish, see http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/46/3/235</ref><br />
# The high observed rate of [[extinctions of species]]<ref>[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-26/animals-face-extinction-threat-as-conservation-efforts-slow-report-says.html One in five species are at risk of extinction]</ref> and harmful [[genetic mutation]]s suggest a relatively short period for the existence of life rather than a long one.<br />
# The age of onset of graying of hair or balding is rapidly decreasing, with many teenagers now experiencing baldness or premature graying ([[CNN]]'s [[Anderson Cooper]] began graying as a teenager and was fully gray long before age 40);<ref name="Graying">http://articles.sfgate.com/2006-06-18/living/17299704_1_hair-taylor-hicks-american-idol</ref> many celebrities (such as [[American Idol]] winner Taylor Hicks graying in his 20s)<ref name="Graying"/> and athletes (such as Cal Ripken, Jr. graying and balding in his mid-30s)<ref>"There's a man, close-cropped gray hair, looks older than 35": Sports Illustrated's description of Cal Ripken at 35. [http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1163438/index.htm#ixzz12ONbgydd] By age 50 he was bald too.</ref> increasingly experience premature graying or balding.<br />
# The age of onset of [[cancer]] is markedly decreasing,<ref>http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/109865519/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0</ref> suggesting rapid changes inconsistent with an alleged long existence to life.<br />
# The oldest direct evidence of life -- written documents, clothing, remnants of civilizations, tree rings, etc. -- is no older than about 3000 B.C.<br />
# The number of natural, pure-bred bred dogs declines over time as dogs naturally crossbreed; a short period of time is suggested by the fact that there are over 100 different natural, pure breeds of dog thriving today.<br />
# Lack of genetic diversity among the ''Homo sapiens'' species. Were evolution and the old earth true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref> Some scientists have calculated that a troop of 55 chimpanzees contains more genetic diversity than the entire human race; this demonstrates that chimpanzees descended from a large initial population while humans descend from a much smaller one, which indeed we know to have been two people.<br />
# Frequent occurrences of massive deaths of birds and fish, which if extrapolated over millions of years would result in little or no such life today.<ref>http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/technology&id=7884786</ref><br />
# The separation between salt and freshwater fish, coupled with their inability to survive in the opposing environment, shows a lack of millions of years of evolution to enable them to spread to the opposing environment.<br />
# Furthermore, the separation of land and aquatic life and a similar inability for the organisms to survive in the other environment shows a lack of millions of years of evolution to enable them to spread to the opposing environment.<br />
# Biodiversity on Earth is declining too rapidly to be consistent with a long-term (Old Earth) equilibrium, with the Living Planet Index (LPI) showing "a global decline of 27% between 1970 and 2005. The terrestrial index declined by 25%, freshwater by 29% (this index is calculated to 2003 due to the lack of data available for latter years), and marine by 28%."<ref>http://www.zsl.org/science/research-projects/lpi,1162,AR.html</ref><br />
# The [[Bible]] makes references to the [[dinosaurs]]. There is no explanation for this if dinosaurs supposedly lived hundreds of millions of years ago. <ref>http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/93-dinosaurs-and-the-bible</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Geology ===<br />
[[Image:516XZRGNCKL AA240 .jpg|right|300px]]<br />
[[William R. Corliss]] is a cataloger of scientific [[Anomaly|anomalies]] (observations and facts that challenge prevailing scientific [[paradigm]]s) and has published many works on the subject.<ref name="sf">[http://www.science-frontiers.com/ Science Frontiers] (Corliss' web-site)</ref> <br />
He also wrote 13 books for the [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration]] (NASA), a dozen educational booklets for the [[Atomic Energy Commission]] (AEC), and a dozen articles for the [[National Science Foundation]] (NSF).<ref>Corliss, 2002</ref> The science magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' had an article which focused on the career of William Corliss.<ref>Adrian Hope, ''Finding a Home for Stray Fact'', New Scientist, July 14, 1977, p. 83</ref><br />
''New Scientist'' wrote regarding Corliss's work: "All I can say to Corliss is carry on cataloging".<ref>Quoted on the [http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm Science Frontiers web-site]</ref> [[Arthur C. Clarke]] described Corliss as "[[Charles Fort|Fort]]'s latter-day - and much more scientific - successor."<ref>Clarke, Arthur C. (1990) ''Astounding Days: A Science Fictional Autobiography''. Gollancz. Page 110</ref><br />
<br />
Corliss's work on geological anomalies catalogs scores of anomalies which challenge the [[Old Earth]] [[paradigm]].<ref>[http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm#Geology Geological Catalogs] (Science Frontiers)</ref><br />
<br />
Other examples include: <br />
<br />
# The frequency of large earthquakes (more than 6.99 on the Richter scale) doubles roughly every 40 years,<ref>http://www.earth.webecs.co.uk/</ref> rendering long-term stability impossible.<br />
# The continued existence of fragile natural arches without having collapsed a short time period for erosion and stresses on them.<ref>http://www.naturalarches.org/big9.htm</ref><br />
# An extrapolation of time between the collapse of weaker arches<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/11/AR2008081102290.html</ref> with still-standing stronger arches supports a young earth age.<br />
# The massive [[Great Lakes]] and freshwater lakes near the equator could not exist for millions of years, and several of these lakes are rapidly receding in volume; the third largest saltwater lake, Oroumieh Lake, could completely evaporate within the next five years.<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110525/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_environmental_disaster</ref><br />
# The existence of inland saltwater lakes at high altitudes, such as [[Mono Lake]] and the [[Great Salt Lake]], suggest a recent global [[flood]].<br />
# The relative purity of underground well water, which should be a muddy slurry had millions of years of erosion taken place.<br />
# The plentiful supply of high concentrations of underground well water, which would be expected based on familiar principles of [[entropy]] to dissipate over a long period of time.<br />
# Earthquakes alter the Earth's rotation several times each century;<ref>http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/2010872/japan_quake_changed_earths_rotation/</ref> extrapolating by orders of magnitude in time would have resulted in the occurrence of much larger earthquakes that would have destabilized the rotation<ref>A similar analysis may be performed for the likelihood of devastating collisions with meteors as time is extrapolated by orders of magnitude.</ref><br />
# The lack of erosion between rock layers.<ref>http://www.amazon.com/review/R1WTZL8GG4H9K0</ref><ref>http://www.knowthebible.net/id115.html</ref><br />
# Levels of contamination in water are rising, as water proceeds through the [[water cycle]] it becomes progressively more contaminated. If earth (and life) had existed for billions of years, a limit would have long been reached where water (essential to life) was too contaminated for life to continue.<br />
# [[Paraconformity]] and unconformity such as that seen at the [[Grand Canyon]] disprove the [[uniformitarianism (science)|uniformitarian]] view of earth history.<br />
# All [[carbon dating]] of water supplies, even the most ancient and the deepest underground reservoirs, result in relatively young ages,<ref>http://www.betalabservices.com/PDF/Geyh.pdf</ref> and no water has been found suggesting an Old Earth.<br />
# The ratio of strontium isotopes in seawater, which should change due to long-term erosion, has varied by only 0.35% throughout history. In fact, its value today is exactly the same as in the oldest samples, which are claimed to be from 500 million years ago.<br />
# The interior of the earth is heated by decay of radioactive isotopes, which could not possibly still be persisting in sufficient quantities after 5 billion, or even half a billion, years.<br />
# The relatively recent separation of the still-moving continents from one land mass -- denied for 100 years by [[atheist]]s before they accepted it -- suggest a young earth or at least a relatively recent cataclysmic event.<br />
# Fresh tracks of motion by stationary rocks are still visible in some areas, which have baffled Old Earth scientists for more than 60 years; Old Earth magazines refer to them as "self-moving rocks."<ref>http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2011/02/18/rafting-for-rocks?s_cid=rss:rafting-for-rocks</ref><br />
# Beaches have long been eroding far too quickly for the Old Earth theory; "between 80 and 90 percent of the sandy beaches along America’s coastlines have been eroding for decades," sometimes by as much as 50 feet per year.<ref>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-causes-beach-erosion</ref><br />
# Land is sinking into the oceans at a rate of at least 7 inches per century,<ref>http://www.app.com/article/20110319/NJNEWS/103190327/Global-warming-rising-seas-threaten-New-Jersey-expert-says</ref> which would have rendered most of the United States under water if the Earth were not young.<br />
# The flow of water in the [[Colorado River]] has been declining since the early 20th century, even after usage is considered, and the man-made Lake Mead is at risk of drying up on the next decade.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/us/13mead.html</ref><br />
<br />
=== Science & Discovery ===<br />
# A stalemate of significant and valid discoveries in the last several decades.<ref>Though there has been some progress in this timeframe, many of the "discoveries" are liberal propaganda, or are scientifically weak.</ref><br />
<br />
=== Biblical testimony ===<br />
<br />
The Bible contains multiples pieces of evidence showing its authenticity including [[Bible history]], [[Biblical archaeology|Bible archaeology]] and [[Bible prophecy]]. Competent and honest [[Bible exegesis]] indicates the earth is approximately 6,000 years old.<ref>[http://creation.com/should-genesis-be-taken-literally Should Genesis be taken literally?]</ref><br />
<br />
''See also:'' [http://creation.com/history-questions-and-answers How reliable is biblical chronology?]<br />
<br />
== Recommended books ==<br />
<br />
*[[William R. Corliss]], Anomalies in Geology: Physical, Chemical, Biological (A Catalog of Geological Anomalies), 1989. ISBN 915554-23-2<br />
*William R. Corliss Neglected Geological Anomalies, 1990. ISBN 915554-24-0<br />
*William R. CorlissInner Earth: A Search for Anomalies (A Catalog of Geological Anomalies), 1991. ISBN 915554-25-9<br />
*William R. Corliss, Carolina Bays, Mima Mounds, Submarine Canyons (A Catalog of Geological Anomalies), 1988. ISBN 915554-22-4<br />
<br />
== External links ==<br />
*[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth -101 evidences for a young earth and universe] by [[Creation Ministries International]]<br />
*[http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-8-how-old-is-the-earth How old is the earth?] - ''Refuting evolution'' - Chapter 8 by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] at [[Creation Ministries International]]<br />
*[http://www.preteristcentral.com/Debunking%20Old%20Earth%20Creationism%20&%20a%20Regional%20Flood.html Debunking the Old Earth Theory]<br />
<br />
== Footnotes ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== See also ==<br />
<br />
*[[Counterexamples to Evolution]]<br />
*[[Counterexamples to the Bible]]<br />
*[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]<br />
*[[Counterexamples to Global Warming]]<br />
*[[Radiometric dating]]<br />
[[Category:Counterexamples]]<br />
[[Category:geology]]</div>PeterUkerhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=United_States_presidential_election,_2012&diff=917980United States presidential election, 20122011-09-19T16:48:56Z<p>PeterUker: Undo revision 917978 by AaronL (talk) rv vandalism</p>
<hr />
<div>'''''The next presidential debate is on Sept. 22, 2011, in [[Florida]]'''''.<br />
<br />
The '''Presidential Election 2012''' is on Tuesday, November 6, when the [[United States]] elects a president. [[Obama]], with his [[Barack Obama approval ratings|declining popularity]], is unlikely to win reelection unless he can carry [[Florida]], which he only narrowly won last time.<br />
<br />
For the Republican nomination, the leaders are [[Mitt Romney]] (likely to win [[New Hampshire]]), [[Michele Bachmann]] (likely to win [[Iowa]]), and [[Rick Perry]] (likely to win the South).<ref>The order of the early primaries is not yet finally determined as of the end of 2010. For estimated dates, see http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/events.phtml?s=c</ref> Neither seem to have broad enough support to win the nomination. [[Ron Paul]] has a solid base of about 10% and his ideas are being adopted by other candidates. Additional candidates (perhaps [[Jeb Bush]]?) are possible.<br />
__NOTOC__<br />
== Ranking of Potential Republican Candidates by Likelihood of Winning Nomination ==<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
!Candidate<br />
!Pros<br />
!Cons<br />
!Trending ...<br />
|-<br />
|[[Mitt Romney]]<br />
|First runner-up in 2008, business experience, Republican governor of a Democratic state, cut taxes and the deficit, prodigious fundraiser and tireless campaigner, polling at 40% in the key early primary state of [[New Hampshire]], credited for helping [[Scott Brown]] win an upset victory for the seat long held by [[Ted Kennedy]]. Likely to be endorsed by [[Chris Christie]], [[Marsha Blackburn]], [[Jim Talent]], etc. Only 26% of voters said they would '''''never''''' vote for him, which is the lowest negative of any major Republican candidate.<ref name="Quinnipiac">http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1595</ref> Out with a new jobs plan.<br />
|Refuses to sign the same [[pro-life]] pledge that all other major [[Republican]] candidates signed;<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57256.html</ref> continues to believe in [[liberal]] propaganda claiming [[global warming]]; Romney once supported [[abortion]] and [[civil unions]], criticized by the [[Tea Party Express]] chairwoman and others due to his [[ObamaCare]]-like health plan in [[Massachusetts]], which featured "the mandate" and taxpayer-funded abortion; struggles in Iowa and won only 15% in the South Carolina primary in 2008.<br />
|Doubts are growing that someone as weak as Romney on pro-life can win the nomination. He is losing ground despite winning his first debate, and finished only 5th in the straw poll at the Republican Leadership Conference; disappointed pro-lifers by failing to take a pro-life pledge<br />
|-<br />
|[[Jeb Bush]]<br />
|The declining economy means the opportunity for Jeb to win is now, not in 2016 when another Republican would be the incumbent; Jeb is sure to win Florida and Obama cannot win reelection if the Republican wins Florida; [[George W. Bush]]'s book sold far better than expectations, making the name an asset again; Jeb could unite the Republican Party with a late candidacy; Jeb is more conservative than his brother [[George W. Bush]]; Jeb has already criticized Palin as a rival candidate might;<ref>In a Newsmax interview in February 2010, Jeb criticized Palin by saying, "my belief is in 2010 and 2012, public leaders need to have intellectual curiosity." [http://www.newser.com/story/81720/jeb-bush-sarah-palin-not-intellectual-enough.html]</ref> Jeb published an editorial on Jan. 3, 2011 taking credit for saving Florida [[public schools]] with vouchers.<ref>http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/jan/03/jeb-bush/jeb-bush-touts-education-gains-wall-street-journal/</ref><br />
|Has polled unusually poorly (54-34%) against [[Barack Obama]];<ref>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/14/obama-would-beat-jeb-bush-big-says-poll/</ref> Jeb says he does not intend to run in 2012, when he could still be tagged with negatives via George; not liked by many Tea Partiers; would be seen by many as the "third" Bush, tagged rather unfairly to how both his father and brother have been President; might wait to run when Hillary runs.<br />
|With unemployment high (9.1% in August 2011), it is more likely a Republican will win in 2012, and Jeb will not want to pass up that opportunity and then wait until 2020, when he's old<br />
|-<br />
|[[Michele Bachmann]]<br />
|A [[movement conservative]] who "knocked the ball out of the park" with her nationally televised response to Obama's [[State of the Union]] address in January 2011, Bachmann is popular with the [[Tea Party movement]]; she is a strong fundraiser and won a stunning 52-40% landslide in 2010 in a liberal-leaning district in [[Minnesota]]. Did very well at [[CPAC]] in Feb. 2011. Bachmann's beliefs are similar to [[Ron Paul]]'s, but she is more of a conservative than libertarian, and is trying to appeal to Ron Paul's fanbase<ref>http://www.lewrockwell.com/politicaltheatre/2011/06/dont-read-that-dangerous-mises/</ref>, thus a Bachmann candidacy could unite Tea Party conservatives.<br />
|As with [[Ronald Reagan]], [[liberal bias]] is at its worst against her; has never won statewide office; [[Ron Paul]] did not support her for a House leadership position and did not join her [[Tea Party]] caucus.<br />
|Did extremely well in the first debate and jumped to #1 in Zogby poll of primary voters; took a sterner approach in the second and third debates, perhaps to appeal more to angry voters currently supporting [[Ron Paul]]. Won the [[Ames Straw Poll]] but was upstaged by Rick Perry's declaration of candidacy on the same day. Has slipped in the polls since Perry's entrance.<br />
|-<br />
|[[Ron Paul]]<br />
|Won the [[CPAC]] poll, terrific on economic issues, is strong in national polls, can raise the money needed to win; people may look to an anti-war Republican; appeals to many social liberals.<br />
|Voted twice to repeal [[DADT]], which the vast majority of Republican primary voters support; opposed Bachmann for a leadership position; his age (76 in 2012) will be used against him; has never won statewide office; his views on the war on drugs and the military also alienates many Republicans.<br />
|Improving as Obama's support is lowest when Paul is his opponent; Paul is gaining ground as economy crumbles. Was the clear crowd favorite in the [[Iowa]] debate on Aug. 10. Finished only 1% behind Michele Bachmann in the Ames straw poll; together with her the two of them won more than half the votes. In an online poll, Paul easily won the [[MSNBC]]-sponsored candidates' debate at the [[Reagan Library]] on September 7.<br />
|-<br />
|[[Rick Perry]]<br />
|Ranking improved on June 9 because Newt's campaign leadership quit. Perry formally announced his candidacy on August 13. He is a conservative-talking governor who has run [[Texas]] for a decade (since [[George W. Bush]] became president); crushed [[RINO]] [[Kay Bailey Hutchison]] in the 2010 primary and then won a landslide in the general election against a popular opponent, carrying others to victory on his strong coattails; has an excellent jobs record in his State and which he can contrast with liberal-run states like [[California]], [[Nevada]], [[Illinois]], and [[New York]]. Strong religious faith that he is not afraid to show by attending prayer-ins that are mocked by [[east coast liberals]]. Understands the concept of [[states' rights]]. <br />
|It can be argued is more conservative in his rhetoric than his policies; endorsed [[RINO]] [[Rudy Giuliani]] in 2008; tried by executive order to force all schoolgirls (except for parental opt-outs) to receive the [[HPV vaccine]]; raised business taxes while governor; supports exceptions for allowing [[abortion]]; and continues to champion a Texas policy that allows in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. ''Could simply block [[Mitt Romney]] from winning the nomination, without winning it himself''.<br />
|Stumbled in his first major statements on [[abortion]] and [[same-sex marriage]], and then lost the support of some voters by declaring that he is opposed to building a fence to reduce illegal immigration. Did not participate in the Iowa debate or Straw Poll. May be focusing on a southern strategy that is unlikely to give him the majority of delegates needed to win.<br />
Did well in the first debate that he participated in, but seemed off-balance during his second debate (in Florida), prompting doubts among some viewers. <br />
|-<br />
|[[Herman Cain]]<br />
|Former successful Godfathers Pizza CEO, conservative radio host, Tea Party favorite, tremendous speaker, triumphed over a health problem, is making himself known.<br />
|Not well known outside the conservative sphere of influence, although he is getting there.<br />
|Maintaining his ranking<br />
|-<br />
|[[Newt Gingrich]]<br />
|Articulate, credited with 1994 landslide, balanced the federal budget in the Clinton era, leader in fundraising, likely to obtain endorsement of older "right to life" groups against Mitt;<ref name="April%252525202010%25252520Fundraising">http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2010/04/19/sarah-palin-lags-in-2012-fundraising-primary.html</ref> has one-sided promotion by the [[Fox News Channel]] and the [[WSJ]], who will likely criticize his opponent [[Mitt Romney]]; Gingrich's record of passing [[conservative]] legislation as [[Speaker of the House]] is remarkably strong, including welfare reform, [[DOMA]], the [[Solomon Amendment]], and even [[term limits]]. He also had the courage to shut down the government.<br />
|Unable to gain much support despite having shown flashes of the old Newt in several debates. Gingrich has previously endorsed [[liberal]] ideas like "[[cap-and-trade]]" ([[global warming]] hoax) and a [[Con Con]]; resigned as Speaker rather than follow through with the impeachment of [[Bill Clinton]]; divorced twice and married three times, most recently to a women 23 years younger than he; has never won statewide office. Sarah Palin is suggesting that she may not pull out and this could prevent Newt from defeating Mitt. Since 9/11, Newt has come to adopt more big-government and pro-regulatory [[neoconservative]] views, unlike the push for limited-government and [[deregulation]] he spearheaded during the 1990s.<br />
|Lost ground when his senior staff jumped ship on June 9th. <br />
|-<br />
|[[Sarah Palin]]<br />
|Empathetic, attracts crowds, personally [[pro-life]], fiscal conservative, popular, track record of supporting upset victories in primaries; had a popular television series and book tour that emphasizes the grassroots rather than the "inside the Beltway" mentality.<br />
|It's difficult to take seriously someone who relies so heavily on [[Facebook]]; even [[liberal]] [[Hollywood]] preferred ''The King's Speech'' at the [[Oscars]]. Her taxation policies were somewhat liberal.<ref>http://community.adn.com/node/112712</ref> Appointed a former [[Planned Parenthood]] board member to the [[Alaska]] Supreme Court and inexplicably resigned early as governor; lags in fundraising despite publicity,<ref name="April%252525202010%25252520Fundraising"/> came in a disappointing fifth in the [[Values Voter Summit]] in September 2010 and fared badly at [[CPAC]]. Several of her prominent 2010 candidates (Ken Buck, Joe Miller, Christine O'Donnell) struck out on Nov. 2nd, and many Republicans from [[George W. Bush]] (allegedly) to [[Peggy Noonan]] have been critical of her running for president.<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Election-2010/Vox-News/2010/1106/Republican-establishment-takes-on-Sarah-Palin</ref> 58% of American voters in a May poll said they would '''''never''''' vote for her.<ref name="Quinnipiac"/>. Frequently mocked and subjected to personal attacks from the [[liberal media]].<br />
|Disappearing below the memoirs of her infamous daughter<br />
|-<br />
|[[Rick Santorum]]<br />
|Outspoken supporter of conservative values as a senator, well-received by Iowan evangelicals at campaign-like event in March 2010, strongly socially conservative.<br />
|His all-out support of [[RINO]] and now-Democrat [[Arlen Specter]] prevented [[Pat Toomey]] from defeating him in 2002, although he has regretted it at CPAC 2010; could simply be a [[stalking horse]] for Romney, who he endorsed in 2008.<br />
|Was fabulous in the Iowa debate August 10th, and has won praise for his performance in more recent debates, but has been unable to climb in the polls<br />
|-<br />
|[[Jon Huntsman, Jr.]]<br />
|Has foreign policy and executive experience. Appealing to moderates, although this is because he holds numerous liberal stances.<br />
|Worked in the Obama administration; Criticized the [[economic stimulus package]] as not being big enough, favors Comprehensive Immigration Reform, supports civil unions, and is a believer in man-made global warming; the "civility" candidate adored by the media for being more willing to attack his fellow Republicans than the Democrats; could simply be a [[Utah]] decoy used by [[Team Newt]] to siphon support from [[Mitt Romney]]<br />
|Not getting much support, except among the media and multiple Democrats<br />
|-<br />
|[[Chris Christie]]<br />
|Leads [[Barack Obama]] in Zogby's polling (January 2011), takes on the [[public school]] teachers' unions and is a fiscal reformer who puts liberals in their place, has an unscripted style and appearance that is a refreshing alternative to the Teleprompter President.<br />
|Significantly overweight, Picked a [[pro-abortion]] running mate when he ran for governor, and has little experience with national issues; repeatedly says he is not running; campaigned for [[RINO]] [[Mike Castle]] in [[Delaware]] who was then defeated; neither added [[New Jersey]] to one of the lawsuits against [[ObamaCare]] nor joined an [[amicus brief]] against it; ''will probably support [[Mitt Romney]]''.<br />
|Attaining budget cuts, particularly to [[Planned Parenthood]], Christie has become the leading contender for Vice President<br />
|-<br />
|[[Marco Rubio]]<br />
|A [[movement conservative]] who could unite the Party, he is the most charismatic speaker in politics today; in the general election he would pull [[Florida]] and many Hispanic voters away from the Democrats. Both of his parents were Cuban exiles seeking asylum in the U.S. at the time of his birth in Miami, making him an inspiring, uniquely American success story.<br />
|Could face the liberal [[double standard]] on two fronts: 1) what's OK for Obama (e.g., inexperience) is somehow not OK for a [[conservative]]. 2) Liberals who have been deriding the strict definition of "natural born citizen" which some conservatives have been applying to Obama might also turn around and use the same logic with Rubio, claiming that his non-citizen parents invalidate his natural-born status. <br />Some Republican voters may think he's really running to be selected as Vice President.<br />
|Probably running for VP<br />
|-<br />
|[[Mike Huckabee]]<br />
|Pro-life in rhetoric, pro-Second Amendment and pro-Bible; strong in polling, particularly among evangelicals<br />
|Announced on May 14th that he's not running; was stuck at 20-30% without any way to gain broader support needed to win; also supporter of big government, as governor raised taxes and increased state spending, released man who later killed officers; disliked by [[CPAC]]-types and by [[Club for Growth]]; supported the cave-in by the Republican leadership to continue funding [[Planned Parenthood]] (the nation's largest [[abortion]] provider) as part of the budget deal in April 2011. Has ruled himself out of contention.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2011-05-15-republican-huckabee-president_n.htm</ref><br />
|Losing ground and relevancy<br />
|-<br />
|[[Donald Trump]]<br />
|Tied for number 1 in [[Gallup Poll]];<ref>As of April 22, 2011.</ref> forced Obama's to take seriously voters' concerns over his birth certificate, and is also willing to criticize liberal media; has business savvy and resources as a billionaire; is well-known.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/05/trump-seriously-considering-presidential-bid/?test=latestnews Trump 'Seriously Considering' 2012 Presidential Bid, FOXNews, October 5, 2010]</ref> His unscripted, abrasive and arrogant style may be just what voters want. Not a career politician helps his cause.<br />
|Said he's not running.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/16/trump-declines-run-president/</ref> Criticized for his ego and has never held elected office. Needs to explain his previous support of liberal policies such as socialized medicine,<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2291263/</ref> as well as donating to various Democrats including [[Harry Reid]] in the past, and is starting to look one-dimensional. A reliable poll (Quinnipiac) found that 58% of voters said they would '''''never''''' vote for Trump.<ref name="Quinnipiac"/><br />
|Declining in support<br />
|-<br />
|[[Thad McCotter]]<br />
|Congressman from Michigan who is [[conservative]] and being promoted by [[Fox News]], and does not need to read from a [[teleprompter]] to give a speech.<br />
|''Thad who?'' Not enough people know who he is yet. Twice this year voted against ending the preference for union labor in government construction projects. Could be seeking name recognition rather than the Republican nomination.<ref>http://apps.detnews.com/apps/blogs/watercooler/index.php </ref> <br />
|Increasing in support but slowly. Finished last in the Iowa Straw Poll.<br />
|-<br />
|[[Rand Paul]]<br />
|Could be the next [[Ronald Reagan]]; is the heir-apparent to massive support for [[Ron Paul]]; won the [[U.S. Senate]] seat by a 56-44% landslide in 2010, despite an intense effort by [[liberals]] to smear and defeat him; is 100% [[pro-life]]. Failure of Congress to cut spending enhances likelihood that voters will turn to someone strong on reducing government. Could inherit the support for his father, who could hand off the campaign to Rand.<br />
|Rand, immensely popular after his landslide victory for Senate, will not run for president unless his dad drops his own campaign for the same office. Rand could first campaign for his dad and then become the candidate if voters think he has a better opportunity to win, but time is running out for Rand to assert himself as the candidate in 2012.<br />
|Will almost certainly be supporting his dad's run for President.<br />
|-<br />
|[[Allen West]]<br />
|'America First' conservative patriot, Lt. Col West knows leadership from experience. He won the Florida [[U.S. House of Representatives]] seat in the [[2010 Midterm Elections]], and kept a high profile ever since. Sports a crew cut, rises above petty [[inside the Beltway]] bickering, and carries a camouflage bag rather than a briefcase<br />
|New to national politics, not well known and maybe a future presidential candidate beyond 2012.<br />
|A terrific congressman<br />
|-<br />
|[[Jim DeMint]]<br />
|Strong support by social conservatives, libertarians,<ref>Jim Demint has the best favorable-unfavorable rating of anyone at CPAC 2010.</ref> Tea Party, and evangelicals; a tenacious advocate willing to criticize Obama<br />
|Stated at a conservative conference in July 2010 that he is not running for president, but after [[Mike Pence]] pulled out in Jan. 2011 Jim DeMint is showing interest again, before announcing again in late March that he is not running; as a Southern conservative, he would need to work hard to gain support in Iowa and New Hampshire, the key early primary states<ref>http://politics.theatlantic.com/2010/02/the_2012_dark_horse_is.php</ref><br />
|Definitely not running now<br />
|-<br />
|[[Ken Cuccinelli]]<br />
|Has won statewide office. Leader in challenging [[ObamaCare]], advancing [[pro-life]] principles, and opposing the [[global warming]] hoax, including investigating Liberal [[University of Virginia]]'s involvement in the [[Climategate]] scandal. Wants to stop the homosexual agenda prevalent at the University of Virginia and other Virginia universities.<br />
|Only 42 years old, he'll probably become governor of Virginia before running for president. Not as frequent a speaker at Tea Party events as others, such as Steve King and Michele Bachmann. Also, Cuccinelli may be more influential on domestic policy in his current position than a president is.<br />
|Busy achieving good things in his current job<br />
|-<br />
|[[Bobby Jindal]]<br />
|Conservative Governor of [[Louisiana]], strong critic of [[Obama]]'s handling of the [[Gulf oil spill]] in the summer of 2010.<br />
|Says he's not running for president.<br />
|Made a good statement on birth certificate issue<br />
|-<br />
|[[Tim Pawlenty]]<br />
|Young; popular in his home state of [[Minnesota]] (but never won with more than 50% of the vote); benefits from exodus of the leadership from Newt's campaign on June 9th.<br />
|Still not well known outside of Minnesota; signed $893 million in meddlesome fees/taxes including a "health fee" for cigarette smokers (which was ruled unconstitutional), a harvest fee for farmers, a 9-1-1 fee on all telephone lines, a fee for traditional marriage, and large increase in parking fees;<ref>[http://tinyurl.com/3k4p8jf ''Duluth News Tribune'': Fees soar as state taxes hold steady] (2006)</ref> supported the liberal [[cap and trade]]; accepted stimulus funds after arguing against them; lacks a socially conservative base or any appeal that would attract support away from the front-runners; arranged a meeting with a liberal medical society in 2003 in order to cave into the pro-[[abortion]] side by downplaying medical harm caused by abortion,<ref>http://www.lifenews.com/2003/12/30/state-281/</ref> despite hard-fought passage of the Woman's Right to Know Act mandating disclosure; an ex-Catholic and that may not play well with Catholic swing voters. He endorsed Mitt Romney after he ended his bid.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/12/pawlenty-endorses-romney-for-president/</ref><br />
|Lost ground after a perception of underachieving in the first debate June 13; then his criticism of Michele Bachmann seemed to backfire with her rebuttal in the second debate. Pawlenty finished third in the Iowa Straw Poll and quickly announced that he was ending his bid for the nomination.<br />
|-<br />
|[[Mitch Daniels]]<br />
|Signed a law that defunds [[Planned Parenthood]], has been an effective [[Rust Belt]] governor and critic of the Obama administration, being promoted heavily by [[neoconservatives]]<br />
|Stated in May 2011 that he's not running for president; sided with [[Democrats]] in 2011 in opposing [[right-to-work laws|right-to-work legislation]], unknown nationally, criticized when he tried to downplay significance of social issues, not telegenic, lacks a socially conservative base, and his state budget relies heavily on [[gambling]] revenue<br />
|Losing ground since he announced he's not running<br />
|-<br />
|[[Steve King]]<br />
|A conservative Iowa congressman who could win the [[Iowa caucuses]]; resonates well with independents; recommended by Bachmann<ref name="Bachmann">http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/app/blogs/politically_speaking/?p=1205</ref><br />
|Not well known yet; has never won statewide office.<br />
|Likely to endorse Michele Bachmann, and stay in the House<br />
|-<br />
|[[Mike Pence]]<br />
|Communicates a very strong conservative message: "a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order." Won straw poll held at the [[Values Voter Summit]] in September 2010. On Nov. 3rd, gave up his House leadership position. Has since announced a run for Governor of Indiana in 2012.<br />
|Announced on Jan. 27, 2011 that he's not running for president; previously he unsuccessfully proposed a "comprehensive" immigration plan that was widely criticized by conservatives; lacks legislative achievements; not well-known and has never won statewide office; either he or Huckabee could become a stalking horse for Newt Gingrich with respect to evangelical voters in Iowa<br />
|Focusing on the Indiana governorship<br />
|-<br />
|[[Todd Akin]]<br />
|A [[movement conservative]] from Missouri, which he serves as a congressman<br />
|Running to win a [[U.S. Senate]] seat from a [[liberal]] instead<br />
|Gaining in ability to defeat an incumbent liberal senator<br />
|-<br />
|[[Bob McDonnell]]<br />
|Won landslide election as [[Virginia]] governor; has Obama's height<br />
|Not widely known yet, but gave Republican response to State of the Union; seemed more conservative as a candidate than as governor<br />
|Falling into obscurity<br />
|-<br />
|[[Gary Johnson]]<br />
|Former [[libertarian]] two-term governor of [[New Mexico]], he has been recommended by [[Ron Paul]], Johnson is a strong advocate of a libertarian belief system.<br />
|Like other libertarians but unlike most Republicans, Johnson favors legalizing marijuana, expanding legal [[immigration]] and allowing same-sex unions. Given Ron Paul's run, there seems to be little support for Gary Johnson in this election cycle.<br />
|Cannot get much support with Ron Paul in the same race<br />
|-<br />
|[[Rudy Giuliani]]<br />
|Widely respected for his post-9/11 leadership in New York City<br />
|Struck out completely as a candidate in 2008; very weak on important social issues; cross-dressing for comedic purposes when it suited him<br />
|A throwback to an era and issues that matter less now<br />
|-<br />
|[[Dick Cheney]]<br />
|Prominent and consistent opposition to Obama<br />
|Of dubious health; has explicitly disavowed interest in running<br />
|Not running<br />
|-<br />
|[[John Bolton]] <br />
|Expert on foreign policy and national security issues <ref>[http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9I4TTT82&show_article=1 POLITICAL INSIDER: John Bolton weighs a WH run, Breitbart, September 10, 2010]</ref><br />
|Polarizing figure that Democrats refused to appoint to permanent UN position<br />
|Has ruled out running<br />
|-<br />
|[[Fred Thompson]]<br />
|Former Republican Senator from [[Tennessee]], former presidential candidate, has a loyal following<br />
|Hollywood type, sided with McCain in campaign finance laws that the Supreme Court overturned. <br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|[[Scott Brown]]<br />
|Proven ability to appeal to moderate voters even in a blue state<br />
|Inexperience; already voting with the Democrats in the Senate; voted to repeal [[DADT]], will not repeal [[Obamacare]].<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|[[Haley Barbour]]<br />
|Rose in ranking based on the victory of his choice as the new [[RNC]] chairman;<ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/14/barbour-defeats-boehner-proxy-battle-control-rnc-s/</ref> has a [[conservative]] record as governor of [[Mississippi]]; was a consummate lobbyist and could raise many tens of millions for a campaign.<br />
|Announced in late April 2011 that he is not running; also, rarely seen at conservative conferences, and a Republican from the [[Deep South]] may have trouble attracting independent voters.<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|[[John Thune]]<br />
|Defeated [[Tom Daschle]], relatively conservative voting record for a senator; also taller than Obama, and enjoys broad support<br />
|Announced on Feb. 22, 2011 that he's not running; may lack an essential "fire in the belly";<ref>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/eye-on-2012/assessing-john-thunes-2012-cha.html?referrer=emaillink</ref> voted for TARP financial bailout<ref>http://hoghouseblog.com/2009/09/01/thune-wants-to-end-bailout-he-voted-for/</ref> and McCain-Feingold campaign finance; no-show at some conservative events; hasn't effectively criticized Obama; could simply become a stalking horse candidate for Gingrich <br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|[[Jan Brewer]]<br />
|In 2010, stood up to [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Barack Obama]] on issue of [[illegal aliens]]<br />
|Caved in to the [[liberals]] in vetoing legislation requiring a birth certificate to get on the presidential ballot for Arizona in 2012; if Brewer ever was conservative, she seems increasingly less so<br />
|Not even conservatives support her after all her vetoes of good bills this year<br />
|-<br />
|[[George Pataki]]<br />
|Well known former 3-term Gov. of New York. Has a track record of tax cuts<br />
|[[RINO]] candidate, [[Pro-abortion]], had health issues in the past, not very compelling<br />
|Not running<br />
|-<br />
|[[Peter King]]<br />
|Conservative congressman from New York that supports [[Pro-life]], energy independence, free trade, expand border fence, battles Muslim extremists in the USA by Homeland Security position.<br />
|Fiscal conservatism lacking: voted for TARP, Cash for Clunkers, CHIP<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
=== The Chess Game for the Republican Party ===<br />
<br />
====Short form====<br />
<br />
The short form analysis is this: it probably requires a minimum of $25 million in campaign funds to win the nomination, and more if the candidate lacks a strong [[conservative]] base. Many of the candidates are probably looking to big fundraisers for support, but they are unsure of whom to back. Karl Rove, with all of his contacts from the Bush years, may be able to raise $20 million for a candidate; Haley Barbour might be able to raise even more. Fox News and its allies can raise eight figures also, as they helped reelect [[John McCain]] as senator in 2010.<br />
<br />
The fundraising obstacle is no problem for Mitt Romney. Michelle Bachmann could reach that goal also, and benefits from having a strong conservative base too. Ron Paul could sustain his campaign as he did in 2008, relying heavily on the internet. But others lacking in a strong base will struggle unless they can obtain the support of either the Bush/Rove group, or Barbour's network, or Fox News and its allies.<br />
<br />
====Long form====<br />
[[File:Ronpaul.jpg|thumb|Ron Paul.]]<br />
There are three key steps to the Republican nomination: Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Mitt can win only one out of the three (New Hampshire), leaving an opening for another candidate to win the other two.<br />
<br />
There are four basic components of the Republican Party. '''To win the nomination, a candidate needs to obtain the support of at least two out of four''':<ref>Traditionally commentators have referred to the three legs of the Republican Party: the values voters, the small businessmen, and the national security supporters. While that model still has support, it fails to account for recent shifts (such as the Tea Party Movement) and the impact of new media (such as FoxNews).</ref><br />
<br />
#social conservatives (pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-Republican Party platform)<br />
#libertarians (lower taxes, less government, pro-market, anti-union)<br />
#religious voters (Baptists, Presbyterians, Catholics, evangelicals, Mormons)<br />
#neoconservatives (foreign intervention, "better" government)<br />
<br />
In 2008, John McCain won the nomination by capturing the support of 1 and 4 above. Ron Paul had the support of 2. Mitt Romney enjoyed support by 2 and part of 3. Mike Huckabee had support of 1 and part of 3. The division of 3 by Romney and Huckabee caused them to block each other: Huckabee blocked Romney in Iowa, and Romney returned the favor in New Hampshire. This dynamic prevented either from winning the nomination.<br />
<br />
In 2000, George Bush won with the support of 1 and 3. But John McCain enjoyed the support from 2 and 4 and this enabled him to win the New Hampshire and Michigan primaries, giving Bush a close contest. Some felt McCain mishandled his victory in Michigan.<br />
<br />
In 1980, Ronald Reagan had the support of 1 and 2.<br />
<br />
== Potential Democratic Candidates ==<br />
<br />
McClatchy-Marist survey after the [[2010 Midterm elections]] revealed 46% of Democrats and Democratic leaning independent voters said they don't want President Obama to face a Democratic primary challenge, with 45% saying they do want such a challenge to occur. 40% of Democrats and independents who lean towards the Democrats say they prefer a more conservative challenger, while 39% say they want a challenger who is more liberal. The Marist poll says,<br />
{{Cquote|Interestingly, a plurality of Democrats – 42 percent – would like to see a more liberal challenger while half of Democratic leaning independents – 50 percent – would like to see a more conservative one.}}<br />
The McClatchy-Marist poll indicates that 48 percent of registered voters nationwide plan to vote against the president in 2012, with 36 percent saying they'll vote to re-elect Obama.<br />
<br />
A Quinnipiac University survey released after the [[2010 Midterm elections]] indicated that a plurality of Americans don't think Obama deserves to be re-elected to a second term, and an Associated Press-GfK survey in the same time span indicates that 54% believe Obama should be voted out of office in 2012.<ref>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/24/poll-democrats-split-on-2012-obama-primary-challenge/</ref> Former DNC chairman [[Ed Rendell]] suggested on [[MSNBC]], liberal anger over Obama's escalation of the war in Afghanistan could lead to a primary challenge.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20011923-503544.html</ref><br />
<br />
The ''[[New York Times]]'' reported many [[liberal]]s are so upset over recommendations by the Deficit Reduction Commission which President Obama himself created after the Democratic controlled Congress voted the idea down,<ref>http://peoplesworld.org/senate-defeats-deficit-commission/</ref> "if Mr. Obama were to embrace its major parts, he would invite a primary challenge in 2012."<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/us/politics/12fiscal.html</ref> Clarence B. Jones, who was a personal advisor, legal counsel, and close friend of Dr. [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]], has called for a primary challenge to President Obama.<ref>http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/former-mlk-advisor-calls-primary-chal</ref><br />
<br />
Also Obama's [[Libya#Libyan_uprising_2011|Libyan intervention]] has raised the ire of many prominent leftists who question the [[wisdom]] and [[legal]]ity of the president's actions.<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html</ref><br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
!Candidate<br />
!Pros<br />
!Cons<br />
![[MSNBC]] exposure<br />
|-<br />
|[[Barack Obama]]<br />
|Ability to compromise and act in a spirit of bi-partisanship when his back's against the wall and career on the line; he's not Hillary Clinton, and he receives endearing support from the media.<br />
|He depends on a teleprompter to speak, and has run the nation into the ground. Numerous broken<ref>http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-broken/</ref> and unfulfilled<ref>http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/stalled/</ref> campaign promises, implementation of socialist [[Obamacare]] program. Maybe uphill without help from [[ACORN]].<br />
|Heavily promoted on MSNBC.<br />
|-<br />
|[[Hillary Clinton]]<br />
|Her criticism of Obama's massive deficits hinted at a possible run against him in 2012, and [[Ted Kennedy]] cannot interfere with her nomination this time; moreover, waiting until 2016 is unattractive because she will be 71 then. She has the highest approval ratings of any potential challenger.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2010/58_view_hillary_clinton_favorably 58% View Hillary Clinton Favorably], January 19, 2010. Retrieved February 15, 2010.</ref> Tested the waters with Bill backing a challenger to Obama's Colorado Senate candidate (who then lost), and by Hillary saying she won't serve a second term as Obama's Secretary of State. The chances of Hillary running and winning the nomination increase with every decline in Obama's approval ratings.<br />
|Her [[feminism]] is not wanted and she'd lose the general election as [[Martha Coakley]] did.<br />
|Disfavored on MSNBC.<br />
|-<br />
|[[Russ Feingold]]<br />
|His dedication to [[progressive]] causes rivals that of Obama, Feingold now has the time to run since his defeat in the 2010 midterms.<ref>http://usforruss.com/?p=55</ref><br />
|Considered a maverick and [[reform]]er within the Democratic party.<br />
|Disfavored on MSNBC.<br />
|-<br />
|[[Howard Dean]]<br />
|Liberal media personality, politician with physicians license and a former Vermont governor. Opposed [[Obamacare]] in its current form, and declared that government cannot force people to buy health insurance.<br />
|Progressive/Socialist/Marxist philosophy combined with numerous public gaffes. Dean ran in the 2004 presidential elections.<br />
|Heavily promoted on MSNBC.<br />
|-<br />
|[[Bernie Sanders]]<br />
|Has pledged to "do whatever I can" to thwart compromise and thinks the President's legislative proposals are "an absolute disaster and an insult to the vast majority of the American people."<br />
|Genuine out-of-the-closet [[Socialist]], will need to formally register as a Democrat.<br />
|Has appeared on MSNBC.<ref>http://www.thestatecolumn.com/blog/2010/12/sen-bernie-sanders-issues-a-challenge-to-president-obama/</ref><br />
|-<br />
|[[Ralph Nader]]<br />
|An experienced [[community organizer]], Nader has not foreclosed the possibility of a challenge. [http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/132835--nader-i-am-looking-for-someone-to-challenge-obama-in-2012] Accuses Obama of betraying progressive liberals and being "a con man." [http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/09/ralph-nader-predicts-obama-will-face-democratic-primary-challeng/]<br />
|Could mount Third Party challenge if liberals continue to lose ground in the Democratic party.<br />
|Promoted on MSNBC.<br />
|-<br />
|[[Evan Bayh]]<br />
|Democratic base sees Bayh's retirement from the Senate as "a symbol of what's wrong with the party" as moderates are increasingly marginalized. <ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/15/evan-bayh-for-president-s_n_463202.html?view=screen Evan Bayh For President? Senator May Be Eyeing White House Run,] Ryan Grim, ''Huffington Post'', 02-15-10.</ref><br />
|Lags behind Obama in fundraising. [http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00003762&cycle=2010]<br />
|Has appeared on MSNBC.<br />
|-<br />
|[[Dennis Kucinich]]<br />
|Outspoken critic of Obama's escalation of the War in Afghanistan, sellout of the public option and tax cuts for the rich.<br />
|Perennial favorite of special interests, particularly [[AFSCME]], lacks popular support and a wider appeal.<br />
|Promoted on MSNBC.<br />
|-<br />
|[[Alan Grayson]]<br />
|Could do well to rally the progressive base in the anti-war early primary and caucus states of Iowa and New Hampshire.<ref>[http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/28/an-anti-war-challenge-to-obama-in-2012-the-case-for-alan-grayso/ "An Anti-War Challenge to Obama in 2012: The Case for Alan Grayson"], ''Politics Daily'', 12-28-2010.</ref><br />
|Ethical concerns over his 2010 failed reelection bid for the House.<br />
|Heavily favored on MSNBC.<br />
|-<br />
|[[Mike Gravel]]<br />
|Former Alaska Senator who attacks his own party. <br />
|Controversial liberal that supports socialist healthcare, gay marriage and called the war in Iraq lost. <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2010/12/09/gravel-considering-obama-primary-challenge-calls-for-new-911-investigation/ Gravel considering Obama primary challenge, calls for new 9/11 investigation, The Daily Caller, December 9, 2010]</ref><br />
|Has appeared on MSNBC.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
== Independent Candidacy by Mike Bloomberg ==<br />
<br />
The man who spent $185 per vote to garner 51% of the vote to remain as Mayor of [[New York City]] in 2009, [[Mike Bloomberg]], is increasingly looking like an independent, self-funded candidate for president in 2012.<br />
<br />
$185 per vote times 50 million voters equals $9.25 billion, which he can easily afford as one of the richest men in the world. The catch is that 50 million Americans are not as likely to be persuaded by self-funded campaign ads as 51% of New Yorkers were. Also, it is possible that money is becoming ''less influential'' in campaigns, not more so. The most likely result from a Bloomberg candidacy would be a split in the [[pro-abortion]], pro-[[homosexual agenda]] vote with the [[Democratic]] nominee, facilitating election of the Republican nominee.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
{{reflist}}<br />
<br />
== See also ==<br />
<br />
*[[Gubernatorial elections, 2010]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category: United States]]<br />
[[Category: United States Presidential Elections]]<br />
[[Category: United States Presidential Election, 2012]]</div>PeterUkerhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Secularized_Language&diff=851525Secularized Language2011-02-23T01:26:55Z<p>PeterUker: fix wikilink</p>
<hr />
<div>Those with an [[antichristian]] and [[anti-American]] agenda, such as [[liberal]]s, [[homosexual]]s, [[atheist]]s, [[evolutionist]]s and [[leftist]]s have attempted to remove the [[Christian]] origins of our '''[[language]]''' by replacing common phrases with '''[[secular]]ized''' versions. By appealing to [[tolerance]] and [[political correctness]], they have succeeded in propagating these secularized versions, even among those who don't share their views. Such [[deceit]]ful tactics are a prime example of [[Liberal redefinition]] and other [[Liberal tools]].<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
!Original expression<br />
!Secularized version<br />
|-<br />
|Thank God!<br />
|Thank Goodness!<br />
|-<br />
|God bless you<br />
|Gesundheit<br />
|-<br />
|Praise the Lord<br />
|Praise be<br />
|-<br />
|Thank heavens<br />
|Thank goodness<br />
|-<br />
|Merry Christmas<br />
|Happy Holidays<br />
|-<br />
|Christmas Holiday<br />
|Winter Break<br />
|-<br />
|Easter Holiday<br />
|Spring Break<br />
|-<br />
|B.C./A.D.<br />
|B.C.E./C.E.<br />
|-<br />
|Saint Valentine's Day<br />
|Valentine's Day<br />
|-<br />
|Resurrection Sunday<br />
|Easter<br />
|-<br />
|[[Hell]] (or Heaven)<br />
|Afterlife<br />
|-<br />
|Sin<br />
|Crime<br />
|-<br />
|Sin<br />
|Lifestyle Choice<br />
|-<br />
|Abomination<br />
|Mistake<br />
|-<br />
|Holy Day<br />
|Holiday<br />
|-<br />
|Mother/Father<br />
|Parent<br />
|-<br />
|Son/Daughter<br />
|Offspring<br />
|-<br />
|With child<br />
|Pregnant<br />
|-<br />
|Bible study<br />
|Fundamentalism<br />
|-<br />
|Blasphemy <br />
|Secular opinion<br />
|-<br />
|Miraculous<br />
|Amazing<br />
|-<br />
|Heresy<br />
|Scientific theory<br />
|-<br />
|Abortion<br />
|Birth control<br />
|-<br />
|Pro-abortion<br />
|Pro-choice<br />
|-<br />
|Anti-life<br />
|Pro-choice<br />
|-<br />
|Immoral<br />
|Personal choice<br />
|-<br />
|Perversion<br />
|Diversity<br />
|-<br />
|Husband or wife<br />
|Significant other/life partner<br />
|-<br />
|prayer/blessing<br />
|moment of silence<br />
|-<br />
|Washington's Birthday<br />
|President's Day<br />
|-<br />
|Holy matrimony<br />
|Civil union<br />
|-<br />
|Providence<br />
|Lucky break<br />
|-<br />
|Pagan<br />
|Secular<br />
|-<br />
|Hallowed Eve<br />
|Halloween<br />
|-<br />
|Shrove Tuesday<br />
|Fat Tuesday<br />
|-<br />
|Thanksgiving<br />
|Turkey Day<br />
|-<br />
|The Reverend Martin Luther King Day<br />
|MLK Day<br />
|-<br />
|Saint Patrick's Day<br />
|Paddy's Day<br />
|-<br />
|Unborn baby<br />
|Fetus<br />
|-<br />
|Creation<br />
|Abiogenesis<br />
|-<br />
|Covetousness<br />
|Inequality<br />
|-<br />
|Contraception<br />
|Protection<br />
|-<br />
|Actress<br />
|Actor<br />
|-<br />
|Curse<br />
|Bad luck<br />
|-<br />
|Rebuke<br />
|Hate speech<br />
|-<br />
|The State<br />
|The Government<br />
|-<br />
|God<br />
|A higher power<br />
|-<br />
|Harlot<br />
|Sex worker<br />
|-<br />
|Marriage certificate<br />
|Just a piece of paper<br />
|-<br />
|Religion<br />
|Spirituality<br />
|-<br />
|Fertile<br />
|Breeder<br />
|-<br />
|Adultery<br />
|Cheating<br />
|-<br />
|Gave up the ghost<br />
|Died<br />
|-<br />
|Act of God<br />
|Natural disaster<br />
|-<br />
|Living in sin<br />
|Shacking up<br />
|-<br />
|Thank the Lord<br />
|Give thanks<br />
|-<br />
|Saintly<br />
|Well-behaved<br />
|-<br />
|Angelic<br />
|Pretty<br />
|-<br />
|Christmas<br />
|Xmas<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
*[[Politically correct]]<br />
*[[Liberal creep]]<br />
*[[Opposition to Christianity]]<br />
* Contrast with [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]]<br />
<br />
{{liberalism}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Liberalism]]<br />
[[Category:Language]]</div>PeterUkerhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Secularized_Language&diff=851523Secularized Language2011-02-23T01:24:51Z<p>PeterUker: liberal redefinition</p>
<hr />
<div>Those with an [[antichristian]] and [[anti-American]] agenda, such as [[liberal]]s, [[homosexual]]s, [[atheist]]s, [[evolutionist]]s and [[leftist]]s have attempted to remove the [[Christian]] origins of our '''[[language]]''' by replacing common phrases with '''[[secular]]ized''' versions. By appealing to [[tolerance]] and [[political correctness]], they have succeeded in propagating these secularized versions, even among those who don't share their views. Such [[deceitful]] tactics are a prime example of [[Liberal redefinition]] and other [[Liberal tools]].<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
!Original expression<br />
!Secularized version<br />
|-<br />
|Thank God!<br />
|Thank Goodness!<br />
|-<br />
|God bless you<br />
|Gesundheit<br />
|-<br />
|Praise the Lord<br />
|Praise be<br />
|-<br />
|Thank heavens<br />
|Thank goodness<br />
|-<br />
|Merry Christmas<br />
|Happy Holidays<br />
|-<br />
|Christmas Holiday<br />
|Winter Break<br />
|-<br />
|Easter Holiday<br />
|Spring Break<br />
|-<br />
|B.C./A.D.<br />
|B.C.E./C.E.<br />
|-<br />
|Saint Valentine's Day<br />
|Valentine's Day<br />
|-<br />
|Resurrection Sunday<br />
|Easter<br />
|-<br />
|[[Hell]] (or Heaven)<br />
|Afterlife<br />
|-<br />
|Sin<br />
|Crime<br />
|-<br />
|Sin<br />
|Lifestyle Choice<br />
|-<br />
|Abomination<br />
|Mistake<br />
|-<br />
|Holy Day<br />
|Holiday<br />
|-<br />
|Mother/Father<br />
|Parent<br />
|-<br />
|Son/Daughter<br />
|Offspring<br />
|-<br />
|With child<br />
|Pregnant<br />
|-<br />
|Bible study<br />
|Fundamentalism<br />
|-<br />
|Blasphemy <br />
|Secular opinion<br />
|-<br />
|Miraculous<br />
|Amazing<br />
|-<br />
|Heresy<br />
|Scientific theory<br />
|-<br />
|Abortion<br />
|Birth control<br />
|-<br />
|Pro-abortion<br />
|Pro-choice<br />
|-<br />
|Anti-life<br />
|Pro-choice<br />
|-<br />
|Immoral<br />
|Personal choice<br />
|-<br />
|Perversion<br />
|Diversity<br />
|-<br />
|Husband or wife<br />
|Significant other/life partner<br />
|-<br />
|prayer/blessing<br />
|moment of silence<br />
|-<br />
|Washington's Birthday<br />
|President's Day<br />
|-<br />
|Holy matrimony<br />
|Civil union<br />
|-<br />
|Providence<br />
|Lucky break<br />
|-<br />
|Pagan<br />
|Secular<br />
|-<br />
|Hallowed Eve<br />
|Halloween<br />
|-<br />
|Shrove Tuesday<br />
|Fat Tuesday<br />
|-<br />
|Thanksgiving<br />
|Turkey Day<br />
|-<br />
|The Reverend Martin Luther King Day<br />
|MLK Day<br />
|-<br />
|Saint Patrick's Day<br />
|Paddy's Day<br />
|-<br />
|Unborn baby<br />
|Fetus<br />
|-<br />
|Creation<br />
|Abiogenesis<br />
|-<br />
|Covetousness<br />
|Inequality<br />
|-<br />
|Contraception<br />
|Protection<br />
|-<br />
|Actress<br />
|Actor<br />
|-<br />
|Curse<br />
|Bad luck<br />
|-<br />
|Rebuke<br />
|Hate speech<br />
|-<br />
|The State<br />
|The Government<br />
|-<br />
|God<br />
|A higher power<br />
|-<br />
|Harlot<br />
|Sex worker<br />
|-<br />
|Marriage certificate<br />
|Just a piece of paper<br />
|-<br />
|Religion<br />
|Spirituality<br />
|-<br />
|Fertile<br />
|Breeder<br />
|-<br />
|Adultery<br />
|Cheating<br />
|-<br />
|Gave up the ghost<br />
|Died<br />
|-<br />
|Act of God<br />
|Natural disaster<br />
|-<br />
|Living in sin<br />
|Shacking up<br />
|-<br />
|Thank the Lord<br />
|Give thanks<br />
|-<br />
|Saintly<br />
|Well-behaved<br />
|-<br />
|Angelic<br />
|Pretty<br />
|-<br />
|Christmas<br />
|Xmas<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
*[[Politically correct]]<br />
*[[Liberal creep]]<br />
*[[Opposition to Christianity]]<br />
* Contrast with [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]]<br />
<br />
{{liberalism}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Liberalism]]<br />
[[Category:Language]]</div>PeterUkerhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Secularized_Language&diff=851522Secularized Language2011-02-23T01:21:35Z<p>PeterUker: /* See Also */ add liberalism template</p>
<hr />
<div>Those with an [[antichristian]] and [[anti-American]] agenda, such as [[liberal]]s, [[homosexual]]s, [[atheist]]s, [[evolutionist]]s and [[leftist]]s have attempted to remove the [[Christian]] origins of our '''[[language]]''' by replacing common phrases with '''[[secular]]ized''' versions. By appealing to [[tolerance]] and [[political correctness]], they have succeeded in propagating these secularized versions, even among those who don't share their views.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
!Original expression<br />
!Secularized version<br />
|-<br />
|Thank God!<br />
|Thank Goodness!<br />
|-<br />
|God bless you<br />
|Gesundheit<br />
|-<br />
|Praise the Lord<br />
|Praise be<br />
|-<br />
|Thank heavens<br />
|Thank goodness<br />
|-<br />
|Merry Christmas<br />
|Happy Holidays<br />
|-<br />
|Christmas Holiday<br />
|Winter Break<br />
|-<br />
|Easter Holiday<br />
|Spring Break<br />
|-<br />
|B.C./A.D.<br />
|B.C.E./C.E.<br />
|-<br />
|Saint Valentine's Day<br />
|Valentine's Day<br />
|-<br />
|Resurrection Sunday<br />
|Easter<br />
|-<br />
|[[Hell]] (or Heaven)<br />
|Afterlife<br />
|-<br />
|Sin<br />
|Crime<br />
|-<br />
|Sin<br />
|Lifestyle Choice<br />
|-<br />
|Abomination<br />
|Mistake<br />
|-<br />
|Holy Day<br />
|Holiday<br />
|-<br />
|Mother/Father<br />
|Parent<br />
|-<br />
|Son/Daughter<br />
|Offspring<br />
|-<br />
|With child<br />
|Pregnant<br />
|-<br />
|Bible study<br />
|Fundamentalism<br />
|-<br />
|Blasphemy <br />
|Secular opinion<br />
|-<br />
|Miraculous<br />
|Amazing<br />
|-<br />
|Heresy<br />
|Scientific theory<br />
|-<br />
|Abortion<br />
|Birth control<br />
|-<br />
|Pro-abortion<br />
|Pro-choice<br />
|-<br />
|Anti-life<br />
|Pro-choice<br />
|-<br />
|Immoral<br />
|Personal choice<br />
|-<br />
|Perversion<br />
|Diversity<br />
|-<br />
|Husband or wife<br />
|Significant other/life partner<br />
|-<br />
|prayer/blessing<br />
|moment of silence<br />
|-<br />
|Washington's Birthday<br />
|President's Day<br />
|-<br />
|Holy matrimony<br />
|Civil union<br />
|-<br />
|Providence<br />
|Lucky break<br />
|-<br />
|Pagan<br />
|Secular<br />
|-<br />
|Hallowed Eve<br />
|Halloween<br />
|-<br />
|Shrove Tuesday<br />
|Fat Tuesday<br />
|-<br />
|Thanksgiving<br />
|Turkey Day<br />
|-<br />
|The Reverend Martin Luther King Day<br />
|MLK Day<br />
|-<br />
|Saint Patrick's Day<br />
|Paddy's Day<br />
|-<br />
|Unborn baby<br />
|Fetus<br />
|-<br />
|Creation<br />
|Abiogenesis<br />
|-<br />
|Covetousness<br />
|Inequality<br />
|-<br />
|Contraception<br />
|Protection<br />
|-<br />
|Actress<br />
|Actor<br />
|-<br />
|Curse<br />
|Bad luck<br />
|-<br />
|Rebuke<br />
|Hate speech<br />
|-<br />
|The State<br />
|The Government<br />
|-<br />
|God<br />
|A higher power<br />
|-<br />
|Harlot<br />
|Sex worker<br />
|-<br />
|Marriage certificate<br />
|Just a piece of paper<br />
|-<br />
|Religion<br />
|Spirituality<br />
|-<br />
|Fertile<br />
|Breeder<br />
|-<br />
|Adultery<br />
|Cheating<br />
|-<br />
|Gave up the ghost<br />
|Died<br />
|-<br />
|Act of God<br />
|Natural disaster<br />
|-<br />
|Living in sin<br />
|Shacking up<br />
|-<br />
|Thank the Lord<br />
|Give thanks<br />
|-<br />
|Saintly<br />
|Well-behaved<br />
|-<br />
|Angelic<br />
|Pretty<br />
|-<br />
|Christmas<br />
|Xmas<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
*[[Politically correct]]<br />
*[[Liberal creep]]<br />
*[[Opposition to Christianity]]<br />
* Contrast with [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]]<br />
<br />
{{liberalism}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Liberalism]]<br />
[[Category:Language]]</div>PeterUkerhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Secularized_Language&diff=851521Secularized Language2011-02-23T01:21:01Z<p>PeterUker: </p>
<hr />
<div>Those with an [[antichristian]] and [[anti-American]] agenda, such as [[liberal]]s, [[homosexual]]s, [[atheist]]s, [[evolutionist]]s and [[leftist]]s have attempted to remove the [[Christian]] origins of our '''[[language]]''' by replacing common phrases with '''[[secular]]ized''' versions. By appealing to [[tolerance]] and [[political correctness]], they have succeeded in propagating these secularized versions, even among those who don't share their views.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
!Original expression<br />
!Secularized version<br />
|-<br />
|Thank God!<br />
|Thank Goodness!<br />
|-<br />
|God bless you<br />
|Gesundheit<br />
|-<br />
|Praise the Lord<br />
|Praise be<br />
|-<br />
|Thank heavens<br />
|Thank goodness<br />
|-<br />
|Merry Christmas<br />
|Happy Holidays<br />
|-<br />
|Christmas Holiday<br />
|Winter Break<br />
|-<br />
|Easter Holiday<br />
|Spring Break<br />
|-<br />
|B.C./A.D.<br />
|B.C.E./C.E.<br />
|-<br />
|Saint Valentine's Day<br />
|Valentine's Day<br />
|-<br />
|Resurrection Sunday<br />
|Easter<br />
|-<br />
|[[Hell]] (or Heaven)<br />
|Afterlife<br />
|-<br />
|Sin<br />
|Crime<br />
|-<br />
|Sin<br />
|Lifestyle Choice<br />
|-<br />
|Abomination<br />
|Mistake<br />
|-<br />
|Holy Day<br />
|Holiday<br />
|-<br />
|Mother/Father<br />
|Parent<br />
|-<br />
|Son/Daughter<br />
|Offspring<br />
|-<br />
|With child<br />
|Pregnant<br />
|-<br />
|Bible study<br />
|Fundamentalism<br />
|-<br />
|Blasphemy <br />
|Secular opinion<br />
|-<br />
|Miraculous<br />
|Amazing<br />
|-<br />
|Heresy<br />
|Scientific theory<br />
|-<br />
|Abortion<br />
|Birth control<br />
|-<br />
|Pro-abortion<br />
|Pro-choice<br />
|-<br />
|Anti-life<br />
|Pro-choice<br />
|-<br />
|Immoral<br />
|Personal choice<br />
|-<br />
|Perversion<br />
|Diversity<br />
|-<br />
|Husband or wife<br />
|Significant other/life partner<br />
|-<br />
|prayer/blessing<br />
|moment of silence<br />
|-<br />
|Washington's Birthday<br />
|President's Day<br />
|-<br />
|Holy matrimony<br />
|Civil union<br />
|-<br />
|Providence<br />
|Lucky break<br />
|-<br />
|Pagan<br />
|Secular<br />
|-<br />
|Hallowed Eve<br />
|Halloween<br />
|-<br />
|Shrove Tuesday<br />
|Fat Tuesday<br />
|-<br />
|Thanksgiving<br />
|Turkey Day<br />
|-<br />
|The Reverend Martin Luther King Day<br />
|MLK Day<br />
|-<br />
|Saint Patrick's Day<br />
|Paddy's Day<br />
|-<br />
|Unborn baby<br />
|Fetus<br />
|-<br />
|Creation<br />
|Abiogenesis<br />
|-<br />
|Covetousness<br />
|Inequality<br />
|-<br />
|Contraception<br />
|Protection<br />
|-<br />
|Actress<br />
|Actor<br />
|-<br />
|Curse<br />
|Bad luck<br />
|-<br />
|Rebuke<br />
|Hate speech<br />
|-<br />
|The State<br />
|The Government<br />
|-<br />
|God<br />
|A higher power<br />
|-<br />
|Harlot<br />
|Sex worker<br />
|-<br />
|Marriage certificate<br />
|Just a piece of paper<br />
|-<br />
|Religion<br />
|Spirituality<br />
|-<br />
|Fertile<br />
|Breeder<br />
|-<br />
|Adultery<br />
|Cheating<br />
|-<br />
|Gave up the ghost<br />
|Died<br />
|-<br />
|Act of God<br />
|Natural disaster<br />
|-<br />
|Living in sin<br />
|Shacking up<br />
|-<br />
|Thank the Lord<br />
|Give thanks<br />
|-<br />
|Saintly<br />
|Well-behaved<br />
|-<br />
|Angelic<br />
|Pretty<br />
|-<br />
|Christmas<br />
|Xmas<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
*[[Politically correct]]<br />
*[[Liberal creep]]<br />
*[[Opposition to Christianity]]<br />
* Contrast with [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Liberalism]]<br />
[[Category:Language]]</div>PeterUkerhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Secularized_Language&diff=851520Secularized Language2011-02-23T01:19:28Z<p>PeterUker: /* See Also */</p>
<hr />
<div>Those with an [[antichristian]] agenda, such as [[liberal]]s, [[homosexual]]s, [[atheist]]s, [[evolutionist]]s and [[leftist]]s have attempted to remove the [[Christian]] origins of our '''[[language]]''' by replacing common phrases with '''[[secular]]ized''' versions. By appealing to [[tolerance]] and [[political correctness]], they have succeeded in propagating these secularized versions, even among those who don't share their views.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
!Original expression<br />
!Secularized version<br />
|-<br />
|Thank God!<br />
|Thank Goodness!<br />
|-<br />
|God bless you<br />
|Gesundheit<br />
|-<br />
|Praise the Lord<br />
|Praise be<br />
|-<br />
|Thank heavens<br />
|Thank goodness<br />
|-<br />
|Merry Christmas<br />
|Happy Holidays<br />
|-<br />
|Christmas Holiday<br />
|Winter Break<br />
|-<br />
|Easter Holiday<br />
|Spring Break<br />
|-<br />
|B.C./A.D.<br />
|B.C.E./C.E.<br />
|-<br />
|Saint Valentine's Day<br />
|Valentine's Day<br />
|-<br />
|Resurrection Sunday<br />
|Easter<br />
|-<br />
|[[Hell]] (or Heaven)<br />
|Afterlife<br />
|-<br />
|Sin<br />
|Crime<br />
|-<br />
|Sin<br />
|Lifestyle Choice<br />
|-<br />
|Abomination<br />
|Mistake<br />
|-<br />
|Holy Day<br />
|Holiday<br />
|-<br />
|Mother/Father<br />
|Parent<br />
|-<br />
|Son/Daughter<br />
|Offspring<br />
|-<br />
|With child<br />
|Pregnant<br />
|-<br />
|Bible study<br />
|Fundamentalism<br />
|-<br />
|Blasphemy <br />
|Secular opinion<br />
|-<br />
|Miraculous<br />
|Amazing<br />
|-<br />
|Heresy<br />
|Scientific theory<br />
|-<br />
|Abortion<br />
|Birth control<br />
|-<br />
|Pro-abortion<br />
|Pro-choice<br />
|-<br />
|Anti-life<br />
|Pro-choice<br />
|-<br />
|Immoral<br />
|Personal choice<br />
|-<br />
|Perversion<br />
|Diversity<br />
|-<br />
|Husband or wife<br />
|Significant other/life partner<br />
|-<br />
|prayer/blessing<br />
|moment of silence<br />
|-<br />
|Washington's Birthday<br />
|President's Day<br />
|-<br />
|Holy matrimony<br />
|Civil union<br />
|-<br />
|Providence<br />
|Lucky break<br />
|-<br />
|Pagan<br />
|Secular<br />
|-<br />
|Hallowed Eve<br />
|Halloween<br />
|-<br />
|Shrove Tuesday<br />
|Fat Tuesday<br />
|-<br />
|Thanksgiving<br />
|Turkey Day<br />
|-<br />
|The Reverend Martin Luther King Day<br />
|MLK Day<br />
|-<br />
|Saint Patrick's Day<br />
|Paddy's Day<br />
|-<br />
|Unborn baby<br />
|Fetus<br />
|-<br />
|Creation<br />
|Abiogenesis<br />
|-<br />
|Covetousness<br />
|Inequality<br />
|-<br />
|Contraception<br />
|Protection<br />
|-<br />
|Actress<br />
|Actor<br />
|-<br />
|Curse<br />
|Bad luck<br />
|-<br />
|Rebuke<br />
|Hate speech<br />
|-<br />
|The State<br />
|The Government<br />
|-<br />
|God<br />
|A higher power<br />
|-<br />
|Harlot<br />
|Sex worker<br />
|-<br />
|Marriage certificate<br />
|Just a piece of paper<br />
|-<br />
|Religion<br />
|Spirituality<br />
|-<br />
|Fertile<br />
|Breeder<br />
|-<br />
|Adultery<br />
|Cheating<br />
|-<br />
|Gave up the ghost<br />
|Died<br />
|-<br />
|Act of God<br />
|Natural disaster<br />
|-<br />
|Living in sin<br />
|Shacking up<br />
|-<br />
|Thank the Lord<br />
|Give thanks<br />
|-<br />
|Saintly<br />
|Well-behaved<br />
|-<br />
|Angelic<br />
|Pretty<br />
|-<br />
|Christmas<br />
|Xmas<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
*[[Politically correct]]<br />
*[[Liberal creep]]<br />
*[[Opposition to Christianity]]<br />
* Contrast with [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Liberalism]]<br />
[[Category:Language]]</div>PeterUkerhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Secularized_Language&diff=851519Secularized Language2011-02-23T01:17:06Z<p>PeterUker: this one really bugs me!</p>
<hr />
<div>Those with an [[antichristian]] agenda, such as [[liberal]]s, [[homosexual]]s, [[atheist]]s, [[evolutionist]]s and [[leftist]]s have attempted to remove the [[Christian]] origins of our '''[[language]]''' by replacing common phrases with '''[[secular]]ized''' versions. By appealing to [[tolerance]] and [[political correctness]], they have succeeded in propagating these secularized versions, even among those who don't share their views.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
!Original expression<br />
!Secularized version<br />
|-<br />
|Thank God!<br />
|Thank Goodness!<br />
|-<br />
|God bless you<br />
|Gesundheit<br />
|-<br />
|Praise the Lord<br />
|Praise be<br />
|-<br />
|Thank heavens<br />
|Thank goodness<br />
|-<br />
|Merry Christmas<br />
|Happy Holidays<br />
|-<br />
|Christmas Holiday<br />
|Winter Break<br />
|-<br />
|Easter Holiday<br />
|Spring Break<br />
|-<br />
|B.C./A.D.<br />
|B.C.E./C.E.<br />
|-<br />
|Saint Valentine's Day<br />
|Valentine's Day<br />
|-<br />
|Resurrection Sunday<br />
|Easter<br />
|-<br />
|[[Hell]] (or Heaven)<br />
|Afterlife<br />
|-<br />
|Sin<br />
|Crime<br />
|-<br />
|Sin<br />
|Lifestyle Choice<br />
|-<br />
|Abomination<br />
|Mistake<br />
|-<br />
|Holy Day<br />
|Holiday<br />
|-<br />
|Mother/Father<br />
|Parent<br />
|-<br />
|Son/Daughter<br />
|Offspring<br />
|-<br />
|With child<br />
|Pregnant<br />
|-<br />
|Bible study<br />
|Fundamentalism<br />
|-<br />
|Blasphemy <br />
|Secular opinion<br />
|-<br />
|Miraculous<br />
|Amazing<br />
|-<br />
|Heresy<br />
|Scientific theory<br />
|-<br />
|Abortion<br />
|Birth control<br />
|-<br />
|Pro-abortion<br />
|Pro-choice<br />
|-<br />
|Anti-life<br />
|Pro-choice<br />
|-<br />
|Immoral<br />
|Personal choice<br />
|-<br />
|Perversion<br />
|Diversity<br />
|-<br />
|Husband or wife<br />
|Significant other/life partner<br />
|-<br />
|prayer/blessing<br />
|moment of silence<br />
|-<br />
|Washington's Birthday<br />
|President's Day<br />
|-<br />
|Holy matrimony<br />
|Civil union<br />
|-<br />
|Providence<br />
|Lucky break<br />
|-<br />
|Pagan<br />
|Secular<br />
|-<br />
|Hallowed Eve<br />
|Halloween<br />
|-<br />
|Shrove Tuesday<br />
|Fat Tuesday<br />
|-<br />
|Thanksgiving<br />
|Turkey Day<br />
|-<br />
|The Reverend Martin Luther King Day<br />
|MLK Day<br />
|-<br />
|Saint Patrick's Day<br />
|Paddy's Day<br />
|-<br />
|Unborn baby<br />
|Fetus<br />
|-<br />
|Creation<br />
|Abiogenesis<br />
|-<br />
|Covetousness<br />
|Inequality<br />
|-<br />
|Contraception<br />
|Protection<br />
|-<br />
|Actress<br />
|Actor<br />
|-<br />
|Curse<br />
|Bad luck<br />
|-<br />
|Rebuke<br />
|Hate speech<br />
|-<br />
|The State<br />
|The Government<br />
|-<br />
|God<br />
|A higher power<br />
|-<br />
|Harlot<br />
|Sex worker<br />
|-<br />
|Marriage certificate<br />
|Just a piece of paper<br />
|-<br />
|Religion<br />
|Spirituality<br />
|-<br />
|Fertile<br />
|Breeder<br />
|-<br />
|Adultery<br />
|Cheating<br />
|-<br />
|Gave up the ghost<br />
|Died<br />
|-<br />
|Act of God<br />
|Natural disaster<br />
|-<br />
|Living in sin<br />
|Shacking up<br />
|-<br />
|Thank the Lord<br />
|Give thanks<br />
|-<br />
|Saintly<br />
|Well-behaved<br />
|-<br />
|Angelic<br />
|Pretty<br />
|-<br />
|Christmas<br />
|Xmas<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
*[[Politically correct]]<br />
*[[Liberal creep]]<br />
* Contrast with [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Liberalism]]<br />
[[Category:Language]]</div>PeterUkerhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Secularized_Language&diff=851518Secularized Language2011-02-23T01:15:58Z<p>PeterUker: Adding to the article (rather than removing from it!)</p>
<hr />
<div>Those with an [[antichristian]] agenda, such as [[liberal]]s, [[homosexual]]s, [[atheist]]s, [[evolutionist]]s and [[leftist]]s have attempted to remove the [[Christian]] origins of our '''[[language]]''' by replacing common phrases with '''[[secular]]ized''' versions. By appealing to [[tolerance]] and [[political correctness]], they have succeeded in propagating these secularized versions, even among those who don't share their views.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
!Original expression<br />
!Secularized version<br />
|-<br />
|Thank God!<br />
|Thank Goodness!<br />
|-<br />
|God bless you<br />
|Gesundheit<br />
|-<br />
|Praise the Lord<br />
|Praise be<br />
|-<br />
|Thank heavens<br />
|Thank goodness<br />
|-<br />
|Merry Christmas<br />
|Happy Holidays<br />
|-<br />
|Christmas Holiday<br />
|Winter Break<br />
|-<br />
|Easter Holiday<br />
|Spring Break<br />
|-<br />
|B.C./A.D.<br />
|B.C.E./C.E.<br />
|-<br />
|Saint Valentine's Day<br />
|Valentine's Day<br />
|-<br />
|Resurrection Sunday<br />
|Easter<br />
|-<br />
|[[Hell]] (or Heaven)<br />
|Afterlife<br />
|-<br />
|Sin<br />
|Crime<br />
|-<br />
|Sin<br />
|Lifestyle Choice<br />
|-<br />
|Abomination<br />
|Mistake<br />
|-<br />
|Holy Day<br />
|Holiday<br />
|-<br />
|Mother/Father<br />
|Parent<br />
|-<br />
|Son/Daughter<br />
|Offspring<br />
|-<br />
|With child<br />
|Pregnant<br />
|-<br />
|Bible study<br />
|Fundamentalism<br />
|-<br />
|Blasphemy <br />
|Secular opinion<br />
|-<br />
|Miraculous<br />
|Amazing<br />
|-<br />
|Heresy<br />
|Scientific theory<br />
|-<br />
|Abortion<br />
|Birth control<br />
|-<br />
|Pro-abortion<br />
|Pro-choice<br />
|-<br />
|Anti-life<br />
|Pro-choice<br />
|-<br />
|Immoral<br />
|Personal choice<br />
|-<br />
|Perversion<br />
|Diversity<br />
|-<br />
|Husband or wife<br />
|Significant other/life partner<br />
|-<br />
|prayer/blessing<br />
|moment of silence<br />
|-<br />
|Washington's Birthday<br />
|President's Day<br />
|-<br />
|Holy matrimony<br />
|Civil union<br />
|-<br />
|Providence<br />
|Lucky break<br />
|-<br />
|Pagan<br />
|Secular<br />
|-<br />
|Hallowed Eve<br />
|Halloween<br />
|-<br />
|Shrove Tuesday<br />
|Fat Tuesday<br />
|-<br />
|Thanksgiving<br />
|Turkey Day<br />
|-<br />
|The Reverend Martin Luther King Day<br />
|MLK Day<br />
|-<br />
|Saint Patrick's Day<br />
|Paddy's Day<br />
|-<br />
|Unborn baby<br />
|Fetus<br />
|-<br />
|Creation<br />
|Abiogenesis<br />
|-<br />
|Covetousness<br />
|Inequality<br />
|-<br />
|Contraception<br />
|Protection<br />
|-<br />
|Actress<br />
|Actor<br />
|-<br />
|Curse<br />
|Bad luck<br />
|-<br />
|Rebuke<br />
|Hate speech<br />
|-<br />
|The State<br />
|The Government<br />
|-<br />
|God<br />
|A higher power<br />
|-<br />
|Harlot<br />
|Sex worker<br />
|-<br />
|Marriage certificate<br />
|Just a piece of paper<br />
|-<br />
|Religion<br />
|Spirituality<br />
|-<br />
|Fertile<br />
|Breeder<br />
|-<br />
|Adultery<br />
|Cheating<br />
|-<br />
|Gave up the ghost<br />
|Died<br />
|-<br />
|Act of God<br />
|Natural disaster<br />
|-<br />
|Living in sin<br />
|Shacking up<br />
|-<br />
|Thank the Lord<br />
|Give thanks<br />
|-<br />
|Saintly<br />
|Well-behaved<br />
|-<br />
|Angelic<br />
|Pretty<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
*[[Politically correct]]<br />
*[[Liberal creep]]<br />
* Contrast with [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Liberalism]]<br />
[[Category:Language]]</div>PeterUkerhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Secularized_Language&diff=851517Secularized Language2011-02-23T01:13:33Z<p>PeterUker: add</p>
<hr />
<div>Those with an [[antichristian]] agenda, such as [[liberal]]s, [[homosexual]]s, [[atheist]]s, [[evolutionist]]s and [[leftist]]s have attempted to remove the [[Christian]] origins of our '''[[language]]''' by replacing common phrases with '''[[secular]]ized''' versions. By appealing to [[tolerance]] and [[political correctness]], they have succeeded in propagating these secularized versions, even among those who don't share their views.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
!Original expression<br />
!Secularized version<br />
|-<br />
|Thank God!<br />
|Thank Goodness!<br />
|-<br />
|God bless you<br />
|Gesundheit<br />
|-<br />
|Praise the Lord<br />
|Praise be<br />
|-<br />
|Thank heavens<br />
|Thank goodness<br />
|-<br />
|Merry Christmas<br />
|Happy Holidays<br />
|-<br />
|Christmas Holiday<br />
|Winter Break<br />
|-<br />
|Easter Holiday<br />
|Spring Break<br />
|-<br />
|B.C./A.D.<br />
|B.C.E./C.E.<br />
|-<br />
|Saint Valentine's Day<br />
|Valentine's Day<br />
|-<br />
|Resurrection Sunday<br />
|Easter<br />
|-<br />
|[[Hell]] (or Heaven)<br />
|Afterlife<br />
|-<br />
|Sin<br />
|Crime<br />
|-<br />
|Sin<br />
|Lifestyle Choice<br />
|-<br />
|Abomination<br />
|Mistake<br />
|-<br />
|Holy Day<br />
|Holiday<br />
|-<br />
|Mother/Father<br />
|Parent<br />
|-<br />
|Son/Daughter<br />
|Offspring<br />
|-<br />
|With child<br />
|Pregnant<br />
|-<br />
|Bible study<br />
|Fundamentalism<br />
|-<br />
|Blasphemy <br />
|Secular opinion<br />
|-<br />
|Miraculous<br />
|Amazing<br />
|-<br />
|Heresy<br />
|Scientific theory<br />
|-<br />
|Abortion<br />
|Birth control<br />
|-<br />
|Pro-abortion<br />
|Pro-choice<br />
|-<br />
|Anti-life<br />
|Pro-choice<br />
|-<br />
|Immoral<br />
|Personal choice<br />
|-<br />
|Perversion<br />
|Diversity<br />
|-<br />
|Husband or wife<br />
|Significant other/life partner<br />
|-<br />
|prayer/blessing<br />
|moment of silence<br />
|-<br />
|Washington's Birthday<br />
|President's Day<br />
|-<br />
|Holy matrimony<br />
|Civil union<br />
|-<br />
|Providence<br />
|Lucky break<br />
|-<br />
|Pagan<br />
|Secular<br />
|-<br />
|Hallowed Eve<br />
|Halloween<br />
|-<br />
|Shrove Tuesday<br />
|Fat Tuesday<br />
|-<br />
|Thanksgiving<br />
|Turkey Day<br />
|-<br />
|The Reverend Martin Luther King Day<br />
|MLK Day<br />
|-<br />
|Saint Patrick's Day<br />
|Paddy's Day<br />
|-<br />
|Unborn baby<br />
|Fetus<br />
|-<br />
|Creation<br />
|Abiogenesis<br />
|-<br />
|Covetousness<br />
|Inequality<br />
|-<br />
|Contraception<br />
|Protection<br />
|-<br />
|Actress<br />
|Actor<br />
|-<br />
|Curse<br />
|Bad luck<br />
|-<br />
|Rebuke<br />
|Hate speech<br />
|-<br />
|The State<br />
|The Government<br />
|-<br />
|God<br />
|A higher power<br />
|-<br />
|Harlot<br />
|Sex worker<br />
|-<br />
|Marriage certificate<br />
|Just a piece of paper<br />
|-<br />
|Religion<br />
|Spirituality<br />
|-<br />
|Fertile<br />
|Breeder<br />
|-<br />
|Adultery<br />
|Cheating<br />
|-<br />
|Gave up the ghost<br />
|Died<br />
|-<br />
|Act of God<br />
|Natural disaster<br />
|-<br />
|Living in sin<br />
|Shacking up<br />
|-<br />
|Thank the Lord<br />
|Give thanks<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
*[[Politically correct]]<br />
*[[Liberal creep]]<br />
* Contrast with [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Liberalism]]<br />
[[Category:Language]]</div>PeterUkerhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Secularized_Language&diff=851516Talk:Secularized Language2011-02-23T01:10:59Z<p>PeterUker: /* Perversion diversity */ response</p>
<hr />
<div>I'd like to organize these into categories - not divided up, maybe - with secularized expressions at the top (e.g., Thank God => thank goodness). Terms indicating a total shift of concept like Bible Study => fundamentalism might come later. Everyone okay with this? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 08:43, 22 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Sounds good to me! How about giving it a try and let's see how it looks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:32, 22 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
::To be fair, many more conservative Christians (my mother, for example), use some of the so-called "secular expressions" because they take a strict line on taking the Lord's name in vain. She would, for example, rather not say "Thank God" unless she was quite literally thanking the deity. Indeed, I believe that is how the "thank goodness" construction originally evolved. --[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 12:57, 22 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::That might well be, Jdixon--certainly, it's laudable to take seriously the commandment not to take the Lord's name in vain--but I don't think very many Christians would see a heartfelt "Thank God!" as inappropriate in many circumstances. Thus, while your mother's conscientiousness is admirable, I don't think such conscientiousness is a sufficient explanation for the systematic removal of religious language from the public square. Certainly, I think that some people choose "Thank goodness" out of a concern for propriety, but I think many more choose it out of a desire to avoid giving offense, or simply because it's what they're most used to hearing. Perhaps a section on differing reasons for using these terms could be included in the article; after all, this is supposed to be an examination of the issue. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:34, 22 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Washington's Birthday/President's Day ==<br />
<br />
While this is a case of P.C., it's not a case of secularized language. Last I checked, George Washington was not a sacred personage. [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 13:47, 22 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Washington was a prominent Christian whose habit of praying and appealing to God for assistance is well-known. He was a kind of saint, and the downplaying of his (indisputable) significance is due to his Christianity. If he had been an atheist then you'd see the opposite effect.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:20, 22 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
::What kind of a saint was George Washington? --[[User:JohannesZ|JohannesZ]] 15:52, 22 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::The kind that wins wars. There have been other examples. Have you ever heard of [[Joan of Arc]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:02, 22 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::Canonized in 1920, right? When did the Church recognize Washington as a saint? [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 16:17, 22 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::@Andy: Aye. She still needed miracles credited to her. [http://www.stjoan-center.com/novelapp/joaap04.html] --[[User:JohannesZ|JohannesZ]] 16:20, 22 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::::I don't think all Christian churches have the same rules.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:23, 22 February 2011 (EST)<br />
::::::Undoubtedly. So which churches DO recognize Washington as a saint or other type of sacred being? [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 16:26, 22 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::::: Perhaps the church of Satan does, or perhaps atheists simply dislike Washington. Wouldn't that be enough to explain the misnaming of the holiday as described in the entry?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:31, 22 February 2011 (EST)<br />
:::::::::I'm pretty sure that The Church of Satan does not acknowledge George Washington as divine. If there's any evidence -- a tract from an angry atheist decrying a celebration of the Christian Washington and demanding a holiday that accommodates the Presidents that were not Christians, I've yet to find one. [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 16:37, 22 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Marty, bias doesn't work that way. You're not likely to find such an angry tract about ''any'' of the items on the list.<br />
<br />
::::::::::Atheistic bias, like other forms of bias, seeks to downplay and minimize Christianity. Washington was a leading, accomplished Christian. Lincoln far less so, other presidents even lesser still, and the office of president not Christian at all. An atheistic bias pushes language from the Christian recognition to the more atheistic substitute.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:15, 22 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I agree with Andy here; the greater the Christianity of an historical figure, the more the atheistic revisionists will try to downplay his significance. [[User:PeterUker|PeterUker]] 18:24, 22 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
== A few questions ==<br />
<br />
A few of the words here don't really seem to fit in the list.<br />
For example:<br />
*'''Resurrection Sunday''' -> '''Easter'''<br />
::"Easter" does have pagan origins, but the Pope says "Easter Sunday", not "Resurrection Sunday" - see[http://www.vatican.va/liturgical_year/liturgico_en/easter.html] and [http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/calendar/ns_liturgy_calendar_en.html#APRIL_2011]. In fact, a Google search of the Vatican website doesn't find "Resurrection Sunday" at all, except a few times with commas in between.<br />
<br />
*'''Washington's Birthday''' -> '''President's Day'''<br />
::It's not secularization as far as I can tell. And President's Day honors Lincoln as well. Silly political correctness, maybe. Secularization, no.<br />
<br />
*'''Pagan''' -> '''Secular'''<br />
::Pagan usually refers to belief in multiple gods, while secular refers to something separate from religion (e.g. the Turkish government is secular because there is no state religion).<br />
<br />
*'''God bless you''' -> '''Gesundheit'''<br />
::Gesundheit is what Germans have always said after a sneeze. Many European countries have the same kind of response. Nobody ever says "God bless you" in German. "Gesundheit" is as old as "God bless you", and the people who say it got the idea from German-Americans.<br />
<br />
[[User:DouglasL|DouglasL]] 14:18, 22 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Pagan definition: one who has little or no religion. Secular definition: not overtly or specifically religious. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:31, 22 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
== The Saint's Days ==<br />
* Valentine's Day is no longer officially the feast day for St. Valentine, which definitely explains on some level why the "St" has been dropped from the name. February 14th is now the feast day for Cyril and Methodius, this changed in 1969 under Pope Paul the V, I think. <br />
<br />
*Paddy for St. Patrick's Day makes logical sense in that Paddy is a celtic diminutive for Padrig, which is Anglicized to Patrick. I've never actually heard it as Paddy's Day, I've always heard it as "St. Paddy's Day" <br />
<br />
*Resurrection Sunday has been called Easter since at the very least the AD 600s. St. Bede's ''Ecclesiastical History of the English People'' written in the early 700s refers to it as Easter, although he does admit it is tied to the Pagan festival of Eostre he still uses the term Easter. I don't think it is logical to use Easter as an example of modern society trying to erase Christian influence from daily life, I think it is simply a continuation of a name that is well over 1,000 years old. <br />
<br />
just my thoughts, good luck.--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 19:13, 22 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Perversion diversity ==<br />
<br />
As I understand it this is a list of words that are backward compatible to former religious meanings. We could stop saying Happy Holidays as a society and say Merry Christmas. I'd hate to think of what bigots we would appear to be if we started calling diversity perversion. "Have a lot of people off all different races, creeds, and colors working at your company, you are perverted!" or "A black man marrying a white woman, that's a perverted couple!" Since I doubt that anyone here thinks that way (and if they do maybe they should find somewhere else to be) then I think that should be pulled from the list for now. --[[User:AlaskanEconomy|AlaskanEconomy]] 20:01, 22 February 2011 (EST)<br />
:'Diversity' is a word used often by liberals and others who push the [[homosexual agenda]], claiming that ongoing [[homosexualization]] is in the name of diversity. As a conservative and one who reads the Bible daily, I find same-sex marriage perverse, yet liberals such as yourself would refer to such things as diverse. Hence, your non-sequiturs aside, I feel the entry should remain. [[User:PeterUker|PeterUker]] 20:10, 22 February 2011 (EST)</div>PeterUkerhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Secularized_Language&diff=851515Secularized Language2011-02-23T01:05:44Z<p>PeterUker: Undo revision 851514 by AlaskanEconomy (talk) Please wait until it has been discussed before removing information</p>
<hr />
<div>Those with an [[antichristian]] agenda, such as [[liberal]]s, [[homosexual]]s, [[atheist]]s, [[evolutionist]]s and [[leftist]]s have attempted to remove the [[Christian]] origins of our '''[[language]]''' by replacing common phrases with '''[[secular]]ized''' versions. By appealing to [[tolerance]] and [[political correctness]], they have succeeded in propagating these secularized versions, even among those who don't share their views.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
!Original expression<br />
!Secularized version<br />
|-<br />
|Thank God!<br />
|Thank Goodness!<br />
|-<br />
|God bless you<br />
|Gesundheit<br />
|-<br />
|Praise the Lord<br />
|Praise be<br />
|-<br />
|Thank heavens<br />
|Thank goodness<br />
|-<br />
|Merry Christmas<br />
|Happy Holidays<br />
|-<br />
|Christmas Holiday<br />
|Winter Break<br />
|-<br />
|Easter Holiday<br />
|Spring Break<br />
|-<br />
|B.C./A.D.<br />
|B.C.E./C.E.<br />
|-<br />
|Saint Valentine's Day<br />
|Valentine's Day<br />
|-<br />
|Resurrection Sunday<br />
|Easter<br />
|-<br />
|[[Hell]] (or Heaven)<br />
|Afterlife<br />
|-<br />
|Sin<br />
|Crime<br />
|-<br />
|Sin<br />
|Lifestyle Choice<br />
|-<br />
|Abomination<br />
|Mistake<br />
|-<br />
|Holy Day<br />
|Holiday<br />
|-<br />
|Mother/Father<br />
|Parent<br />
|-<br />
|Son/Daughter<br />
|Offspring<br />
|-<br />
|With child<br />
|Pregnant<br />
|-<br />
|Bible study<br />
|Fundamentalism<br />
|-<br />
|Blasphemy <br />
|Secular opinion<br />
|-<br />
|Miraculous<br />
|Amazing<br />
|-<br />
|Heresy<br />
|Scientific theory<br />
|-<br />
|Abortion<br />
|Birth control<br />
|-<br />
|Pro-abortion<br />
|Pro-choice<br />
|-<br />
|Anti-life<br />
|Pro-choice<br />
|-<br />
|Immoral<br />
|Personal choice<br />
|-<br />
|Perversion<br />
|Diversity<br />
|-<br />
|Husband or wife<br />
|Significant other/life partner<br />
|-<br />
|prayer/blessing<br />
|moment of silence<br />
|-<br />
|Washington's Birthday<br />
|President's Day<br />
|-<br />
|Holy matrimony<br />
|Civil union<br />
|-<br />
|Providence<br />
|Lucky break<br />
|-<br />
|Pagan<br />
|Secular<br />
|-<br />
|Hallowed Eve<br />
|Halloween<br />
|-<br />
|Shrove Tuesday<br />
|Fat Tuesday<br />
|-<br />
|Thanksgiving<br />
|Turkey Day<br />
|-<br />
|The Reverend Martin Luther King Day<br />
|MLK Day<br />
|-<br />
|Saint Patrick's Day<br />
|Paddy's Day<br />
|-<br />
|Unborn baby<br />
|Fetus<br />
|-<br />
|Creation<br />
|Abiogenesis<br />
|-<br />
|Covetousness<br />
|Inequality<br />
|-<br />
|Contraception<br />
|Protection<br />
|-<br />
|Actress<br />
|Actor<br />
|-<br />
|Curse<br />
|Bad luck<br />
|-<br />
|Rebuke<br />
|Hate speech<br />
|-<br />
|The State<br />
|The Government<br />
|-<br />
|God<br />
|A higher power<br />
|-<br />
|Harlot<br />
|Sex worker<br />
|-<br />
|Marriage certificate<br />
|Just a piece of paper<br />
|-<br />
|Religion<br />
|Spirituality<br />
|-<br />
|Fertile<br />
|Breeder<br />
|-<br />
|Adultery<br />
|Cheating<br />
|-<br />
|Gave up the ghost<br />
|Died<br />
|-<br />
|Act of God<br />
|Natural disaster<br />
|-<br />
|Living in sin<br />
|Shacking up<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
*[[Politically correct]]<br />
*[[Liberal creep]]<br />
* Contrast with [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Liberalism]]<br />
[[Category:Language]]</div>PeterUkerhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Secularized_Language&diff=851487Talk:Secularized Language2011-02-22T23:24:20Z<p>PeterUker: /* Washington's Birthday/President's Day */ direct correlation</p>
<hr />
<div>I'd like to organize these into categories - not divided up, maybe - with secularized expressions at the top (e.g., Thank God => thank goodness). Terms indicating a total shift of concept like Bible Study => fundamentalism might come later. Everyone okay with this? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 08:43, 22 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Sounds good to me! How about giving it a try and let's see how it looks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:32, 22 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
::To be fair, many more conservative Christians (my mother, for example), use some of the so-called "secular expressions" because they take a strict line on taking the Lord's name in vain. She would, for example, rather not say "Thank God" unless she was quite literally thanking the deity. Indeed, I believe that is how the "thank goodness" construction originally evolved. --[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 12:57, 22 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::That might well be, Jdixon--certainly, it's laudable to take seriously the commandment not to take the Lord's name in vain--but I don't think very many Christians would see a heartfelt "Thank God!" as inappropriate in many circumstances. Thus, while your mother's conscientiousness is admirable, I don't think such conscientiousness is a sufficient explanation for the systematic removal of religious language from the public square. Certainly, I think that some people choose "Thank goodness" out of a concern for propriety, but I think many more choose it out of a desire to avoid giving offense, or simply because it's what they're most used to hearing. Perhaps a section on differing reasons for using these terms could be included in the article; after all, this is supposed to be an examination of the issue. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:34, 22 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Washington's Birthday/President's Day ==<br />
<br />
While this is a case of P.C., it's not a case of secularized language. Last I checked, George Washington was not a sacred personage. [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 13:47, 22 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Washington was a prominent Christian whose habit of praying and appealing to God for assistance is well-known. He was a kind of saint, and the downplaying of his (indisputable) significance is due to his Christianity. If he had been an atheist then you'd see the opposite effect.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:20, 22 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
::What kind of a saint was George Washington? --[[User:JohannesZ|JohannesZ]] 15:52, 22 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::The kind that wins wars. There have been other examples. Have you ever heard of [[Joan of Arc]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:02, 22 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::Canonized in 1920, right? When did the Church recognize Washington as a saint? [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 16:17, 22 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::@Andy: Aye. She still needed miracles credited to her. [http://www.stjoan-center.com/novelapp/joaap04.html] --[[User:JohannesZ|JohannesZ]] 16:20, 22 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::::I don't think all Christian churches have the same rules.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:23, 22 February 2011 (EST)<br />
::::::Undoubtedly. So which churches DO recognize Washington as a saint or other type of sacred being? [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 16:26, 22 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::::: Perhaps the church of Satan does, or perhaps atheists simply dislike Washington. Wouldn't that be enough to explain the misnaming of the holiday as described in the entry?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:31, 22 February 2011 (EST)<br />
:::::::::I'm pretty sure that The Church of Satan does not acknowledge George Washington as divine. If there's any evidence -- a tract from an angry atheist decrying a celebration of the Christian Washington and demanding a holiday that accommodates the Presidents that were not Christians, I've yet to find one. [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 16:37, 22 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Marty, bias doesn't work that way. You're not likely to find such an angry tract about ''any'' of the items on the list.<br />
<br />
::::::::::Atheistic bias, like other forms of bias, seeks to downplay and minimize Christianity. Washington was a leading, accomplished Christian. Lincoln far less so, other presidents even lesser still, and the office of president not Christian at all. An atheistic bias pushes language from the Christian recognition to the more atheistic substitute.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:15, 22 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I agree with Andy here; the greater the Christianity of an historical figure, the more the atheistic revisionists will try to downplay his significance. [[User:PeterUker|PeterUker]] 18:24, 22 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
== A few questions ==<br />
<br />
A few of the words here don't really seem to fit in the list.<br />
For example:<br />
*'''Resurrection Sunday''' -> '''Easter'''<br />
::"Easter" does have pagan origins, but the Pope says "Easter Sunday", not "Resurrection Sunday" - see[http://www.vatican.va/liturgical_year/liturgico_en/easter.html] and [http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/calendar/ns_liturgy_calendar_en.html#APRIL_2011]. In fact, a Google search of the Vatican website doesn't find "Resurrection Sunday" at all, except a few times with commas in between.<br />
<br />
*'''Washington's Birthday''' -> '''President's Day'''<br />
::It's not secularization as far as I can tell. And President's Day honors Lincoln as well. Silly political correctness, maybe. Secularization, no.<br />
<br />
*'''Pagan''' -> '''Secular'''<br />
::Pagan usually refers to belief in multiple gods, while secular refers to something separate from religion (e.g. the Turkish government is secular because there is no state religion).<br />
<br />
*'''God bless you''' -> '''Gesundheit'''<br />
::Gesundheit is what Germans have always said after a sneeze. Many European countries have the same kind of response. Nobody ever says "God bless you" in German. "Gesundheit" is as old as "God bless you", and the people who say it got the idea from German-Americans.<br />
<br />
[[User:DouglasL|DouglasL]] 14:18, 22 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Pagan definition: one who has little or no religion. Secular definition: not overtly or specifically religious. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:31, 22 February 2011 (EST)</div>PeterUkerhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Secularized_Language&diff=851480Secularized Language2011-02-22T22:13:19Z<p>PeterUker: format</p>
<hr />
<div>Those with an anti-[[Christian]] agenda, such as [[liberal]]s, [[homosexual]]s, [[atheist]]s, [[evolutionist]]s and [[leftist]]s have attempted to remove the [[Christian]] origins of our '''[[language]]''' by replacing common phrases with '''[[secular]]ized''' versions. By appealing to [[tolerance]] and [[political correctness]], they have succeeded in propagating these secularized versions, even among those who don't share their views.<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
!Original expression<br />
!Secularized version<br />
|-<br />
|Thank God!<br />
|Thank Goodness!<br />
|-<br />
|God bless you<br />
|Gesundheit<br />
|-<br />
|Praise the Lord<br />
|Praise be<br />
|-<br />
|Thank heavens<br />
|Thank goodness<br />
|-<br />
|Merry Christmas<br />
|Happy Holidays<br />
|-<br />
|Christmas Holiday<br />
|Winter Break<br />
|-<br />
|Easter Holiday<br />
|Spring Break<br />
|-<br />
|B.C./A.D.<br />
|B.C.E./C.E.<br />
|-<br />
|Saint Valentine's Day<br />
|Valentine's Day<br />
|-<br />
|Resurrection Sunday<br />
|Easter<br />
|-<br />
|Sin<br />
|Crime<br />
|-<br />
|Sin<br />
|Lifestyle Choice<br />
|-<br />
|Abomination<br />
|Mistake<br />
|-<br />
|Holy Day<br />
|holiday<br />
|-<br />
|Mother/Father<br />
|Parent<br />
|-<br />
|Son/Daughter<br />
|Offspring<br />
|-<br />
|With child<br />
|Pregnant<br />
|-<br />
|Bible study<br />
|Fundamentalism<br />
|-<br />
|Blasphemy <br />
|Secular opinion<br />
|-<br />
|Miraculous<br />
|Amazing<br />
|-<br />
|Heresy<br />
|Scientific theory<br />
|-<br />
|Abortion<br />
|Birth control<br />
|-<br />
|Pro-abortion<br />
|Pro-choice<br />
|-<br />
|Anti-life<br />
|Pro-choice<br />
|-<br />
|Immoral<br />
|Personal choice<br />
|-<br />
|Perversion<br />
|Diversity<br />
|-<br />
|Husband or wife<br />
|Significant other<br />
|-<br />
|prayer<br />
|moment of silence<br />
|-<br />
|Washington's Birthday<br />
|President's Day<br />
|-<br />
|Holy matrimony<br />
|Civil union<br />
|-<br />
|Providence<br />
|Lucky break<br />
|-<br />
|Pagan<br />
|Secular<br />
|-<br />
|Hallowed Eve<br />
|Halloween<br />
|-<br />
|Shrove Tuesday<br />
|Fat Tuesday<br />
|-<br />
|Thanksgiving<br />
|Turkey Day<br />
|-<br />
|The Reverend Martin Luther King Day<br />
|MLK Day<br />
|-<br />
|Saint Patrick's day<br />
|Paddy's day<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
*[[Politically correct]]<br />
*[[Liberal creep]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Liberalism]]<br />
[[Category:Language]]</div>PeterUkerhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Secularized_Language&diff=851479Secularized Language2011-02-22T22:12:07Z<p>PeterUker: This is a common one in the UK, unsurprisingly</p>
<hr />
<div>Those with an anti-[[Christian]] agenda, such as [[liberal]]s, [[homosexual]]s, [[atheist]]s, [[evolutionist]]s and [[leftist]]s have attempted to remove the [[Christian]] origins of our '''[[language]]''' by replacing common phrases with '''[[secular]]ized''' versions. By appealing to [[tolerance]] and [[political correctness]], they have succeeded in propagating these secularized versions, even among those who don't share their views.<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
!Original expression<br />
!Secularized version<br />
|-<br />
|Thank God!<br />
|Thank Goodness!<br />
|-<br />
|God bless you<br />
|Gesundheit<br />
|-<br />
|Praise the Lord<br />
|Praise be<br />
|-<br />
|Thank heavens<br />
|Thank goodness<br />
|-<br />
|Merry Christmas<br />
|Happy Holidays<br />
|-<br />
|Christmas Holiday<br />
|Winter Break<br />
|-<br />
|Easter Holiday<br />
|Spring Break<br />
|-<br />
|B.C./A.D.<br />
|B.C.E./C.E.<br />
|-<br />
|Saint Valentine's Day<br />
|Valentine's Day<br />
|-<br />
|Resurrection Sunday<br />
|Easter<br />
|-<br />
|Sin<br />
|Crime<br />
|-<br />
|Sin<br />
|Lifestyle Choice<br />
|-<br />
|Abomination<br />
|Mistake<br />
|-<br />
|Holy Day<br />
|holiday<br />
|-<br />
|Mother/Father<br />
|Parent<br />
|-<br />
|Son/Daughter<br />
|Offspring<br />
|-<br />
|With child<br />
|Pregnant<br />
|-<br />
|Bible study<br />
|Fundamentalism<br />
|-<br />
|Blasphemy <br />
|Secular opinion<br />
|-<br />
|Miraculous<br />
|Amazing<br />
|-<br />
|Heresy<br />
|Scientific theory<br />
|-<br />
|Abortion<br />
|Birth control<br />
|-<br />
|Pro-abortion<br />
|Pro-choice<br />
|-<br />
|Anti-life<br />
|Pro-choice<br />
|-<br />
|Immoral<br />
|Personal choice<br />
|-<br />
|Perversion<br />
|Diversity<br />
|-<br />
|Husband or wife<br />
|Significant other<br />
|-<br />
|prayer<br />
|moment of silence<br />
|-<br />
|Washington's Birthday<br />
|President's Day<br />
|-<br />
|Holy matrimony<br />
|Civil union<br />
|-<br />
|Providence<br />
|Lucky break<br />
|-<br />
|Pagan<br />
|Secular<br />
|-<br />
|Hallowed Eve<br />
|Halloween<br />
|-<br />
|Shrove Tuesday<br />
|Fat Tuesday<br />
|-<br />
|Thanksgiving<br />
|Turkey Day<br />
|-<br />
|The Reverend Martin Luther King Day<br />
|MLK Day<br />
|-Saint Patrick's day<br />
|-Paddy's day<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
*[[Politically correct]]<br />
*[[Liberal creep]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Liberalism]]<br />
[[Category:Language]]</div>PeterUkerhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Secularized_Language&diff=851231Secularized Language2011-02-22T04:52:03Z<p>PeterUker: </p>
<hr />
<div>Those with an anti-[[Christian]] agenda, such as [[liberal]]s, [[homosexual]]s, [[atheist]]s, [[evolutionist]]s and [[leftist]]s have attempted to remove the [[Christian]] origins of our '''[[language]]''' by replacing common phrases with '''[[secular]]ized''' versions. By appealing to [[tolerance]] and [[political correctness]], they have succeeded in propagating these secularized versions, even among those who don't share their views.<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
!Original expression<br />
!Secularized version<br />
|-<br />
|Thank God!<br />
|Thank Goodness!<br />
|-<br />
|Merry Christmas<br />
|Happy Holidays<br />
|-<br />
|Saint Valentine's Day<br />
|Valentine's Day<br />
|-<br />
|God bless you<br />
|Gesundheit<br />
|-<br />
|Resurrection Sunday<br />
|Easter<br />
|-<br />
|B.C./A.D.<br />
|B.C.E./C.E.<br />
|-<br />
|Praise the Lord<br />
|Praise be<br />
|-<br />
|Sin<br />
|Crime<br />
|-<br />
|Sin<br />
|Lifestyle Choice<br />
|-<br />
|Abomination<br />
|Mistake<br />
|-<br />
|Holy Day<br />
|holiday<br />
|-<br />
|Mother/Father<br />
|parent<br />
|-<br />
|With child<br />
|Pregnant<br />
|-<br />
|Bible study<br />
|Religious education<br />
|-<br />
|Blasphemy <br />
|Secular opinion<br />
|-<br />
|Miraculous<br />
|Amazing<br />
|-<br />
|Christmas Holiday<br />
|Winter Break<br />
|-<br />
|Easter Holiday<br />
|Spring Break<br />
|-<br />
|Heresy<br />
|Scientific theory<br />
|-<br />
|Abortion<br />
|Birth control<br />
|-<br />
|Pro-abortion<br />
|Pro-choice<br />
|-<br />
|Anti-life<br />
|Pro-choice<br />
|-<br />
|Immoral<br />
|Personal choice<br />
|-<br />
|Thank heavens<br />
|Thank goodness<br />
|-<br />
|Perversion<br />
|Diversity<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
*[[Politically correct]]<br />
*[[Liberal creep]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Liberalism]]<br />
[[Category:Language]]</div>PeterUkerhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Secularized_Language&diff=851226Secularized Language2011-02-22T04:38:40Z<p>PeterUker: </p>
<hr />
<div>Those with an anti-[[Christian]] agenda, such as [[liberal]]s, [[homosexual]]s, [[atheist]]s, [[evolutionist]]s and [[leftist]]s have attempted to remove the [[Christian]] origins of our '''[[language]]''' by replacing common phrases with '''[[secular]]ized''' versions. By appealing to [[tolerance]] and [[political correctness]], they have succeeded in propagating these secularized versions, even among those who don't share their views.<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
!Original expression<br />
!Secularized version<br />
|-<br />
|Thank God!<br />
|Thank Goodness!<br />
|-<br />
|Merry Christmas<br />
|Happy Holidays<br />
|-<br />
|Saint Valentine's Day<br />
|Valentine's Day<br />
|-<br />
|God bless you<br />
|Gesundheit<br />
|-<br />
|Resurrection Sunday<br />
|Easter<br />
|-<br />
|B.C./A.D.<br />
|B.C.E./C.E.<br />
|-<br />
|Praise the Lord<br />
|Praise be<br />
|-<br />
|Sin<br />
|Crime<br />
|-<br />
|Sin<br />
|Lifestyle Choice<br />
|-<br />
|Abomination<br />
|Mistake<br />
|-<br />
|Holy Day<br />
|holiday<br />
|-<br />
|Mother/Father<br />
|parent<br />
|-<br />
|With child<br />
|Pregnant<br />
|-<br />
|Bible study<br />
|Religious education<br />
|-<br />
|Blasphemy <br />
|Secular opinion<br />
|-<br />
|Miraculous<br />
|Amazing<br />
|-<br />
|Christmas Holiday<br />
|Winter Break<br />
|-<br />
|Easter Holiday<br />
|Spring Break<br />
|-<br />
|Heresy<br />
|Scientific theory<br />
|-<br />
|Abortion<br />
|Birth control<br />
|-<br />
|Pro-abortion<br />
|Pro-choice<br />
|-<br />
|Anti-life<br />
|Pro-choice<br />
|-<br />
|Immoral<br />
|Personal choice<br />
|-<br />
|Thank heavens<br />
|Thank goodness<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
*[[Politically correct]]<br />
*[[Liberal creep]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Liberalism]]<br />
[[Category:Language]]</div>PeterUkerhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Secularized_Language&diff=851225Secularized Language2011-02-22T04:36:12Z<p>PeterUker: </p>
<hr />
<div>Those with an anti-[[Christian]] agenda, such as [[liberal]]s, [[homosexual]]s, [[atheist]]s, [[evolutionist]]s and [[leftist]]s have attempted to remove the [[Christian]] origins of our '''[[language]]''' by replacing common phrases with '''[[secular]]ized''' versions. By appealing to [[tolerance]] and [[political correctness]], they have succeeded in propagating these secularized versions, even among those who don't share their views.<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
!Original expression<br />
!Secularized version<br />
|-<br />
|Thank God!<br />
|Thank Goodness!<br />
|-<br />
|Merry Christmas<br />
|Happy Holidays<br />
|-<br />
|Saint Valentine's Day<br />
|Valentine's Day<br />
|-<br />
|God bless you<br />
|Gesundheit<br />
|-<br />
|Resurrection Sunday<br />
|Easter<br />
|-<br />
|B.C./A.D.<br />
|B.C.E./C.E.<br />
|-<br />
|Praise the Lord<br />
|Praise be<br />
|-<br />
|Sin<br />
|Crime<br />
|-<br />
|Sin<br />
|Lifestyle Choice<br />
|-<br />
|Abomination<br />
|Mistake<br />
|-<br />
|Holy Day<br />
|holiday<br />
|-<br />
|Mother/Father<br />
|parent<br />
|-<br />
|With child<br />
|Pregnant<br />
|-<br />
|Bible study<br />
|Religious education<br />
|-<br />
|Blasphemy <br />
|Secular opinion<br />
|-<br />
|Miraculous<br />
|Amazing<br />
|-<br />
|Christmas Holiday<br />
|Winter Break<br />
|-<br />
|Easter Holiday<br />
|Spring Break<br />
|-<br />
|Heresy<br />
|Scientific theory<br />
|-<br />
|Abortion<br />
|Birth control<br />
|-<br />
|Pro-abortion<br />
|Pro-choice<br />
|-<br />
|Anti-life<br />
|Pro-choice<br />
|-<br />
|Immoral<br />
|Personal choice<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
*[[Politically correct]]<br />
*[[Liberal creep]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Liberalism]]<br />
[[Category:Language]]</div>PeterUkerhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Secularized_Language&diff=851224Secularized Language2011-02-22T04:34:38Z<p>PeterUker: </p>
<hr />
<div>Those with an anti-[[Christian]] agenda, such as [[liberal]]s, [[homosexual]]s, [[atheist]]s, [[evolutionist]]s and [[leftist]]s have attempted to remove the [[Christian]] origins of our '''[[language]]''' by replacing common phrases with '''[[secular]]ized''' versions. By appealing to [[tolerance]] and [[political correctness]], they have succeeded in propagating these secularized versions, even among those who don't share their views.<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
!Original expression<br />
!Secularized version<br />
|-<br />
|Thank God!<br />
|Thank Goodness!<br />
|-<br />
|Merry Christmas<br />
|Happy Holidays<br />
|-<br />
|Saint Valentine's Day<br />
|Valentine's Day<br />
|-<br />
|God bless you<br />
|Gesundheit<br />
|-<br />
|Resurrection Sunday<br />
|Easter<br />
|-<br />
|B.C./A.D.<br />
|B.C.E./C.E.<br />
|-<br />
|Praise the Lord<br />
|Praise be<br />
|-<br />
|Sin<br />
|Crime<br />
|-<br />
|Sin<br />
|Lifestyle Choice<br />
|-<br />
|Abomination<br />
|Mistake<br />
|-<br />
|Holy Day<br />
|holiday<br />
|-<br />
|Mother/Father<br />
|parent<br />
|-<br />
|With child<br />
|Pregnant<br />
|-<br />
|Bible study<br />
|Religious education<br />
|-<br />
|Blasphemy <br />
|Secular opinion<br />
|-<br />
|Miraculous<br />
|Amazing<br />
|-<br />
|Christmas Holiday<br />
|Winter Break<br />
|-<br />
|Easter Holiday<br />
|Spring Break<br />
|-<br />
|Heresy<br />
|Scientific theory<br />
|-<br />
|Abortion<br />
|Birth control<br />
|-<br />
|Pro-abortion<br />
|Pro-choice<br />
|-<br />
|Anti-life<br />
|Pro-choice<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
*[[Politically correct]]<br />
*[[Liberal creep]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Liberalism]]<br />
[[Category:Language]]</div>PeterUkerhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Secularized_Language&diff=851223Secularized Language2011-02-22T04:33:35Z<p>PeterUker: anti-life phrases</p>
<hr />
<div>Those with an anti-[[Christian]] agenda, such as [[liberal]]s, [[homosexual]]s, [[atheist]]s, [[evolutionist]]s and [[leftist]]s have attempted to remove the [[Christian]] origins of our '''[[language]]''' by replacing common phrases with '''[[secular]]ized''' versions. By appealing to [[tolerance]] and [[political correctness]], they have succeeded in propagating these secularized versions, even among those who don't share their views.<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
!Original expression<br />
!Secularized version<br />
|-<br />
|Thank God!<br />
|Thank Goodness!<br />
|-<br />
|Merry Christmas<br />
|Happy Holidays<br />
|-<br />
|Saint Valentine's Day<br />
|Valentine's Day<br />
|-<br />
|God bless you<br />
|Gesundheit<br />
|-<br />
|Resurrection Sunday<br />
|Easter<br />
|-<br />
|B.C./A.D.<br />
|B.C.E./C.E.<br />
|-<br />
|Praise the Lord<br />
|Praise be<br />
|-<br />
|Sin<br />
|Crime<br />
|-<br />
|Sin<br />
|Lifestyle Choice<br />
|-<br />
|Abomination<br />
|Mistake<br />
|-<br />
|Holy Day<br />
|holiday<br />
|-<br />
|Mother/Father<br />
|parent<br />
|-<br />
|With child<br />
|Pregnant<br />
|-<br />
|Bible study<br />
|Religious education<br />
|-<br />
|Blasphemy <br />
|Secular opinion<br />
|-<br />
|Miraculous<br />
|Amazing<br />
|-<br />
|Christmas Holiday<br />
|Winter Break<br />
|-<br />
|Easter Holiday<br />
|Spring Break<br />
|-<br />
|Heresy<br />
|Scientific theory<br />
|-<br />
|Abortion<br />
|Birth control<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
*[[Politically correct]]<br />
*[[Liberal creep]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Liberalism]]<br />
[[Category:Language]]</div>PeterUkerhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Secularized_Language&diff=851222Secularized Language2011-02-22T04:32:41Z<p>PeterUker: categorize</p>
<hr />
<div>Those with an anti-[[Christian]] agenda, such as [[liberal]]s, [[homosexual]]s, [[atheist]]s, [[evolutionist]]s and [[leftist]]s have attempted to remove the [[Christian]] origins of our '''[[language]]''' by replacing common phrases with '''[[secular]]ized''' versions. By appealing to [[tolerance]] and [[political correctness]], they have succeeded in propagating these secularized versions, even among those who don't share their views.<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
!Original expression<br />
!Secularized version<br />
|-<br />
|Thank God!<br />
|Thank Goodness!<br />
|-<br />
|Merry Christmas<br />
|Happy Holidays<br />
|-<br />
|Saint Valentine's Day<br />
|Valentine's Day<br />
|-<br />
|God bless you<br />
|Gesundheit<br />
|-<br />
|Resurrection Sunday<br />
|Easter<br />
|-<br />
|B.C./A.D.<br />
|B.C.E./C.E.<br />
|-<br />
|Praise the Lord<br />
|Praise be<br />
|-<br />
|Sin<br />
|Crime<br />
|-<br />
|Sin<br />
|Lifestyle Choice<br />
|-<br />
|Abomination<br />
|Mistake<br />
|-<br />
|Holy Day<br />
|holiday<br />
|-<br />
|Mother/Father<br />
|parent<br />
|-<br />
|With child<br />
|Pregnant<br />
|-<br />
|Bible study<br />
|Religious education<br />
|-<br />
|Blasphemy <br />
|Secular opinion<br />
|-<br />
|Miraculous<br />
|Amazing<br />
|-<br />
|Christmas Holiday<br />
|Winter Break<br />
|-<br />
|Easter Holiday<br />
|Spring Break<br />
|-<br />
|Heresy<br />
|Scientific theory<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
*[[Politically correct]]<br />
*[[Liberal creep]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Liberalism]]<br />
[[Category:Language]]</div>PeterUkerhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Secularized_Language&diff=851221Secularized Language2011-02-22T04:31:35Z<p>PeterUker: /* See Also */</p>
<hr />
<div>Those with an anti-[[Christian]] agenda, such as [[liberal]]s, [[homosexual]]s, [[atheist]]s, [[evolutionist]]s and [[leftist]]s have attempted to remove the [[Christian]] origins of our '''[[language]]''' by replacing common phrases with '''[[secular]]ized''' versions. By appealing to [[tolerance]] and [[political correctness]], they have succeeded in propagating these secularized versions, even among those who don't share their views.<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
!Original expression<br />
!Secularized version<br />
|-<br />
|Thank God!<br />
|Thank Goodness!<br />
|-<br />
|Merry Christmas<br />
|Happy Holidays<br />
|-<br />
|Saint Valentine's Day<br />
|Valentine's Day<br />
|-<br />
|God bless you<br />
|Gesundheit<br />
|-<br />
|Resurrection Sunday<br />
|Easter<br />
|-<br />
|B.C./A.D.<br />
|B.C.E./C.E.<br />
|-<br />
|Praise the Lord<br />
|Praise be<br />
|-<br />
|Sin<br />
|Crime<br />
|-<br />
|Sin<br />
|Lifestyle Choice<br />
|-<br />
|Abomination<br />
|Mistake<br />
|-<br />
|Holy Day<br />
|holiday<br />
|-<br />
|Mother/Father<br />
|parent<br />
|-<br />
|With child<br />
|Pregnant<br />
|-<br />
|Bible study<br />
|Religious education<br />
|-<br />
|Blasphemy <br />
|Secular opinion<br />
|-<br />
|Miraculous<br />
|Amazing<br />
|-<br />
|Christmas Holiday<br />
|Winter Break<br />
|-<br />
|Easter Holiday<br />
|Spring Break<br />
|-<br />
|Heresy<br />
|Scientific theory<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
*[[Politically correct]]<br />
*[[Liberal creep]]</div>PeterUkerhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Secularized_Language&diff=851220Secularized Language2011-02-22T04:31:15Z<p>PeterUker: </p>
<hr />
<div>Those with an anti-[[Christian]] agenda, such as [[liberal]]s, [[homosexual]]s, [[atheist]]s, [[evolutionist]]s and [[leftist]]s have attempted to remove the [[Christian]] origins of our '''[[language]]''' by replacing common phrases with '''[[secular]]ized''' versions. By appealing to [[tolerance]] and [[political correctness]], they have succeeded in propagating these secularized versions, even among those who don't share their views.<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
!Original expression<br />
!Secularized version<br />
|-<br />
|Thank God!<br />
|Thank Goodness!<br />
|-<br />
|Merry Christmas<br />
|Happy Holidays<br />
|-<br />
|Saint Valentine's Day<br />
|Valentine's Day<br />
|-<br />
|God bless you<br />
|Gesundheit<br />
|-<br />
|Resurrection Sunday<br />
|Easter<br />
|-<br />
|B.C./A.D.<br />
|B.C.E./C.E.<br />
|-<br />
|Praise the Lord<br />
|Praise be<br />
|-<br />
|Sin<br />
|Crime<br />
|-<br />
|Sin<br />
|Lifestyle Choice<br />
|-<br />
|Abomination<br />
|Mistake<br />
|-<br />
|Holy Day<br />
|holiday<br />
|-<br />
|Mother/Father<br />
|parent<br />
|-<br />
|With child<br />
|Pregnant<br />
|-<br />
|Bible study<br />
|Religious education<br />
|-<br />
|Blasphemy <br />
|Secular opinion<br />
|-<br />
|Miraculous<br />
|Amazing<br />
|-<br />
|Christmas Holiday<br />
|Winter Break<br />
|-<br />
|Easter Holiday<br />
|Spring Break<br />
|-<br />
|Heresy<br />
|Scientific theory<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
*[[Politically correct]]</div>PeterUkerhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Secularized_Language&diff=851212Secularized Language2011-02-22T04:11:53Z<p>PeterUker: </p>
<hr />
<div>Those with an anti-[[Christian]] agenda, such as [[liberal]]s, [[homosexual]]s, [[atheist]]s, [[evolutionist]]s and [[leftist]]s have attempted to remove the [[Christian]] origins of our '''[[language]]''' by replacing common phrases with '''[[secular]]ized''' versions.<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
!Original expression<br />
!Secularized version<br />
|-<br />
|Thank God!<br />
|Thank Goodness!<br />
|-<br />
|Merry Christmas<br />
|Happy Holidays<br />
|-<br />
|Saint Valentine's Day<br />
|Valentine's Day<br />
|-<br />
|God bless you<br />
|Gesundheit<br />
|-<br />
|Resurrection Sunday<br />
|Easter<br />
|-<br />
|B.C./A.D.<br />
|B.C.E./C.E.<br />
|-<br />
|Praise the Lord<br />
|Praise be<br />
|-<br />
|Sin<br />
|Crime<br />
|-<br />
|Abomination<br />
|Mistake<br />
|-<br />
|Holy Day<br />
|holiday<br />
|-<br />
|Mother/Father<br />
|parent<br />
|-<br />
|With child<br />
|Pregnant<br />
|-<br />
|Bible study<br />
|Religious education<br />
|-<br />
|Blasphemy <br />
|Secular opinion<br />
|-<br />
|Miraculous<br />
|Amazing<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
*[[Politically correct]]</div>PeterUkerhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Secularized_Language&diff=851211Secularized Language2011-02-22T04:10:53Z<p>PeterUker: </p>
<hr />
<div>Those with an anti-[[Christian]] agenda, such as [[liberal]]s, [[homosexual]]s, [[atheist]]s, [[evolutionist]]s and [[leftist]]s have attempted to remove the [[Christian]] origins of our '''[[language]]''' by replacing common phrases with '''[[secular]]ized''' versions.<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
!Original expression<br />
!Secularized version<br />
|-<br />
|Thank God!<br />
|Thank Goodness!<br />
|-<br />
|Merry Christmas<br />
|Happy Holidays<br />
|-<br />
|Saint Valentine's Day<br />
|Valentine's Day<br />
|-<br />
|God bless you<br />
|Gesundheit<br />
|-<br />
|Resurrection Sunday<br />
|Easter<br />
|-<br />
|B.C./A.D.<br />
|B.C.E./C.E.<br />
|-<br />
|Praise the Lord<br />
|Praise be<br />
|-<br />
|Sin<br />
|Crime<br />
|-<br />
|Abomination<br />
|Mistake<br />
|-<br />
|Holy Day<br />
|holiday<br />
|-<br />
|Mother/Father<br />
|parent<br />
|-<br />
|With child<br />
|Pregnant<br />
|-<br />
|Bible study<br />
|Religious education<br />
|-<br />
|Blasphemy <br />
|Secular opinion<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
*[[Politically correct]]</div>PeterUkerhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Secularized_Language&diff=851210Secularized Language2011-02-22T04:09:53Z<p>PeterUker: </p>
<hr />
<div>Those with an anti-[[Christian]] agenda, such as [[liberal]]s, [[homosexual]]s, [[atheist]]s, [[evolutionist]]s and [[leftist]]s have attempted to remove the [[Christian]] origins of our '''[[language]]''' by replacing common phrases with '''[[secular]]ized''' versions.<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
!Original expression<br />
!Secularized version<br />
|-<br />
|Thank God!<br />
|Thank Goodness!<br />
|-<br />
|Merry Christmas<br />
|Happy Holidays<br />
|-<br />
|Saint Valentine's Day<br />
|Valentine's Day<br />
|-<br />
|God bless you<br />
|Gesundheit<br />
|-<br />
|Resurrection Sunday<br />
|Easter<br />
|-<br />
|B.C./A.D.<br />
|B.C.E./C.E.<br />
|-<br />
|Praise the Lord<br />
|Praise be<br />
|-<br />
|Sin<br />
|Crime<br />
|-<br />
|Abomination<br />
|Mistake<br />
|-<br />
|Holy Day<br />
|holiday<br />
|-<br />
|Mother/Father<br />
|parent<br />
|-<br />
|With child<br />
|Pregnant<br />
|-<br />
|Bible study<br />
|Religious education<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
*[[Politically correct]]</div>PeterUkerhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Secularized_Language&diff=851208Secularized Language2011-02-22T04:07:22Z<p>PeterUker: </p>
<hr />
<div>Those with an anti-[[Christian]] agenda, such as [[liberal]]s, [[homosexual]]s, [[atheist]]s, [[evolutionist]]s and [[leftist]]s have attempted to remove the [[Christian]] origins of our '''[[language]]''' by replacing common phrases with '''[[secular]]ized''' versions.<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
!Original expression<br />
!Secularized version<br />
|-<br />
|Thank God!<br />
|Thank Goodness!<br />
|-<br />
|Merry Christmas<br />
|Happy Holidays<br />
|-<br />
|Saint Valentine's Day<br />
|Valentine's Day<br />
|-<br />
|God bless you<br />
|Gesundheit<br />
|-<br />
|Resurrection Sunday<br />
|Easter<br />
|-<br />
|B.C./A.D.<br />
|B.C.E./C.E.<br />
|-<br />
|Praise the Lord<br />
|Praise be<br />
|-<br />
|Sin<br />
|Crime<br />
|-<br />
|Abomination<br />
|Mistake<br />
|-<br />
|Holy Day<br />
|holiday<br />
|-<br />
|Mother/Father<br />
|parent<br />
|-<br />
|With child<br />
|Pregnant<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
*[[Politically correct]]</div>PeterUkerhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Secularized_Language&diff=851200Secularized Language2011-02-22T02:34:06Z<p>PeterUker: wikilink</p>
<hr />
<div>Those with an anti-[[Christian]] agenda, such as [[liberal]]s, [[homosexual]]s, [[atheist]]s, [[evolutionist]]s and [[leftist]]s have attempted to remove the [[Christian]] origins of our '''[[language]]''' by replacing common phrases with '''[[secular]]ized''' versions.<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
!Original expression<br />
!Secularized version<br />
|-<br />
|Thank God!<br />
|Thank Goodness!<br />
|-<br />
|Merry Christmas<br />
|Happy Holidays<br />
|-<br />
|Saint Valentine's Day<br />
|Valentine's Day<br />
|-<br />
|God bless you<br />
|Gesundheit<br />
|-<br />
|Resurrection Sunday<br />
|Easter<br />
|-<br />
|B.C./A.D.<br />
|B.C.E./C.E.<br />
|-<br />
|Praise the Lord<br />
|Praise be<br />
|-<br />
|Sin<br />
|Crime<br />
|-<br />
|Abomination<br />
|Mistake<br />
|-<br />
|}</div>PeterUkerhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Secularized_Language&diff=851199Secularized Language2011-02-22T02:33:05Z<p>PeterUker: </p>
<hr />
<div>Those with an anti-[[Christian]] agenda, such as [[liberal]]s, [[homosexual]]s, [[atheist]]s, [[evolutionist]]s and [[leftist]]s have attempted to remove the [[Christian]] origins of our language by replacing common phrases with '''[[secular]]ized''' versions.<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
!Original expression<br />
!Secularized version<br />
|-<br />
|Thank God!<br />
|Thank Goodness!<br />
|-<br />
|Merry Christmas<br />
|Happy Holidays<br />
|-<br />
|Saint Valentine's Day<br />
|Valentine's Day<br />
|-<br />
|God bless you<br />
|Gesundheit<br />
|-<br />
|Resurrection Sunday<br />
|Easter<br />
|-<br />
|B.C./A.D.<br />
|B.C.E./C.E.<br />
|-<br />
|Praise the Lord<br />
|Praise be<br />
|-<br />
|Sin<br />
|Crime<br />
|-<br />
|Abomination<br />
|Mistake<br />
|-<br />
|}</div>PeterUkerhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Secularized_Language&diff=851198Secularized Language2011-02-22T02:31:41Z<p>PeterUker: intro</p>
<hr />
<div>Those with an anti-[[Christian]] agenda, such as [[liberal]]s, [[homosexual]]s, [[atheist]]s, [[evolutionist]]s and [[leftist]]s have attempted to remove the [[Christian]] origins of our language by replacing common phrases with '''[[secular]]ized''' versions.<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
!Original expression<br />
!Secularized version<br />
|-<br />
|Thank God!<br />
|Thank Goodness!<br />
|-<br />
|Merry Christmas<br />
|Happy Holidays<br />
|-<br />
|Saint Valentine's Day<br />
|Valentine's Day<br />
|-<br />
|God bless you<br />
|Gesundheit<br />
|-<br />
|Resurrection Sunday<br />
|Easter<br />
|-<br />
|B.C./A.D.<br />
|B.C.E./C.E.<br />
|-<br />
|Praise the Lord<br />
|Praise be<br />
|}</div>PeterUkerhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Secularized_Language&diff=851197Secularized Language2011-02-22T02:27:05Z<p>PeterUker: </p>
<hr />
<div>{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
!Original expression<br />
!Secularized version<br />
|-<br />
|Thank God!<br />
|Thank Goodness!<br />
|-<br />
|Merry Christmas<br />
|Happy Holidays<br />
|-<br />
|Saint Valentine's Day<br />
|Valentine's Day<br />
|-<br />
|God bless you<br />
|Gesundheit<br />
|-<br />
|Resurrection Sunday<br />
|Easter<br />
|-<br />
|B.C./A.D.<br />
|B.C.E./C.E.<br />
|-<br />
|Praise the Lord<br />
|Praise be<br />
|}</div>PeterUkerhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homosexual_Agenda&diff=851191Homosexual Agenda2011-02-22T01:55:29Z<p>PeterUker: /* See also */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Homosexuality}}<br />
The '''Homosexual Agenda''', or [[Homosexuality|homosexual]] ideology, consists of a set of beliefs and objectives designed to promote and even mandate acceptance and approval of homosexuality, and the strategies used to implement such. This article notes that the goals and means of this movement include indoctrinating students in [[public school]], restricting the free speech of opposition, obtaining special treatment for homosexuals, distorting Biblical teaching and science, and interfering with freedom of association. <br />
<br />
Among all the [[liberal]] belief systems, the homosexual ideology is the most self-centered or selfish. Liberals generally give much less than conservatives to charity, but gay charity work in particular is virtually non-existent.<br />
<br />
Supreme Court Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] referred to the "so-called homosexual agenda" in ''[[Lawrence v. Texas]]'', 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (dissenting opinion). <br />
<br />
== The Homosexual Agenda ==<br />
<br />
Joseph P. Gudel, in ''That Which is Unnatural''<ref>[http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0108a.html "That Which is Unnatural" Homosexuality in Society, the Church, and Scripture] Part Two in a Two-Part Series on Homosexuality, from the Christian Research Journal, Winter 1993, page 8</ref> contended that the homosexual movement, <br />
<br />
:has been militantly demanding not just the homosexuals' right to do whatever they wish to do behind closed doors, but, more importantly, that society fully accept their lifestyle as both healthy and normal, even demanding special rights and legislation as an "oppressed minority." Gudel quotes various sources evidencing this. <br />
<br />
In a 1987 speech to the National Press Club in Washington, homosexual spokesperson Jeff Levi proclaimed, <br />
<br />
:We are no longer seeking just a right to privacy and a protection from wrong. We also have a right -- as heterosexual Americans already have -- to see government and society affirm our lives. <ref>Jeff Levi, in William Dannemeyer, Shadow in the Land (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1989), 86.</ref> <br />
<br />
In an article entitled "Gays on the March" in 1975, Time magazine quoted gay activist Barbara Gittings who stated: <br />
<br />
:What the homosexual wants, and here he is neither willing to compromise nor morally required to compromise -- is acceptance of homosexuality as a way of life fully on a par with heterosexuality." In response, Time opined, "It is one thing to remove legal discrimination against homosexuals. It is another to mandate approval....It is this goal of full acceptance, which no known society past or present has granted to homosexuals, that makes many Americans apprehensive.<ref>Gays on the March," Time, 8 Sept. 1975, 43</ref> <br />
<br />
A primary goal of the homosexual agenda is to promote the lifestyle in [[public schools]]. This occurred quickly and intensely after gay marriage was imposed in Massachusetts, where homosexual relationships are taught to children as young as kindergartners, as recounted by the decision of ''[[Parker v. Hurley]]''.<ref>The ''Parker v. Hurley'' decision explained, "In January 2005, when Jacob Parker ("Jacob") was in kindergarten, he brought home a 'Diversity Book Bag.' This included a picture book, Who's in a Family?, which depicted different families, including single-parent families, an extended family, interracial families, animal families, a family without children, and -- to the concern of the Parkers -- a family with two dads and a family with two moms. The book concludes by answering the question, 'Who's in a family?': 'The people who love you the most!' The book says nothing about marriage."</ref><br />
<br />
In a 1992 report by John Leo in U.S. News and World Report, he notes some books which were part of New York City's public school curriculum.<br />
<br />
The first-grade book, "Children of the Rainbow", stated on page 145, which states that teachers must "be aware of varied family structures, including...gay or lesbian parents," and "children must be taught to acknowledge the positive aspects of each type of household." Another children book is Heather Has Two Mommies, which is about a lesbian couple having a child through artificial insemination. Another book, Gloria Goes to Gay Pride, states, "Some women love women, some men love men, some women and men love each other. That's why we march in the parade, so everyone can have a choice."<br />
<br />
Leo commented, <br />
<br />
:A line is being crossed here; in fact, a brand new ethic is descending upon the city's public school system. The traditional civic virtue of tolerance (if gays want to live together, it's their own business) has been replaced with a new ethic requiring approval and endorsement (if gays want to live together, we must 'acknowledge the positive aspects' of their way of life).<ref>John Leo, "Heather Has a Message," U.S. News & World Report, 17 Aug. 1992, 16.</ref> <br />
<br />
Dr. Judith A. Reisman in her extensive ''Crafting “Gay” Children'',<ref>http://www.defendthefamily.com/_docs/resources/6390601.pdf</ref> reports that Harvard homosexual Toby Morotta, PhD, stated that in the 1970s, members of the Gay Activists Alliance - who were trained in the “zapping" of any who rebuffed homosexuality.<ref> Toby Marotta: THE POLITICS OF HOMOSEXUALITY: HOW LESBIANS AND GAY MEN HAVE MADE THEMSELVES A POLITICAL AND SOCIAL FORCE IN MODERN AMERICA, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1981 at 319</ref> And that these formed the “Gay Academic Union,” (GAU) which was made up of faculty and students in major universities. She states that the GAU has long fought for domination of its worldview within the academic community, and professional journals commonly assigned GAU and other homosexual peer reviewers to research touching on homosexuality, generally resulting in a quick death to possible unfavorable findings. <ref>See extensive reports in regular NARTH Bulletins as well as Ray Johnson, “American Psychology: The Political Science, at 53-57.</ref><br />
<br />
This and the general agenda is seen to be overall implementing a marketing strategy explained in a book called ''After the Ball,'' by [[gay rights]] activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen in the late 1980s, in which a six-point plan was set forth as to how they could transform the beliefs of ordinary Americans with regard to homosexual behavior in a decade-long time frame:<br />
:"The agenda of homosexual activists is basically to change America from what they perceive as looking down on homosexual behavior, to the affirmation of and societal acceptance of homosexual behavior." <ref name="Winn07252003">''After the Ball'' (1989), quoted from Winn, Pete (7-25-2003) [ ''Q&A: The Homosexual Agenda''] Citizenlink</ref> "Thus propagandistic advertising can depict all opponents of the gay movement as homophobic bigots who are 'not Christian' and the propaganda can further show them [homosexuals]] as being criticized, hated and shunned..."<ref>After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's, by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen (Author) (p. 152-153)</ref><br />
<br />
[[Focus on the Family]] provides additional quotes from After the Ball, outlining key points of the homosexual agenda:<ref name="Winn07252003"/><ref>Kirk, Marshall K. and Erastes Pill (11-1987) ''The Overhauling of Straight America'' Available at [http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/overhauling.htm ''STRATEGIES OF THE HOMOSEXUAL MOVEMENT: "The Overhauling of Straight America"'']</ref><br />
<br />
#"Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible." <br />
#"Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers." <br />
#"Give homosexual protectors a just cause." <br />
#"Make gays look good." <br />
#"Make the victimizers look bad." <br />
#"Get funds from corporate America."<br />
<br />
[[United States Supreme Court]] Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] wrote:<br />
{{cquote|Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.<ref>[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-102#dissent1 ''LAWRENCE et al. v. TEXAS''] at findlaw.com</ref>}}<br />
<br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vic_Eliason Vic Eliason] of [http://www.crosstalkamerica.com Crosstalk America] rightly points out that if all Americans turned homosexual it would only take a few generations for the United States to lose most of the population of the country through lack of procreation. This would make the US more vulnerable to attack by our enemies.<br />
<br />
== Specific goals ==<br />
<br />
The goals of the homosexual movement include:<br />
<br />
#Destroying Christian morals<br />
#*Changing the definition of marriage, even if doing so infringes on the religious rights of Christians not to recognize it as anything other than sin <ref>www.massresistance.org, Homosexuals begin campaign of terror over Prop 8 loss]</ref><br />
#*Dilute the clear message of the [[Bible]] that [[homosexuality]] is a sin and an abomination unto [[God]].<br />
#Promote pseudoscience that legitimizes homosexuality, such as claims of a never-identified gay gene<ref>[http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/satinover.html The Gay Gene?<br />
by Jeffrey Satinover, M.D.]</ref> <br />
#*Censoring evidence that the "gay gene" is a hoax<ref>[http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/08a/born_gay_hoax/smith_0329/index.html ''Lesbian activists at Smith College riot, shut down Ryan Sorba speech on "The Born Gay Hoax" as police watch. See exclusive videos.''] Mass Resistance</ref><br />
#Censoring speech against homosexuality by branding it to possibly be "hate-speech"<ref>[http://www.silencingchristians.com Video:Silencing Christians]</ref><ref>[http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2009/06/homosexuality-its-crime-in-england-to.html Homosexuality: It’s a Crime in England to State Christian Views]</ref><ref>[http://www.ccfon.org/view.php?id=745 Bishops fight for right to criticise homosexual lifestyle, 25th May 2009]</ref><br />
#*Censoring biblical statements condemning homosexuality<ref>White, Hilary (04-21-2006) [http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/apr/06042105.html ''Court Upholds School Ban on "Homosexuality is Shameful" T-Shirt''] LifeSiteNews.com</ref> <br />
#Establishing affirmative action for homosexuals<ref>The Crimson Staff (10-13-2006) [http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=514950 ''A Box of Their Own?''] (opinion) The Crimson</ref><ref>www.afa.net, Homosexual Agenda Platforms from 1972 - 2000</ref><br />
#Expand hate crimes legislation to include sexual orientation<ref>Pelosi, Nancy Office of (09-28-2004) [http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases/Sept04/HateCrimes092804.html ''Pelosi: "Hate Crimes Prevention Legislation is Right Thing to Do, Long Overdue"''] From the office of Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi</ref><br />
#Ending the military's and Boy Scout's restrictions on homosexuality<ref>''Boy Scouts of Am. v. Dale'', 530 U.S. 640 (2000) (Boy Scouts); "Matlovich v. Secretary of the Air Force (591 F.2d 852, DC Circ. 1 978) (military)</ref><br />
#Stopping children as young as 5 years old from attending therapy to repair their sexual preference<ref>[http://www.thetaskforce.org/reports_and_research/youth_in_the_crosshairs National Gay and Lesbian Task Force:Youth in the Crosshairs]</ref><br />
#Promote homosexuality in schools<ref>[[Morrison v. Board of Education]]</ref><br />
#*In places like Massachusetts and California, where the gay lobby is the strongest, it starts as early as pre-school. They tell seven- or eight-year-old boys, "If you only like boys, there's a chance you may be homosexual," or "If you only like girls, maybe you are lesbian." Well, at that age, all members of the opposite sex "have cooties."<br />
#*You're planting a seed that can totally mess up the normal development process later, when at 12 or 14, kids enter the age of sexual confusion and discovering the opposite sex. <ref>[http://www.citizenlink.org/CLFeatures/A000000562.cfm CitizenLink: QA: The Homosexual Agenda]</ref><br />
#Force businesses to accommodate their lifestyle<ref>[http://www.thetaskforce.org/issues/nondiscrimination/ENDA_main_page Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) | National Gay and Lesbian Task Force</ref><br />
#*Suing an online dating website for discrimination<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,454904,00.html Fox News - eHarmony to Provide Gay Dating Service after Lawsuit]</ref><br />
#Undermining the [[Essay:Quantifying_Mental_Strength|resolve]] of [[Homosexuality_and_choice#Choice_and_Genetics|latent homosexuals]] so that their will becomes too weak to resist the temptations of homosexuality<ref>http://www.thetaskforce.org/activist_center/resources_and_tools/challenge_exgay</ref><br />
#Pushing for legalized adoption by gay individuals and couples<ref>http://www.thetaskforce.org/issues/parenting_and_family</ref><br />
<br />
The state-by-state push for same-sex marriage can be viewed as a means to the above goals, or a goal in itself.<ref>[[Lewis v. Harris]]</ref> An example of this would be the recent New Hampshire law that makes same-sex civil unions legal<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/06/01/new_hampshire_law_makes_same_sex_civil_unions_legal/</ref><br />
<br />
Although notable gains toward achieving its goals continue to be manifest, homosexual activists have recent been expressing a high level of and dissatisfaction against the Obama administration. Commenting on such, Massresistance.org, an organization which opposes the homosexual agenda in [[Massachusetts]], noted that the President has, <br />
<br />
*signed an order extending federal benefits to same-sex partners; <br />
<br />
*pushed an extreme hate crimes bill in Congress; <br />
<br />
*declared his intention to repeal the Defense of Marriage, <br />
<br />
*pushed a pro-homosexual and transgender version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.<br />
<br />
*appointed radical homosexual activists to high level positions, including Harry Knox, of the homosexual lobby group Human Rights Campaign, and Kevin Jennings, founder of the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network (GLSEN), which targets kids in the public schools.<br />
<br />
*declared February to be "Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month." <br />
<br />
*ordered the State Department to allow gay couples to use their married names (from marriages or civil unions) on US passports.<ref>update@massresistance.org 6/24/2009 11:56 PM</ref><br />
<br />
=== Strategies and psychological tactics ===<br />
<br />
Homosexual activists are often seen as engaging in specious argumentation, such as attempts to controvert the consistent teaching of the Bible on homosexual relations, (see [[homosexuality and biblical interpretation]]) and using false analogies, in order to gain acceptance of homosexuality. One common argument used by homosexual activists seeks to compare their quest for equal rights to that of others.<ref>Miner, Homosexuality, Civil Rights, and the Church</ref> This argument is countered by the observation that blacks were able to peacefully argue that mankind should not be "judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character"<ref>[http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm, Speech by Martin Luther King Jr.]</ref>, as the former yields no certain moral distinction. In contrast, homosexual activists are seen to seek acceptance of an immoral practice(s), and in addition, to overall engage in certain coercive and manipulative means to do so. This is evidenced to include the use of a demonstrative manner of protests, which appear to be designed to censure and intimidate those who oppose them in any way.<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/socialsciences/sellinghomosexuality.html</ref><ref>http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm</ref><ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=89526</ref><ref>http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/08c/Prop8/church_attacks.html</ref><ref>http://rebuildtheparty.ning.com/video/exodus-protest-park-street</ref><ref>http://theway2k.vox.com/library/post/homosexuals-persecuting-christians-and-mormons.html</ref><ref>http://www.hamiltonsquare.net/articlesRiotsSep1993.htm</ref><ref>http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/may/08050205.html</ref><ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=95296</ref><ref>Muehlenberg, Bill, [http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2009/06/04/another-nail-in-the-christian-coffin/ Another Nail in the Christian Coffin], [[4 June]] [[2009]]</ref><ref>[http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/09a/feder_0311/index.html Loud homosexual activists disrupt and halt Don Feder speech at UMass Amherst, despite police presence"]</ref> In addition, one pro-homosexual commentator recently took the homosexual community to task for being racist in their practice of homosexuality.<ref>LZ Granderson, ''Commentary: Gay is not the new black'', Cable News Network,July 16, 2009</ref> <br />
<br />
While not all homosexuals agree with the use of deceptive psychological tactics, these have been promoted by leading homosexual activists. The aforementioned book, ''After the Ball'', is widely regarded as the handbook for the gay agenda, in which Harvard trained marketing experts and social scientists Marshall Kirk (1957 - 2005) and Hunter Madsen advocated avoiding portraying gays as aggressive challengers, but as victims, while making those who opposed them as evil persecutors. As a means of the latter, they promoted jamming, in which Christians, traditionalists, or anyone else who opposes the gay agenda are publicly smeared. In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector ... The purpose of victim imagery is to make straights feel very uncomfortable, they suggested. <br />
<br />
Jam homophobia (i.e., disagreement with homosexual behaviors) by linking it to Nazi horror, was the strategy of Kirk and Madsen. Associate all who oppose homosexuality with images of Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered, hysterical backwoods preachers, menacing punks, and a tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed. Thus, "propagandistic advertisement can depict homophobic and homohating bigots as crude loudmouths..."<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/socialsciences/sellinghomosexuality.html http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm </ref><br />
<br />
Kirk and Madsen's open admission of their deceptive tactics is noted as most revealing: [O]ur effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof. "...the person's beliefs can be altered whether he is conscious of the attack or not"<ref>After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s, p. 152-153 (1989, Doubleday/Bantam)</ref> “The campaign we outline in this book, though complex, depends centrally upon a program of unabashed propaganda, firmly grounded in long-established principles of psychology and advertising.”<ref>Kirk and Madsen, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of the Gay’s in the 90s, p.xxvi</ref><ref>[http://banap.net/ Behavior and Not a Person]</ref> <br />
<br />
Similarly, author Robert Bauman additionally records, It makes no difference that the ads are lies . . . because were using them to ethically good effect, to counter negative stereotypes that are every bit as much lies, and far more wicked ones. <ref>The Gentleman from Maryland: The Conscience of a gay Conservative, by Robert Bauman, 1986, page 163.</ref><br />
<br />
The need for Kirk and Madsen to engage in such manipulation may be seen as being due to their sober realization of the nature of the homosexual lifestyle. <br />
<br />
“In short, the gay lifestyle - if such a chaos can, after all, legitimately be called a lifestyle - it just doesn’t work: it doesn’t serve the two functions for which all social framework evolve: to constrain people’s natural impulses to behave badly and to meet their natural needs. While it’s impossible to provide an exhaustive analytic list of all the root causes and aggravants of this failure, we can asseverate at least some of the major causes. Many have been dissected, above, as elements of the Ten Misbehaviors; it only remains to discuss the failure of the gay community to provide a viable alternative to the heterosexual family.”<ref>Kirk and Madsen, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of the Gay’s in the 90s, p.363</ref><br />
<br />
Marshall Kirk died in 2005 at the age of 48. The cause of death has not been publicly revealed.<br />
<br />
Often cited as an early example form of such tactics was the role of homosexual activists in persuading the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders (DSM-II). Dr. Ronald Bayer, though being himself a pro-homosexual psychiatrist, described this removal as being the result of power politics, threats, and intimidation, rather than any new scientific discoveries.<ref>[http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/eleven.php Exposed: The Myth That Psychiatry Has Proven That Homosexual Behavior Is Normal]</ref> In so doing, like slavery before it, the homosexual agenda is seen to threaten basic freedoms, principally the First Amendment.<ref>Adams, Guy (11-8-2008) [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/mormon-stars-face-backlash-after-gay-marriage-ban-1003967.html ''Mormon stars face backlash after gay marriage ban''] The Independent</ref> <br />
<br />
The charge of "[[homophobia]]" has also been increasingly evidenced as being part of a means of intimidation used in promoting the homosexual agenda. Due to what homophobia has been made to denote, that of being a repressed homosexual, or possessing an irrational fear of being approached by homosexuals, or of being a bigot persecuting victims, the widespread use of the term "homophobic" attaches a powerful stigma to anyone who may even conscientiously oppose the practice of homosexuality, thus silencing many who might otherwise object to it.<ref>[http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/1995papers/socarides.html Thought Reform And The Psychology of Homosexual Advocacy<br />
Charles W. Socarides, M.D.]</ref><br />
<br />
In relation to such oppression, psychologist Nicholas Cummings, former president of the American Psychological Association (APA), observed, "Homophobia as intimidation is one of the most pervasive techniques used to silence anyone who would disagree with the gay activist agenda." As an example of such fear within the APA, in addressing 100 fellow professionals Cummings related that while writing "Destructive Trends in Mental Health," with psychologist Rogers Wright, a number of fellow psychologists were invited to participate. However, these flatly turned them down, as they feared loss of tenure, loss of promotion, and other forms of professional retaliation. "We were bombarded by horror stories," Dr. Cummings said. "Their greatest fear was of the gay lobby, which is very strong in the APA.<ref>[Psychology Losing Scientific Credibility, Say APA Insiders http://www.narth.com/docs/insiders.html]</ref><br />
<br />
Noted homosexual activist and pornographer Clinton Fein, in his article, The Gay Agenda stated, Homophobic inclinations alone, even without any actions, should be criminal and punishable to the full extent of the law. <br />
<br />
Erik Holland, author of "The Nature of Homosexuality," perceives that homosexuals have become so reckless in labeling others homophobic that "anyone who questions their labeling someone a homophobe himself. Even quoting factual statistics about the connection between homosexuality and AIDS is allegedly homophobic." In addition, according to pro homosexual author Vernon A Wall, "even acceptance of homosexuality can be seen as a form of homophobia, because to talk about the acceptance of homosexuality is to imply that there is something about homosexuality that needs acceptance."<ref>http://www.homosexinfo.org/Homophobia/HomePage</ref> <br />
<br />
It may be speculated that if the liberal use of the term homophobia is not primarily a psychological tactic, then it indicates a psychological condition on the part of those who use it, in which they imagine that those who oppose them are fearful of them, or of being one.<br />
<br />
===Influence in the Academic World===<br />
<br />
Professor Jerry Z. Muller described in an article titled, "First Things" (Aug/Sept. 1993), how the homosexual lobby has gained widespread acceptance in the educational realm. <br />
<br />
[Their] strategy has been remarkably successful. With a rapidity largely attributable in large part to a total lack of articulate resistance, homosexual ideology has gained an unquestioned and uncontested legitimacy in American academic life. Within the academy, as within nonacademic elite culture, the definition of opposite to homosexuality as "homophobia - a definition which implies that it is impossible to give good reasons for the cultural disapproval of homosexuality - is the best evidence of the success of this strategy.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=cbfVg_1qhe0C&pg=PP1&lpg=PP1&dq=David+W.+Virtue+scots+college&source=bl&ots=aDW7a615Gn&sig=Y1cLsx5sCQTgUUDJ88b5AKPRkNg&hl=en&ei=8skISpP1AcGktgfi2PzsCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPR14,M1 Homosexuality, by F. Earle Fox, David W. Virtue, p. 12]</ref><br />
<br />
== Opposing Christian Agenda ==<br />
<br />
Liberals are critical of Christian groups that oppose homosexuality. These criticisms include Christian activities of:<br />
<br />
*Soliciting donations<br />
*Encouraging email activism<br />
*Producing and disseminating gay reform information<br />
*Influencing local media in what stories they produce<br />
*Lobbying local, state and federal government officials to vote in the desired way on pending legislation<ref>[http://www.cwfa.org/about.asp Concerned Women For America] About page</ref><br />
*Calling anyone who opposes or even questions the homosexual agenda a 'bigot' or other untrue insults.<br />
<br />
==Opponents of the Homosexual Agenda ==<br />
Some well known individuals/groups in the [[United States]] who actively oppose the homosexual agenda are: [[Focus on the Family]], [[Peter LaBarbera]]'s American's for Truth, the [[Traditional Values Coalition]] ([[Louis Sheldon]] is a chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition), and [[Matt Barber]] of [[Concerned Women of America]].<br />
<br />
==Further reading==<br />
*[http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/lively.html Homosexuality and the Nazi Party] by Scott Lively. Excellent discussion of the anti-Christian and homosexual origins of the Nazism.<br />
*[http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/BPCollectionNews.asp?ID=131 2008 McDonald's and the Homosexual Agenda], Baptist Press<br />
*[http://www.couplescompany.com/FEATURES/politics/2004/Selling%20Homosexuality.pdf Paul E. Rondeau, Selling homosexuality to America (PDF)] [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/730694/posts Or html form]<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
*[[ACT-UP]]<br />
*[[Anti-Defamation League]]<br />
*[[Homosexual belief system]]<br />
*[[Gay rights]]<br />
*"[[Homophobia]]"<br />
*[[Hate speech]], [[Hate crime]]<br />
*[[Homosexuality]]<br />
*[[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]]<br />
*[[Intimate Partner Violence]]<br />
*[[Homosexualization]]<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
{{reflist|2}}<br />
<br />
<br />
{{liberalism}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]<br />
[[Category:Homosexuality]]<br />
[[Category: Liberal Deceit]]</div>PeterUkerhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homosexual_Agenda&diff=851190Homosexual Agenda2011-02-22T01:54:14Z<p>PeterUker: /* Opposing Christian Agenda */ name calling</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Homosexuality}}<br />
The '''Homosexual Agenda''', or [[Homosexuality|homosexual]] ideology, consists of a set of beliefs and objectives designed to promote and even mandate acceptance and approval of homosexuality, and the strategies used to implement such. This article notes that the goals and means of this movement include indoctrinating students in [[public school]], restricting the free speech of opposition, obtaining special treatment for homosexuals, distorting Biblical teaching and science, and interfering with freedom of association. <br />
<br />
Among all the [[liberal]] belief systems, the homosexual ideology is the most self-centered or selfish. Liberals generally give much less than conservatives to charity, but gay charity work in particular is virtually non-existent.<br />
<br />
Supreme Court Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] referred to the "so-called homosexual agenda" in ''[[Lawrence v. Texas]]'', 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (dissenting opinion). <br />
<br />
== The Homosexual Agenda ==<br />
<br />
Joseph P. Gudel, in ''That Which is Unnatural''<ref>[http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0108a.html "That Which is Unnatural" Homosexuality in Society, the Church, and Scripture] Part Two in a Two-Part Series on Homosexuality, from the Christian Research Journal, Winter 1993, page 8</ref> contended that the homosexual movement, <br />
<br />
:has been militantly demanding not just the homosexuals' right to do whatever they wish to do behind closed doors, but, more importantly, that society fully accept their lifestyle as both healthy and normal, even demanding special rights and legislation as an "oppressed minority." Gudel quotes various sources evidencing this. <br />
<br />
In a 1987 speech to the National Press Club in Washington, homosexual spokesperson Jeff Levi proclaimed, <br />
<br />
:We are no longer seeking just a right to privacy and a protection from wrong. We also have a right -- as heterosexual Americans already have -- to see government and society affirm our lives. <ref>Jeff Levi, in William Dannemeyer, Shadow in the Land (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1989), 86.</ref> <br />
<br />
In an article entitled "Gays on the March" in 1975, Time magazine quoted gay activist Barbara Gittings who stated: <br />
<br />
:What the homosexual wants, and here he is neither willing to compromise nor morally required to compromise -- is acceptance of homosexuality as a way of life fully on a par with heterosexuality." In response, Time opined, "It is one thing to remove legal discrimination against homosexuals. It is another to mandate approval....It is this goal of full acceptance, which no known society past or present has granted to homosexuals, that makes many Americans apprehensive.<ref>Gays on the March," Time, 8 Sept. 1975, 43</ref> <br />
<br />
A primary goal of the homosexual agenda is to promote the lifestyle in [[public schools]]. This occurred quickly and intensely after gay marriage was imposed in Massachusetts, where homosexual relationships are taught to children as young as kindergartners, as recounted by the decision of ''[[Parker v. Hurley]]''.<ref>The ''Parker v. Hurley'' decision explained, "In January 2005, when Jacob Parker ("Jacob") was in kindergarten, he brought home a 'Diversity Book Bag.' This included a picture book, Who's in a Family?, which depicted different families, including single-parent families, an extended family, interracial families, animal families, a family without children, and -- to the concern of the Parkers -- a family with two dads and a family with two moms. The book concludes by answering the question, 'Who's in a family?': 'The people who love you the most!' The book says nothing about marriage."</ref><br />
<br />
In a 1992 report by John Leo in U.S. News and World Report, he notes some books which were part of New York City's public school curriculum.<br />
<br />
The first-grade book, "Children of the Rainbow", stated on page 145, which states that teachers must "be aware of varied family structures, including...gay or lesbian parents," and "children must be taught to acknowledge the positive aspects of each type of household." Another children book is Heather Has Two Mommies, which is about a lesbian couple having a child through artificial insemination. Another book, Gloria Goes to Gay Pride, states, "Some women love women, some men love men, some women and men love each other. That's why we march in the parade, so everyone can have a choice."<br />
<br />
Leo commented, <br />
<br />
:A line is being crossed here; in fact, a brand new ethic is descending upon the city's public school system. The traditional civic virtue of tolerance (if gays want to live together, it's their own business) has been replaced with a new ethic requiring approval and endorsement (if gays want to live together, we must 'acknowledge the positive aspects' of their way of life).<ref>John Leo, "Heather Has a Message," U.S. News & World Report, 17 Aug. 1992, 16.</ref> <br />
<br />
Dr. Judith A. Reisman in her extensive ''Crafting “Gay” Children'',<ref>http://www.defendthefamily.com/_docs/resources/6390601.pdf</ref> reports that Harvard homosexual Toby Morotta, PhD, stated that in the 1970s, members of the Gay Activists Alliance - who were trained in the “zapping" of any who rebuffed homosexuality.<ref> Toby Marotta: THE POLITICS OF HOMOSEXUALITY: HOW LESBIANS AND GAY MEN HAVE MADE THEMSELVES A POLITICAL AND SOCIAL FORCE IN MODERN AMERICA, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1981 at 319</ref> And that these formed the “Gay Academic Union,” (GAU) which was made up of faculty and students in major universities. She states that the GAU has long fought for domination of its worldview within the academic community, and professional journals commonly assigned GAU and other homosexual peer reviewers to research touching on homosexuality, generally resulting in a quick death to possible unfavorable findings. <ref>See extensive reports in regular NARTH Bulletins as well as Ray Johnson, “American Psychology: The Political Science, at 53-57.</ref><br />
<br />
This and the general agenda is seen to be overall implementing a marketing strategy explained in a book called ''After the Ball,'' by [[gay rights]] activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen in the late 1980s, in which a six-point plan was set forth as to how they could transform the beliefs of ordinary Americans with regard to homosexual behavior in a decade-long time frame:<br />
:"The agenda of homosexual activists is basically to change America from what they perceive as looking down on homosexual behavior, to the affirmation of and societal acceptance of homosexual behavior." <ref name="Winn07252003">''After the Ball'' (1989), quoted from Winn, Pete (7-25-2003) [ ''Q&A: The Homosexual Agenda''] Citizenlink</ref> "Thus propagandistic advertising can depict all opponents of the gay movement as homophobic bigots who are 'not Christian' and the propaganda can further show them [homosexuals]] as being criticized, hated and shunned..."<ref>After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's, by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen (Author) (p. 152-153)</ref><br />
<br />
[[Focus on the Family]] provides additional quotes from After the Ball, outlining key points of the homosexual agenda:<ref name="Winn07252003"/><ref>Kirk, Marshall K. and Erastes Pill (11-1987) ''The Overhauling of Straight America'' Available at [http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/overhauling.htm ''STRATEGIES OF THE HOMOSEXUAL MOVEMENT: "The Overhauling of Straight America"'']</ref><br />
<br />
#"Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible." <br />
#"Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers." <br />
#"Give homosexual protectors a just cause." <br />
#"Make gays look good." <br />
#"Make the victimizers look bad." <br />
#"Get funds from corporate America."<br />
<br />
[[United States Supreme Court]] Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] wrote:<br />
{{cquote|Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.<ref>[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-102#dissent1 ''LAWRENCE et al. v. TEXAS''] at findlaw.com</ref>}}<br />
<br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vic_Eliason Vic Eliason] of [http://www.crosstalkamerica.com Crosstalk America] rightly points out that if all Americans turned homosexual it would only take a few generations for the United States to lose most of the population of the country through lack of procreation. This would make the US more vulnerable to attack by our enemies.<br />
<br />
== Specific goals ==<br />
<br />
The goals of the homosexual movement include:<br />
<br />
#Destroying Christian morals<br />
#*Changing the definition of marriage, even if doing so infringes on the religious rights of Christians not to recognize it as anything other than sin <ref>www.massresistance.org, Homosexuals begin campaign of terror over Prop 8 loss]</ref><br />
#*Dilute the clear message of the [[Bible]] that [[homosexuality]] is a sin and an abomination unto [[God]].<br />
#Promote pseudoscience that legitimizes homosexuality, such as claims of a never-identified gay gene<ref>[http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/satinover.html The Gay Gene?<br />
by Jeffrey Satinover, M.D.]</ref> <br />
#*Censoring evidence that the "gay gene" is a hoax<ref>[http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/08a/born_gay_hoax/smith_0329/index.html ''Lesbian activists at Smith College riot, shut down Ryan Sorba speech on "The Born Gay Hoax" as police watch. See exclusive videos.''] Mass Resistance</ref><br />
#Censoring speech against homosexuality by branding it to possibly be "hate-speech"<ref>[http://www.silencingchristians.com Video:Silencing Christians]</ref><ref>[http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2009/06/homosexuality-its-crime-in-england-to.html Homosexuality: It’s a Crime in England to State Christian Views]</ref><ref>[http://www.ccfon.org/view.php?id=745 Bishops fight for right to criticise homosexual lifestyle, 25th May 2009]</ref><br />
#*Censoring biblical statements condemning homosexuality<ref>White, Hilary (04-21-2006) [http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/apr/06042105.html ''Court Upholds School Ban on "Homosexuality is Shameful" T-Shirt''] LifeSiteNews.com</ref> <br />
#Establishing affirmative action for homosexuals<ref>The Crimson Staff (10-13-2006) [http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=514950 ''A Box of Their Own?''] (opinion) The Crimson</ref><ref>www.afa.net, Homosexual Agenda Platforms from 1972 - 2000</ref><br />
#Expand hate crimes legislation to include sexual orientation<ref>Pelosi, Nancy Office of (09-28-2004) [http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases/Sept04/HateCrimes092804.html ''Pelosi: "Hate Crimes Prevention Legislation is Right Thing to Do, Long Overdue"''] From the office of Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi</ref><br />
#Ending the military's and Boy Scout's restrictions on homosexuality<ref>''Boy Scouts of Am. v. Dale'', 530 U.S. 640 (2000) (Boy Scouts); "Matlovich v. Secretary of the Air Force (591 F.2d 852, DC Circ. 1 978) (military)</ref><br />
#Stopping children as young as 5 years old from attending therapy to repair their sexual preference<ref>[http://www.thetaskforce.org/reports_and_research/youth_in_the_crosshairs National Gay and Lesbian Task Force:Youth in the Crosshairs]</ref><br />
#Promote homosexuality in schools<ref>[[Morrison v. Board of Education]]</ref><br />
#*In places like Massachusetts and California, where the gay lobby is the strongest, it starts as early as pre-school. They tell seven- or eight-year-old boys, "If you only like boys, there's a chance you may be homosexual," or "If you only like girls, maybe you are lesbian." Well, at that age, all members of the opposite sex "have cooties."<br />
#*You're planting a seed that can totally mess up the normal development process later, when at 12 or 14, kids enter the age of sexual confusion and discovering the opposite sex. <ref>[http://www.citizenlink.org/CLFeatures/A000000562.cfm CitizenLink: QA: The Homosexual Agenda]</ref><br />
#Force businesses to accommodate their lifestyle<ref>[http://www.thetaskforce.org/issues/nondiscrimination/ENDA_main_page Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) | National Gay and Lesbian Task Force</ref><br />
#*Suing an online dating website for discrimination<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,454904,00.html Fox News - eHarmony to Provide Gay Dating Service after Lawsuit]</ref><br />
#Undermining the [[Essay:Quantifying_Mental_Strength|resolve]] of [[Homosexuality_and_choice#Choice_and_Genetics|latent homosexuals]] so that their will becomes too weak to resist the temptations of homosexuality<ref>http://www.thetaskforce.org/activist_center/resources_and_tools/challenge_exgay</ref><br />
#Pushing for legalized adoption by gay individuals and couples<ref>http://www.thetaskforce.org/issues/parenting_and_family</ref><br />
<br />
The state-by-state push for same-sex marriage can be viewed as a means to the above goals, or a goal in itself.<ref>[[Lewis v. Harris]]</ref> An example of this would be the recent New Hampshire law that makes same-sex civil unions legal<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/06/01/new_hampshire_law_makes_same_sex_civil_unions_legal/</ref><br />
<br />
Although notable gains toward achieving its goals continue to be manifest, homosexual activists have recent been expressing a high level of and dissatisfaction against the Obama administration. Commenting on such, Massresistance.org, an organization which opposes the homosexual agenda in [[Massachusetts]], noted that the President has, <br />
<br />
*signed an order extending federal benefits to same-sex partners; <br />
<br />
*pushed an extreme hate crimes bill in Congress; <br />
<br />
*declared his intention to repeal the Defense of Marriage, <br />
<br />
*pushed a pro-homosexual and transgender version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.<br />
<br />
*appointed radical homosexual activists to high level positions, including Harry Knox, of the homosexual lobby group Human Rights Campaign, and Kevin Jennings, founder of the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network (GLSEN), which targets kids in the public schools.<br />
<br />
*declared February to be "Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month." <br />
<br />
*ordered the State Department to allow gay couples to use their married names (from marriages or civil unions) on US passports.<ref>update@massresistance.org 6/24/2009 11:56 PM</ref><br />
<br />
=== Strategies and psychological tactics ===<br />
<br />
Homosexual activists are often seen as engaging in specious argumentation, such as attempts to controvert the consistent teaching of the Bible on homosexual relations, (see [[homosexuality and biblical interpretation]]) and using false analogies, in order to gain acceptance of homosexuality. One common argument used by homosexual activists seeks to compare their quest for equal rights to that of others.<ref>Miner, Homosexuality, Civil Rights, and the Church</ref> This argument is countered by the observation that blacks were able to peacefully argue that mankind should not be "judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character"<ref>[http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm, Speech by Martin Luther King Jr.]</ref>, as the former yields no certain moral distinction. In contrast, homosexual activists are seen to seek acceptance of an immoral practice(s), and in addition, to overall engage in certain coercive and manipulative means to do so. This is evidenced to include the use of a demonstrative manner of protests, which appear to be designed to censure and intimidate those who oppose them in any way.<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/socialsciences/sellinghomosexuality.html</ref><ref>http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm</ref><ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=89526</ref><ref>http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/08c/Prop8/church_attacks.html</ref><ref>http://rebuildtheparty.ning.com/video/exodus-protest-park-street</ref><ref>http://theway2k.vox.com/library/post/homosexuals-persecuting-christians-and-mormons.html</ref><ref>http://www.hamiltonsquare.net/articlesRiotsSep1993.htm</ref><ref>http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/may/08050205.html</ref><ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=95296</ref><ref>Muehlenberg, Bill, [http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2009/06/04/another-nail-in-the-christian-coffin/ Another Nail in the Christian Coffin], [[4 June]] [[2009]]</ref><ref>[http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/09a/feder_0311/index.html Loud homosexual activists disrupt and halt Don Feder speech at UMass Amherst, despite police presence"]</ref> In addition, one pro-homosexual commentator recently took the homosexual community to task for being racist in their practice of homosexuality.<ref>LZ Granderson, ''Commentary: Gay is not the new black'', Cable News Network,July 16, 2009</ref> <br />
<br />
While not all homosexuals agree with the use of deceptive psychological tactics, these have been promoted by leading homosexual activists. The aforementioned book, ''After the Ball'', is widely regarded as the handbook for the gay agenda, in which Harvard trained marketing experts and social scientists Marshall Kirk (1957 - 2005) and Hunter Madsen advocated avoiding portraying gays as aggressive challengers, but as victims, while making those who opposed them as evil persecutors. As a means of the latter, they promoted jamming, in which Christians, traditionalists, or anyone else who opposes the gay agenda are publicly smeared. In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector ... The purpose of victim imagery is to make straights feel very uncomfortable, they suggested. <br />
<br />
Jam homophobia (i.e., disagreement with homosexual behaviors) by linking it to Nazi horror, was the strategy of Kirk and Madsen. Associate all who oppose homosexuality with images of Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered, hysterical backwoods preachers, menacing punks, and a tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed. Thus, "propagandistic advertisement can depict homophobic and homohating bigots as crude loudmouths..."<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/socialsciences/sellinghomosexuality.html http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm </ref><br />
<br />
Kirk and Madsen's open admission of their deceptive tactics is noted as most revealing: [O]ur effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof. "...the person's beliefs can be altered whether he is conscious of the attack or not"<ref>After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s, p. 152-153 (1989, Doubleday/Bantam)</ref> “The campaign we outline in this book, though complex, depends centrally upon a program of unabashed propaganda, firmly grounded in long-established principles of psychology and advertising.”<ref>Kirk and Madsen, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of the Gay’s in the 90s, p.xxvi</ref><ref>[http://banap.net/ Behavior and Not a Person]</ref> <br />
<br />
Similarly, author Robert Bauman additionally records, It makes no difference that the ads are lies . . . because were using them to ethically good effect, to counter negative stereotypes that are every bit as much lies, and far more wicked ones. <ref>The Gentleman from Maryland: The Conscience of a gay Conservative, by Robert Bauman, 1986, page 163.</ref><br />
<br />
The need for Kirk and Madsen to engage in such manipulation may be seen as being due to their sober realization of the nature of the homosexual lifestyle. <br />
<br />
“In short, the gay lifestyle - if such a chaos can, after all, legitimately be called a lifestyle - it just doesn’t work: it doesn’t serve the two functions for which all social framework evolve: to constrain people’s natural impulses to behave badly and to meet their natural needs. While it’s impossible to provide an exhaustive analytic list of all the root causes and aggravants of this failure, we can asseverate at least some of the major causes. Many have been dissected, above, as elements of the Ten Misbehaviors; it only remains to discuss the failure of the gay community to provide a viable alternative to the heterosexual family.”<ref>Kirk and Madsen, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of the Gay’s in the 90s, p.363</ref><br />
<br />
Marshall Kirk died in 2005 at the age of 48. The cause of death has not been publicly revealed.<br />
<br />
Often cited as an early example form of such tactics was the role of homosexual activists in persuading the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders (DSM-II). Dr. Ronald Bayer, though being himself a pro-homosexual psychiatrist, described this removal as being the result of power politics, threats, and intimidation, rather than any new scientific discoveries.<ref>[http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/eleven.php Exposed: The Myth That Psychiatry Has Proven That Homosexual Behavior Is Normal]</ref> In so doing, like slavery before it, the homosexual agenda is seen to threaten basic freedoms, principally the First Amendment.<ref>Adams, Guy (11-8-2008) [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/mormon-stars-face-backlash-after-gay-marriage-ban-1003967.html ''Mormon stars face backlash after gay marriage ban''] The Independent</ref> <br />
<br />
The charge of "[[homophobia]]" has also been increasingly evidenced as being part of a means of intimidation used in promoting the homosexual agenda. Due to what homophobia has been made to denote, that of being a repressed homosexual, or possessing an irrational fear of being approached by homosexuals, or of being a bigot persecuting victims, the widespread use of the term "homophobic" attaches a powerful stigma to anyone who may even conscientiously oppose the practice of homosexuality, thus silencing many who might otherwise object to it.<ref>[http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/1995papers/socarides.html Thought Reform And The Psychology of Homosexual Advocacy<br />
Charles W. Socarides, M.D.]</ref><br />
<br />
In relation to such oppression, psychologist Nicholas Cummings, former president of the American Psychological Association (APA), observed, "Homophobia as intimidation is one of the most pervasive techniques used to silence anyone who would disagree with the gay activist agenda." As an example of such fear within the APA, in addressing 100 fellow professionals Cummings related that while writing "Destructive Trends in Mental Health," with psychologist Rogers Wright, a number of fellow psychologists were invited to participate. However, these flatly turned them down, as they feared loss of tenure, loss of promotion, and other forms of professional retaliation. "We were bombarded by horror stories," Dr. Cummings said. "Their greatest fear was of the gay lobby, which is very strong in the APA.<ref>[Psychology Losing Scientific Credibility, Say APA Insiders http://www.narth.com/docs/insiders.html]</ref><br />
<br />
Noted homosexual activist and pornographer Clinton Fein, in his article, The Gay Agenda stated, Homophobic inclinations alone, even without any actions, should be criminal and punishable to the full extent of the law. <br />
<br />
Erik Holland, author of "The Nature of Homosexuality," perceives that homosexuals have become so reckless in labeling others homophobic that "anyone who questions their labeling someone a homophobe himself. Even quoting factual statistics about the connection between homosexuality and AIDS is allegedly homophobic." In addition, according to pro homosexual author Vernon A Wall, "even acceptance of homosexuality can be seen as a form of homophobia, because to talk about the acceptance of homosexuality is to imply that there is something about homosexuality that needs acceptance."<ref>http://www.homosexinfo.org/Homophobia/HomePage</ref> <br />
<br />
It may be speculated that if the liberal use of the term homophobia is not primarily a psychological tactic, then it indicates a psychological condition on the part of those who use it, in which they imagine that those who oppose them are fearful of them, or of being one.<br />
<br />
===Influence in the Academic World===<br />
<br />
Professor Jerry Z. Muller described in an article titled, "First Things" (Aug/Sept. 1993), how the homosexual lobby has gained widespread acceptance in the educational realm. <br />
<br />
[Their] strategy has been remarkably successful. With a rapidity largely attributable in large part to a total lack of articulate resistance, homosexual ideology has gained an unquestioned and uncontested legitimacy in American academic life. Within the academy, as within nonacademic elite culture, the definition of opposite to homosexuality as "homophobia - a definition which implies that it is impossible to give good reasons for the cultural disapproval of homosexuality - is the best evidence of the success of this strategy.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=cbfVg_1qhe0C&pg=PP1&lpg=PP1&dq=David+W.+Virtue+scots+college&source=bl&ots=aDW7a615Gn&sig=Y1cLsx5sCQTgUUDJ88b5AKPRkNg&hl=en&ei=8skISpP1AcGktgfi2PzsCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPR14,M1 Homosexuality, by F. Earle Fox, David W. Virtue, p. 12]</ref><br />
<br />
== Opposing Christian Agenda ==<br />
<br />
Liberals are critical of Christian groups that oppose homosexuality. These criticisms include Christian activities of:<br />
<br />
*Soliciting donations<br />
*Encouraging email activism<br />
*Producing and disseminating gay reform information<br />
*Influencing local media in what stories they produce<br />
*Lobbying local, state and federal government officials to vote in the desired way on pending legislation<ref>[http://www.cwfa.org/about.asp Concerned Women For America] About page</ref><br />
*Calling anyone who opposes or even questions the homosexual agenda a 'bigot' or other untrue insults.<br />
<br />
==Opponents of the Homosexual Agenda ==<br />
Some well known individuals/groups in the [[United States]] who actively oppose the homosexual agenda are: [[Focus on the Family]], [[Peter LaBarbera]]'s American's for Truth, the [[Traditional Values Coalition]] ([[Louis Sheldon]] is a chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition), and [[Matt Barber]] of [[Concerned Women of America]].<br />
<br />
==Further reading==<br />
*[http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/lively.html Homosexuality and the Nazi Party] by Scott Lively. Excellent discussion of the anti-Christian and homosexual origins of the Nazism.<br />
*[http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/BPCollectionNews.asp?ID=131 2008 McDonald's and the Homosexual Agenda], Baptist Press<br />
*[http://www.couplescompany.com/FEATURES/politics/2004/Selling%20Homosexuality.pdf Paul E. Rondeau, Selling homosexuality to America (PDF)] [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/730694/posts Or html form]<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
*[[ACT-UP]]<br />
*[[Anti-Defamation League]]<br />
*[[Homosexual belief system]]<br />
*[[Gay rights]]<br />
*"[[Homophobia]]"<br />
*[[Hate speech]], [[Hate crime]]<br />
*[[Homosexuality]]<br />
*[[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]]<br />
*[[Intimate Partner Violence]]<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
{{reflist|2}}<br />
<br />
<br />
{{liberalism}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]<br />
[[Category:Homosexuality]]<br />
[[Category: Liberal Deceit]]</div>PeterUkerhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Great_Achievements_by_Teenagers&diff=851189Talk:Great Achievements by Teenagers2011-02-22T01:52:38Z<p>PeterUker: /* Roger Mason entry */ typo</p>
<hr />
<div>==Clarification==<br />
Nearly all of those who accomplished great deeds while being teenagers made even greater contributions when they became adults. Especially, this list can't be used to bolster up the claim that ''most of the greatest works in history were accomplished by people who were teenagers''<br />
[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 16:49, 26 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Heavenly voices ==<br />
<br />
Is hearing heavenly voices an acheivement? Is was it leading France to victory that was the acheivement? It rather reads as if the hearing of voices was the acheivement. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:26, 26 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Reversion ==<br />
<br />
Obviously if someone produced a work ''before'' becoming a teenager it proves the same point; hence the reversion.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 21:34, 26 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Then how about renaming the page to keep it accurate? "Great Achievements by Minors", maybe? [[User:DRussell|DRussell]] 21:40, 26 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Karl Benz ==<br />
<br />
I removed [[Karl Benz]]: Though he was a child prodigy, at the given age ('''15'''), he ''"only"'' passed the entrance exam of the University of [[Karlsruhe]]. His genius really flourished in his late thirties. --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 07:10, 27 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Later Achievments==<br />
* '''7''' - Yehudi Menuhin: made his last recording age 82<br />
* '''8''' - [[Pablo Picasso]] Cubism: age 30 <br />
* '''8''' - [[Frederic Chopin]] Piano Concert No. 1: age 20<br />
* '''12''' - [[Blaise Pascal]] "Traité du triangle arithmétique": age 30<br />
* '''13''' - [[John]] stays a mistery<br />
* '''13''' - [[Joan of Arc]] inspired and led [[France]] to victory in the [[Hundred Years War]]<br />
* '''13''' - [[Anne Frank]] began writing her diary, later published as "Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl"<br />
* '''14''' - chess-player [[Bobby Fischer]] World Chess Champion: age 29<br />
* '''14''' - [[Mozart]]"Don Giovanni": age 32<br />
* '''15''' - [[Louis Braille]] invented the [[Braille]] system<br />
* '''15''' - [[Christopher Paolini]] writes the first draft of his [[Eragon]] trilogy which is published when he is 19.<br />
* '''16''' - Jean-François Champollion: deciphers the [[Rosetta Stone]] age 32<br />
* '''18''' - [[Mary Shelley]] writes Frankenstein (The Modern Prometheus) - it is only published when she is 21, however.<br />
* '''20''' - Carl Friedrich Gauss makes his first mathematical discoveries, which will lead to the completion of "Disquisitiones Arithmeticae", his magnum opus, at the age of 21.<br />
<br />
So, most of the persons in the list made contributions to their field works overshadowing there achievements as teenagers.<br />
<br />
[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 08:57, 27 December 2008 (EST)<br />
:A corrosive attitude is not beneficial. If, as Andy suggested, you opened your mind you might find nmany more examples to support this case. Bear in mind: demolition is easy, to build takes effort! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:59, 27 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Jesus==<br />
<br />
I'm not entirely certain I'm comfortable with including Jesus on a list of "teenagers." Part of that may just be a visceral reaction against applying the term to the Almighty, but setting that aside, I'm still not entirely sure he belongs on the list. After all, despite His physical age at the time he preached, He was still God, and therefore timeless and eternal. It's going to be a little hard for anyone, teenager or adult, to measure up to His list of accomplishments! --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:18, 28 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==IQ Peak==<br />
<br />
Although it is a hotly debated subject, there is no concrete evidence to suggest that IQ peaks in the pre-teen/teenage years. The linked article provides evidence to support that the rate of brain development peaks at this time, but this is idependant of a person's IQ.<br />
<br />
To highlight the diparate viewpoints, it is possible to show an IQ peak at anywhere from 14-16yrs old, all the way up to 50yrs+ - depending on what you measure, how you measure and how you interpret your findings (as with many stats i suppose).<br />
<br />
More info: http://www.albion.edu/psychology/fac_psyc/jwilson/psy101/intell.htm<br />
<br />
Hope my edit is satisfactory --[[User:J00ni|J00ni]] 18:22, 28 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Mary as "17"==<br />
<br />
Can I suggest using the word "uncertain" for Mary's age instead of assuming that it's 17? That takes nothing away from the assumption that she was a teenager when she gave birth, but it doesn't seem right for CP to state a specific age as if it were a fact when the comment goes on to acknowledge that the actual age was unknown. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 09:20, 30 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: The footnote is clear enough. No one doubts she was a teenager, and 17 was an average age of betrothal. The purpose of this list is plainly not to pinpoint precise ages, but merely to show the teenagers as a group.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 09:24, 30 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:: I don't disagree with that. I've added an asterisk after her age to highlight that it's an approximation, and leaving the rest as-is. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:03, 30 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::It could be even earlier; in the middle ages it was not uncommon for girls to give birth at 14, so in this case I think it could be as young as 15 (but I think it's 16, personally). [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:29, 30 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::: I too was given to believe she was younger than 17 at the time. My maternal family line has a long tradition of Mary-derived names in firstborn daughters, (I'm Regina, yes, that's Mary Derived, have "Ave Regina") and my mother always told the story that she was around 15. When I was little that seemed quite grown up, but when I was 15 myself, it struck me just how very brave she was, and how young. I think the note of approximation is important for this reason, it is true she could have been as old as 17, but at that young age, two years is a world of difference in maturity and self assurance. If she was indeed younger than 17, bumping up her age underestimates the greatness of her faith. Best err on the side of caution and reverence. [[User:BirdieA|Birdie]] 13:25, 30 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::: I side with Birdie, I have always understood it as the age of 15. --Jpatt 14:27, 30 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Bill Gates==<br />
<br />
A 13-year-old programming is not a remarkable achievement, and Gates' significant accomplishments occurred as a young adult, not a teen. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:06, 30 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:I understand your point and I for one do not wish to glorify an atheist. By todays standards, that is not an achievement. At age thirteen in 1968, think about the computer he was working with? It is a bright child that succeeded, is it a great achievement? --Jpatt 14:24, 30 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Under further scrutiny, I have decided against including Bill Gates. What did he achieve at 13? computer skills, not a great achievement. Also, he has enough accolades, believes in the God of nothing (catch that prying eyes?), listed next to Anne, no way the two should reside together :) --Jpatt 20:28, 31 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== remove some or move the page? ==<br />
<br />
If it is going to be Great achievements be teenagers, then we need to limit the list to teenagers only, not 8 and 10 year olds and 20 year olds. We need to remove the non-teenagers from the list, or else change it to something like "great achievements by young people" --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] <small>(CPAdmin1)</small><sup>[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]]</sup> 19:55, 30 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:12 year olds are also not teenagers. It sounds like we're getting technical, but saying that 8, 10, 12 and 20 year olds are teenagers is effectively the same as saying girls who wear pants are boys. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 20:02, 30 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::not really. It is more like saying that 4 is an odd number because it is close to 5 which is an odd number. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] <small>(CPAdmin1)</small><sup>[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]]</sup> 20:06, 30 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Roger Mason entry ==<br />
<br />
The Roger Mason entry does not rise to the level of achievement of the others. Even if it was a meaningful discovery, which is dubious, we don't have the shepherd who discovered the Dead Sea Scrolls and I don't see why would include Mason's "discovery" as a great achievement either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:53, 13 August 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Although I didn't add that entry, I did feel it was right to change it to state it as ''what some believed'' rather state it as scientific fact. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]<sub><small><small>/Admin</small></small></sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 20:11, 13 August 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: I agree with your edit, and am suggesting that we go further and either toss the entry or downgrade it further in an appropriate way. It just does not rise to the level of, say, David slaying Goliath.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:37, 13 August 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: OK, so I see there's been some discussion of Roger Mason. The point is that he didn't just stumble over some strange markings in the rock: he knew they were fossils and he knew the rocks were pre-Cambrian. His teenage open-mindedness led him to see what older, more closed-minded professors did not see. He had the confidence to go to a professor and tell him what he'd discovered - the professor didn't believe him till he'd seen it with his own eyes. A whole new era of biological life? A big discovery by anyone's standards. I've part-reverted the deletion, i.e. I've made it clear why it was such a big deal. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 18:30, 3 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
Mason's achievement is that he discovered the first fossil to come from rocks that were undoubtedly of a Pre-Cambrian era. Before that, the consensus of professional scientists was that there were no complex lifeforms before the Cambrian. Mason knew the rocks were Pre-Cambrian and he knew that what he found was a fossil. The fossil is named for the place it was found, Charnwood Forest, and for him: ''Charnia masoni''. Very very few people have revolutionised a whole area of science as teenages - Mason is one of them. You can read about it in New Scientist, issue of April 14, 2007.<br />
<br />
The text I wrote looks pretty much correct (bar one spelling mistake). I suggest you re-insert it in the article:<br />
'''16''' - Roger Mason discovers fossils from a whole era of complex life, the Ediacran (c.600 million years ago). His open-mindedness leads to an insight which overturns the limited preconceptions of earlier scientists, including Darwin, about life on Earth. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 19:26, 5 February 2011 (EST)<br />
: There have been no objections to this text so I've added it to the page. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 14:57, 6 February 2011 (EST)<br />
::And I've removed it again. When the site owner and a senior administrator agree something should be removed, and tell you to discuss it on the talk page, you don't just add it back in without their input. Wait for their response. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]]<sub>[[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]]</sub> 15:10, 6 February 2011 (EST)<br />
::: 1. When's he going to respond?<br />
::: 2. I thought this was an encyclopedia that gathers knowledge from the public, not one person's private website.<br />
::: 3. OK, I'll wait a little while longer. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 15:17, 6 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::: Your edits are heavy on opinion without links to back it up. "Roger Mason" is a name few have heard of, and perhaps for good reason. You'll need to back up your claim with far more than you have before it merits inclusion in this impressive list. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:36, 6 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
Responding to your request on my talk page, here are two key references and a brief commentary:<br />
* http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/geoscientist/geonews/page4300.html: Explains the importance of the Ediacaran period in geology and explains the great importance of the discoveries made by teenager Roger Mason in revealing the origins of complex life forms in the pre-Cambrian period.<br />
* http://wapedia.mobi/en/Charnia: Explains the importance of the fossils of the genus ''Charnia'' to studies of pre-Cambrian life and the important role that Roger Mason, as a teenager, played in discovering fossils within pre-Cambrian rocks.<br />
* A ''New Scientist'' article (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19425991.500-ediacarans-the-long-fuse-of-the-cambrian-explosion.html) reports the importance of the Ediacaran fauna and the personal role played by Mason but you need a subscription to read it in full.<br />
[[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 19:55, 6 February 2011 (EST)<br />
:::Perhaps you can also explain what is meant by "600 million years ago," given the fact that Biblical inerrancy as a pretty big deal 'round these parts. [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 19:58, 6 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::Benjy, greatness is not apparent from your descriptions, or the links. At best it appears that some teenagers stumbled upon some fossils, of which there are millions, and then speculation by some professors followed. This hardly ranks with, for example, the achievements of the author of the [[Gospel of Mark]], wbich is part of the most influential book of all time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:27, 6 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::Perhaps the better comparison would be with Kathryn Aurora Gray. --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 21:29, 6 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
Aschlafly, you're missing the point: Mason's breakthrough was that '''''as a schoolboy''''' he recognised fossils in what he knew were pre-Cambrian rocks. The very strong consensus among professional / academic geologists at the time was that there were '''no''' complex life-forms in the pre-Cambrian - and hence no complex fossils in pre-Cambrian rocks. Mason, as a teenager, was not hide-bound by the preconceptions of the academic world. This exactly fits your own criterion of "the natural open-mindedness of young people before they may experience attempts to indoctrinate them towards certain worldviews".<br />
<br />
As for the the scale of his achievement, there are 11 recognized geological eras and Mason discovered the first fossils recognized to definitely come from one of them ''and knew exactly what he had done'' (i.e. unlike the shephard discovering the Dead Sea Scrolls, who had no idea what the pieces of parchment were). That's a pretty big deal<br />
<br />
Another good reference is this radio programme (''In Our Time'', a weekly science-for-non-scientists programme on a talk radio channel over here): http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00lh2s3.<br />
<br />
Martyp, young earth creationism may be a big deal for some people round here but evidently not everybody: I've read enough CP to know that.<br />
<br />
I'll give it an hour or so to let others respond further, then make the appropriate edit to the page. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 15:32, 7 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Well, it's now ''two'' hours later and there haven't been any adverse comments. So as there are no further objections, I've restored the entry for Roger Mason. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 17:44, 7 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
:: Aschlafly, just taking the entry out isn't good enough. You need to give a reason. It's getting late on this side of the pond so I leave it up to your conscience whether you let another day go by with or without one of the outstanding teenage scientists in your encyclopedia. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 19:42, 21 February 2011 (EST)<br />
:::What are you trying to achieve here BenjyB? Why not try making some substantive contributions instead of trying to push your bizarre agenda and insulting the owner and founder of the site? [[User:PeterUker|PeterUker]] 20:06, 21 February 2011 (EST)<br />
::::He's gone. Just another UK troll from a ragwiki elsewhere.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 20:19, 21 February 2011 (EST)<br />
:::::I only noticed that after I'd posted, sorry! What's a 'ragwiki'? Is that a UK term as I'm not familiar with it? [[User:PeterUker|PeterUker]] 20:30, 21 February 2011 (EST)<br />
::::::Just a gathering of like minded troublemakers from anonymous proxies who lead lives of lutz.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 20:38, 21 February 2011 (EST)<br />
:::::::Ah, you mean [[Encyclopedia Dramatica]]? I should have known that such trolls would be from that online gutter! [[User:PeterUker|PeterUker]] 20:52, 21 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
== ''Teen''agers ==<br />
<br />
<!-- Hi, just found this excellent website whilst searching for information on young Kathryn Aurora Gray's outstanding achievement - I will certainly be reading through a lot more articles here and encourage my friends at church to do the same!<br />
However -->I noticed that there are a few people on this list that are not teenagers and so must have been added by mistake - shall I go ahead and remove them so that the article's content matches its title? I don't want to do so without asking as I'm new here. <!-- Thanks and God bless.--> [[User:BobG|BobG]] 12:55, 5 January 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
:You haven't said what you think are mistakes. Go ahead and edit the content entry and let's what you think are mistakes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:14, 5 January 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Bob, the individuals listed with a non-teen year obviously had remarkable contributions as teenagers also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:45, 5 January 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Sorry, I hadn't realized that! Shall we rephrase their entries in order to make that clear, such as by listing the teenage achievements primarily (along with the age at that point) and giving the currently listed achievements as footnotes or 'also achieved' in parentheses)? If you can help me finding information on these teenage achievements I'd be delighted to take on the task! Thanks. [[User:BobG|BobG]] 14:45, 5 January 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
Apart from the interesting idea that 10 year-old Kathryn Aurora Gray is a [[teenager]], is a source (from main page news report - which I added to entry) like [[CNN]], owned by [[leftist]] mogul [[Ted Turner]], with its [[liberal bias]] and support for the [[liberal]] agenda really a reliable source? The article claims the supernova happened 240 million years ago which is patent nonsense since that predates [[creation]]. CNN also claim that the girl’s father was an amateur astronomer, however, according to [http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/01/10-year-old-girl-becomes-youngest-person-to-discover-a-supernova/68911/ this source] the girl’s father is a professional astronomer, so it seems extremely likely that this is an example of [[liberal deceit]] and [[professor values]] where unjustified claims of expertise and knowledge are being made on behalf of a child in a [[Narcissism|narcissistic]] frenzy of publicity seeking [[liberal arrogance]]. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 14:21, 6 January 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
:The quibble is over the term "teenagers", and this suggestion could be made into a constructive one if we renamed the article to something like [[Great achievements by young people]]. <br />
<br />
:As a middle aged man, I am far from discouraging the next generation to make contributions. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:45, 7 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Zuckerberg "commercializes" Facebook==<br />
<br />
I'm curious about the choice of words for the Zuckerberg entry. Why "commercialized" instead of "created"? Is it because there's an argument over who really created the site? "Commercializing" doesn't seem like such a great achievement. [[User:EMorris|EMorris]] 11:47, 7 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
:My understanding is that Facebook was created for Harvard students, and existed in that form before it was commercialized. I agree that commercializing something is not as great an achievement as other items on the list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:02, 7 February 2011 (EST)</div>PeterUkerhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Great_Achievements_by_Teenagers&diff=851188Talk:Great Achievements by Teenagers2011-02-22T01:52:08Z<p>PeterUker: /* Roger Mason entry */ reply</p>
<hr />
<div>==Clarification==<br />
Nearly all of those who accomplished great deeds while being teenagers made even greater contributions when they became adults. Especially, this list can't be used to bolster up the claim that ''most of the greatest works in history were accomplished by people who were teenagers''<br />
[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 16:49, 26 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Heavenly voices ==<br />
<br />
Is hearing heavenly voices an acheivement? Is was it leading France to victory that was the acheivement? It rather reads as if the hearing of voices was the acheivement. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:26, 26 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Reversion ==<br />
<br />
Obviously if someone produced a work ''before'' becoming a teenager it proves the same point; hence the reversion.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 21:34, 26 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Then how about renaming the page to keep it accurate? "Great Achievements by Minors", maybe? [[User:DRussell|DRussell]] 21:40, 26 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Karl Benz ==<br />
<br />
I removed [[Karl Benz]]: Though he was a child prodigy, at the given age ('''15'''), he ''"only"'' passed the entrance exam of the University of [[Karlsruhe]]. His genius really flourished in his late thirties. --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 07:10, 27 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Later Achievments==<br />
* '''7''' - Yehudi Menuhin: made his last recording age 82<br />
* '''8''' - [[Pablo Picasso]] Cubism: age 30 <br />
* '''8''' - [[Frederic Chopin]] Piano Concert No. 1: age 20<br />
* '''12''' - [[Blaise Pascal]] "Traité du triangle arithmétique": age 30<br />
* '''13''' - [[John]] stays a mistery<br />
* '''13''' - [[Joan of Arc]] inspired and led [[France]] to victory in the [[Hundred Years War]]<br />
* '''13''' - [[Anne Frank]] began writing her diary, later published as "Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl"<br />
* '''14''' - chess-player [[Bobby Fischer]] World Chess Champion: age 29<br />
* '''14''' - [[Mozart]]"Don Giovanni": age 32<br />
* '''15''' - [[Louis Braille]] invented the [[Braille]] system<br />
* '''15''' - [[Christopher Paolini]] writes the first draft of his [[Eragon]] trilogy which is published when he is 19.<br />
* '''16''' - Jean-François Champollion: deciphers the [[Rosetta Stone]] age 32<br />
* '''18''' - [[Mary Shelley]] writes Frankenstein (The Modern Prometheus) - it is only published when she is 21, however.<br />
* '''20''' - Carl Friedrich Gauss makes his first mathematical discoveries, which will lead to the completion of "Disquisitiones Arithmeticae", his magnum opus, at the age of 21.<br />
<br />
So, most of the persons in the list made contributions to their field works overshadowing there achievements as teenagers.<br />
<br />
[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 08:57, 27 December 2008 (EST)<br />
:A corrosive attitude is not beneficial. If, as Andy suggested, you opened your mind you might find nmany more examples to support this case. Bear in mind: demolition is easy, to build takes effort! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:59, 27 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Jesus==<br />
<br />
I'm not entirely certain I'm comfortable with including Jesus on a list of "teenagers." Part of that may just be a visceral reaction against applying the term to the Almighty, but setting that aside, I'm still not entirely sure he belongs on the list. After all, despite His physical age at the time he preached, He was still God, and therefore timeless and eternal. It's going to be a little hard for anyone, teenager or adult, to measure up to His list of accomplishments! --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:18, 28 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==IQ Peak==<br />
<br />
Although it is a hotly debated subject, there is no concrete evidence to suggest that IQ peaks in the pre-teen/teenage years. The linked article provides evidence to support that the rate of brain development peaks at this time, but this is idependant of a person's IQ.<br />
<br />
To highlight the diparate viewpoints, it is possible to show an IQ peak at anywhere from 14-16yrs old, all the way up to 50yrs+ - depending on what you measure, how you measure and how you interpret your findings (as with many stats i suppose).<br />
<br />
More info: http://www.albion.edu/psychology/fac_psyc/jwilson/psy101/intell.htm<br />
<br />
Hope my edit is satisfactory --[[User:J00ni|J00ni]] 18:22, 28 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Mary as "17"==<br />
<br />
Can I suggest using the word "uncertain" for Mary's age instead of assuming that it's 17? That takes nothing away from the assumption that she was a teenager when she gave birth, but it doesn't seem right for CP to state a specific age as if it were a fact when the comment goes on to acknowledge that the actual age was unknown. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 09:20, 30 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: The footnote is clear enough. No one doubts she was a teenager, and 17 was an average age of betrothal. The purpose of this list is plainly not to pinpoint precise ages, but merely to show the teenagers as a group.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 09:24, 30 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:: I don't disagree with that. I've added an asterisk after her age to highlight that it's an approximation, and leaving the rest as-is. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:03, 30 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::It could be even earlier; in the middle ages it was not uncommon for girls to give birth at 14, so in this case I think it could be as young as 15 (but I think it's 16, personally). [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:29, 30 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::: I too was given to believe she was younger than 17 at the time. My maternal family line has a long tradition of Mary-derived names in firstborn daughters, (I'm Regina, yes, that's Mary Derived, have "Ave Regina") and my mother always told the story that she was around 15. When I was little that seemed quite grown up, but when I was 15 myself, it struck me just how very brave she was, and how young. I think the note of approximation is important for this reason, it is true she could have been as old as 17, but at that young age, two years is a world of difference in maturity and self assurance. If she was indeed younger than 17, bumping up her age underestimates the greatness of her faith. Best err on the side of caution and reverence. [[User:BirdieA|Birdie]] 13:25, 30 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::: I side with Birdie, I have always understood it as the age of 15. --Jpatt 14:27, 30 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Bill Gates==<br />
<br />
A 13-year-old programming is not a remarkable achievement, and Gates' significant accomplishments occurred as a young adult, not a teen. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:06, 30 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:I understand your point and I for one do not wish to glorify an atheist. By todays standards, that is not an achievement. At age thirteen in 1968, think about the computer he was working with? It is a bright child that succeeded, is it a great achievement? --Jpatt 14:24, 30 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Under further scrutiny, I have decided against including Bill Gates. What did he achieve at 13? computer skills, not a great achievement. Also, he has enough accolades, believes in the God of nothing (catch that prying eyes?), listed next to Anne, no way the two should reside together :) --Jpatt 20:28, 31 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== remove some or move the page? ==<br />
<br />
If it is going to be Great achievements be teenagers, then we need to limit the list to teenagers only, not 8 and 10 year olds and 20 year olds. We need to remove the non-teenagers from the list, or else change it to something like "great achievements by young people" --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] <small>(CPAdmin1)</small><sup>[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]]</sup> 19:55, 30 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:12 year olds are also not teenagers. It sounds like we're getting technical, but saying that 8, 10, 12 and 20 year olds are teenagers is effectively the same as saying girls who wear pants are boys. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 20:02, 30 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::not really. It is more like saying that 4 is an odd number because it is close to 5 which is an odd number. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] <small>(CPAdmin1)</small><sup>[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]]</sup> 20:06, 30 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Roger Mason entry ==<br />
<br />
The Roger Mason entry does not rise to the level of achievement of the others. Even if it was a meaningful discovery, which is dubious, we don't have the shepherd who discovered the Dead Sea Scrolls and I don't see why would include Mason's "discovery" as a great achievement either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:53, 13 August 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Although I didn't add that entry, I did feel it was right to change it to state it as ''what some believed'' rather state it as scientific fact. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]<sub><small><small>/Admin</small></small></sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 20:11, 13 August 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: I agree with your edit, and am suggesting that we go further and either toss the entry or downgrade it further in an appropriate way. It just does not rise to the level of, say, David slaying Goliath.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:37, 13 August 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: OK, so I see there's been some discussion of Roger Mason. The point is that he didn't just stumble over some strange markings in the rock: he knew they were fossils and he knew the rocks were pre-Cambrian. His teenage open-mindedness led him to see what older, more closed-minded professors did not see. He had the confidence to go to a professor and tell him what he'd discovered - the professor didn't believe him till he'd seen it with his own eyes. A whole new era of biological life? A big discovery by anyone's standards. I've part-reverted the deletion, i.e. I've made it clear why it was such a big deal. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 18:30, 3 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
Mason's achievement is that he discovered the first fossil to come from rocks that were undoubtedly of a Pre-Cambrian era. Before that, the consensus of professional scientists was that there were no complex lifeforms before the Cambrian. Mason knew the rocks were Pre-Cambrian and he knew that what he found was a fossil. The fossil is named for the place it was found, Charnwood Forest, and for him: ''Charnia masoni''. Very very few people have revolutionised a whole area of science as teenages - Mason is one of them. You can read about it in New Scientist, issue of April 14, 2007.<br />
<br />
The text I wrote looks pretty much correct (bar one spelling mistake). I suggest you re-insert it in the article:<br />
'''16''' - Roger Mason discovers fossils from a whole era of complex life, the Ediacran (c.600 million years ago). His open-mindedness leads to an insight which overturns the limited preconceptions of earlier scientists, including Darwin, about life on Earth. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 19:26, 5 February 2011 (EST)<br />
: There have been no objections to this text so I've added it to the page. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 14:57, 6 February 2011 (EST)<br />
::And I've removed it again. When the site owner and a senior administrator agree something should be removed, and tell you to discuss it on the talk page, you don't just add it back in without their input. Wait for their response. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]]<sub>[[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]]</sub> 15:10, 6 February 2011 (EST)<br />
::: 1. When's he going to respond?<br />
::: 2. I thought this was an encyclopedia that gathers knowledge from the public, not one person's private website.<br />
::: 3. OK, I'll wait a little while longer. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 15:17, 6 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::: Your edits are heavy on opinion without links to back it up. "Roger Mason" is a name few have heard of, and perhaps for good reason. You'll need to back up your claim with far more than you have before it merits inclusion in this impressive list. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:36, 6 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
Responding to your request on my talk page, here are two key references and a brief commentary:<br />
* http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/geoscientist/geonews/page4300.html: Explains the importance of the Ediacaran period in geology and explains the great importance of the discoveries made by teenager Roger Mason in revealing the origins of complex life forms in the pre-Cambrian period.<br />
* http://wapedia.mobi/en/Charnia: Explains the importance of the fossils of the genus ''Charnia'' to studies of pre-Cambrian life and the important role that Roger Mason, as a teenager, played in discovering fossils within pre-Cambrian rocks.<br />
* A ''New Scientist'' article (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19425991.500-ediacarans-the-long-fuse-of-the-cambrian-explosion.html) reports the importance of the Ediacaran fauna and the personal role played by Mason but you need a subscription to read it in full.<br />
[[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 19:55, 6 February 2011 (EST)<br />
:::Perhaps you can also explain what is meant by "600 million years ago," given the fact that Biblical inerrancy as a pretty big deal 'round these parts. [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 19:58, 6 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::Benjy, greatness is not apparent from your descriptions, or the links. At best it appears that some teenagers stumbled upon some fossils, of which there are millions, and then speculation by some professors followed. This hardly ranks with, for example, the achievements of the author of the [[Gospel of Mark]], wbich is part of the most influential book of all time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:27, 6 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::Perhaps the better comparison would be with Kathryn Aurora Gray. --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 21:29, 6 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
Aschlafly, you're missing the point: Mason's breakthrough was that '''''as a schoolboy''''' he recognised fossils in what he knew were pre-Cambrian rocks. The very strong consensus among professional / academic geologists at the time was that there were '''no''' complex life-forms in the pre-Cambrian - and hence no complex fossils in pre-Cambrian rocks. Mason, as a teenager, was not hide-bound by the preconceptions of the academic world. This exactly fits your own criterion of "the natural open-mindedness of young people before they may experience attempts to indoctrinate them towards certain worldviews".<br />
<br />
As for the the scale of his achievement, there are 11 recognized geological eras and Mason discovered the first fossils recognized to definitely come from one of them ''and knew exactly what he had done'' (i.e. unlike the shephard discovering the Dead Sea Scrolls, who had no idea what the pieces of parchment were). That's a pretty big deal<br />
<br />
Another good reference is this radio programme (''In Our Time'', a weekly science-for-non-scientists programme on a talk radio channel over here): http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00lh2s3.<br />
<br />
Martyp, young earth creationism may be a big deal for some people round here but evidently not everybody: I've read enough CP to know that.<br />
<br />
I'll give it an hour or so to let others respond further, then make the appropriate edit to the page. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 15:32, 7 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Well, it's now ''two'' hours later and there haven't been any adverse comments. So as there are no further objections, I've restored the entry for Roger Mason. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 17:44, 7 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
:: Aschlafly, just taking the entry out isn't good enough. You need to give a reason. It's getting late on this side of the pond so I leave it up to your conscience whether you let another day go by with or without one of the outstanding teenage scientists in your encyclopedia. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 19:42, 21 February 2011 (EST)<br />
:::What are you trying to achieve here BenjyB? Why not try making some substantive contributions instead of trying to push your bizarre agenda and insulting the owner and founder of the site? [[User:PeterUker|PeterUker]] 20:06, 21 February 2011 (EST)<br />
::::He's gone. Just another UK troll from a ragwiki elsewhere.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 20:19, 21 February 2011 (EST)<br />
:::::I only noticed that after I'd posted, sorry! What's a 'ragwiki'? Is that a UK term as I'm not familiar with it? [[User:PeterUker|PeterUker]] 20:30, 21 February 2011 (EST)<br />
::::::Just a gathering of like minded troublemakers from anonymous proxies who lead lives of lutz.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 20:38, 21 February 2011 (EST)<br />
:::::::Ah, you mean [[Encyclopedia Dramatica]]? I should have know that such trolls would be from that online gutter! [[User:PeterUker|PeterUker]] 20:52, 21 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
== ''Teen''agers ==<br />
<br />
<!-- Hi, just found this excellent website whilst searching for information on young Kathryn Aurora Gray's outstanding achievement - I will certainly be reading through a lot more articles here and encourage my friends at church to do the same!<br />
However -->I noticed that there are a few people on this list that are not teenagers and so must have been added by mistake - shall I go ahead and remove them so that the article's content matches its title? I don't want to do so without asking as I'm new here. <!-- Thanks and God bless.--> [[User:BobG|BobG]] 12:55, 5 January 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
:You haven't said what you think are mistakes. Go ahead and edit the content entry and let's what you think are mistakes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:14, 5 January 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Bob, the individuals listed with a non-teen year obviously had remarkable contributions as teenagers also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:45, 5 January 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Sorry, I hadn't realized that! Shall we rephrase their entries in order to make that clear, such as by listing the teenage achievements primarily (along with the age at that point) and giving the currently listed achievements as footnotes or 'also achieved' in parentheses)? If you can help me finding information on these teenage achievements I'd be delighted to take on the task! Thanks. [[User:BobG|BobG]] 14:45, 5 January 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
Apart from the interesting idea that 10 year-old Kathryn Aurora Gray is a [[teenager]], is a source (from main page news report - which I added to entry) like [[CNN]], owned by [[leftist]] mogul [[Ted Turner]], with its [[liberal bias]] and support for the [[liberal]] agenda really a reliable source? The article claims the supernova happened 240 million years ago which is patent nonsense since that predates [[creation]]. CNN also claim that the girl’s father was an amateur astronomer, however, according to [http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/01/10-year-old-girl-becomes-youngest-person-to-discover-a-supernova/68911/ this source] the girl’s father is a professional astronomer, so it seems extremely likely that this is an example of [[liberal deceit]] and [[professor values]] where unjustified claims of expertise and knowledge are being made on behalf of a child in a [[Narcissism|narcissistic]] frenzy of publicity seeking [[liberal arrogance]]. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 14:21, 6 January 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
:The quibble is over the term "teenagers", and this suggestion could be made into a constructive one if we renamed the article to something like [[Great achievements by young people]]. <br />
<br />
:As a middle aged man, I am far from discouraging the next generation to make contributions. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:45, 7 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Zuckerberg "commercializes" Facebook==<br />
<br />
I'm curious about the choice of words for the Zuckerberg entry. Why "commercialized" instead of "created"? Is it because there's an argument over who really created the site? "Commercializing" doesn't seem like such a great achievement. [[User:EMorris|EMorris]] 11:47, 7 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
:My understanding is that Facebook was created for Harvard students, and existed in that form before it was commercialized. I agree that commercializing something is not as great an achievement as other items on the list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:02, 7 February 2011 (EST)</div>PeterUkerhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homosexual_Agenda&diff=851183Homosexual Agenda2011-02-22T01:34:07Z<p>PeterUker: /* Specific goals */ Dilution of the Bible</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Homosexuality}}<br />
The '''Homosexual Agenda''', or [[Homosexuality|homosexual]] ideology, consists of a set of beliefs and objectives designed to promote and even mandate acceptance and approval of homosexuality, and the strategies used to implement such. This article notes that the goals and means of this movement include indoctrinating students in [[public school]], restricting the free speech of opposition, obtaining special treatment for homosexuals, distorting Biblical teaching and science, and interfering with freedom of association. <br />
<br />
Among all the [[liberal]] belief systems, the homosexual ideology is the most self-centered or selfish. Liberals generally give much less than conservatives to charity, but gay charity work in particular is virtually non-existent.<br />
<br />
Supreme Court Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] referred to the "so-called homosexual agenda" in ''[[Lawrence v. Texas]]'', 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (dissenting opinion). <br />
<br />
== The Homosexual Agenda ==<br />
<br />
Joseph P. Gudel, in ''That Which is Unnatural''<ref>[http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0108a.html "That Which is Unnatural" Homosexuality in Society, the Church, and Scripture] Part Two in a Two-Part Series on Homosexuality, from the Christian Research Journal, Winter 1993, page 8</ref> contended that the homosexual movement, <br />
<br />
:has been militantly demanding not just the homosexuals' right to do whatever they wish to do behind closed doors, but, more importantly, that society fully accept their lifestyle as both healthy and normal, even demanding special rights and legislation as an "oppressed minority." Gudel quotes various sources evidencing this. <br />
<br />
In a 1987 speech to the National Press Club in Washington, homosexual spokesperson Jeff Levi proclaimed, <br />
<br />
:We are no longer seeking just a right to privacy and a protection from wrong. We also have a right -- as heterosexual Americans already have -- to see government and society affirm our lives. <ref>Jeff Levi, in William Dannemeyer, Shadow in the Land (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1989), 86.</ref> <br />
<br />
In an article entitled "Gays on the March" in 1975, Time magazine quoted gay activist Barbara Gittings who stated: <br />
<br />
:What the homosexual wants, and here he is neither willing to compromise nor morally required to compromise -- is acceptance of homosexuality as a way of life fully on a par with heterosexuality." In response, Time opined, "It is one thing to remove legal discrimination against homosexuals. It is another to mandate approval....It is this goal of full acceptance, which no known society past or present has granted to homosexuals, that makes many Americans apprehensive.<ref>Gays on the March," Time, 8 Sept. 1975, 43</ref> <br />
<br />
A primary goal of the homosexual agenda is to promote the lifestyle in [[public schools]]. This occurred quickly and intensely after gay marriage was imposed in Massachusetts, where homosexual relationships are taught to children as young as kindergartners, as recounted by the decision of ''[[Parker v. Hurley]]''.<ref>The ''Parker v. Hurley'' decision explained, "In January 2005, when Jacob Parker ("Jacob") was in kindergarten, he brought home a 'Diversity Book Bag.' This included a picture book, Who's in a Family?, which depicted different families, including single-parent families, an extended family, interracial families, animal families, a family without children, and -- to the concern of the Parkers -- a family with two dads and a family with two moms. The book concludes by answering the question, 'Who's in a family?': 'The people who love you the most!' The book says nothing about marriage."</ref><br />
<br />
In a 1992 report by John Leo in U.S. News and World Report, he notes some books which were part of New York City's public school curriculum.<br />
<br />
The first-grade book, "Children of the Rainbow", stated on page 145, which states that teachers must "be aware of varied family structures, including...gay or lesbian parents," and "children must be taught to acknowledge the positive aspects of each type of household." Another children book is Heather Has Two Mommies, which is about a lesbian couple having a child through artificial insemination. Another book, Gloria Goes to Gay Pride, states, "Some women love women, some men love men, some women and men love each other. That's why we march in the parade, so everyone can have a choice."<br />
<br />
Leo commented, <br />
<br />
:A line is being crossed here; in fact, a brand new ethic is descending upon the city's public school system. The traditional civic virtue of tolerance (if gays want to live together, it's their own business) has been replaced with a new ethic requiring approval and endorsement (if gays want to live together, we must 'acknowledge the positive aspects' of their way of life).<ref>John Leo, "Heather Has a Message," U.S. News & World Report, 17 Aug. 1992, 16.</ref> <br />
<br />
Dr. Judith A. Reisman in her extensive ''Crafting “Gay” Children'',<ref>http://www.defendthefamily.com/_docs/resources/6390601.pdf</ref> reports that Harvard homosexual Toby Morotta, PhD, stated that in the 1970s, members of the Gay Activists Alliance - who were trained in the “zapping" of any who rebuffed homosexuality.<ref> Toby Marotta: THE POLITICS OF HOMOSEXUALITY: HOW LESBIANS AND GAY MEN HAVE MADE THEMSELVES A POLITICAL AND SOCIAL FORCE IN MODERN AMERICA, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1981 at 319</ref> And that these formed the “Gay Academic Union,” (GAU) which was made up of faculty and students in major universities. She states that the GAU has long fought for domination of its worldview within the academic community, and professional journals commonly assigned GAU and other homosexual peer reviewers to research touching on homosexuality, generally resulting in a quick death to possible unfavorable findings. <ref>See extensive reports in regular NARTH Bulletins as well as Ray Johnson, “American Psychology: The Political Science, at 53-57.</ref><br />
<br />
This and the general agenda is seen to be overall implementing a marketing strategy explained in a book called ''After the Ball,'' by [[gay rights]] activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen in the late 1980s, in which a six-point plan was set forth as to how they could transform the beliefs of ordinary Americans with regard to homosexual behavior in a decade-long time frame:<br />
:"The agenda of homosexual activists is basically to change America from what they perceive as looking down on homosexual behavior, to the affirmation of and societal acceptance of homosexual behavior." <ref name="Winn07252003">''After the Ball'' (1989), quoted from Winn, Pete (7-25-2003) [ ''Q&A: The Homosexual Agenda''] Citizenlink</ref> "Thus propagandistic advertising can depict all opponents of the gay movement as homophobic bigots who are 'not Christian' and the propaganda can further show them [homosexuals]] as being criticized, hated and shunned..."<ref>After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's, by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen (Author) (p. 152-153)</ref><br />
<br />
[[Focus on the Family]] provides additional quotes from After the Ball, outlining key points of the homosexual agenda:<ref name="Winn07252003"/><ref>Kirk, Marshall K. and Erastes Pill (11-1987) ''The Overhauling of Straight America'' Available at [http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/overhauling.htm ''STRATEGIES OF THE HOMOSEXUAL MOVEMENT: "The Overhauling of Straight America"'']</ref><br />
<br />
#"Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible." <br />
#"Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers." <br />
#"Give homosexual protectors a just cause." <br />
#"Make gays look good." <br />
#"Make the victimizers look bad." <br />
#"Get funds from corporate America."<br />
<br />
[[United States Supreme Court]] Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] wrote:<br />
{{cquote|Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.<ref>[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-102#dissent1 ''LAWRENCE et al. v. TEXAS''] at findlaw.com</ref>}}<br />
<br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vic_Eliason Vic Eliason] of [http://www.crosstalkamerica.com Crosstalk America] rightly points out that if all Americans turned homosexual it would only take a few generations for the United States to lose most of the population of the country through lack of procreation. This would make the US more vulnerable to attack by our enemies.<br />
<br />
== Specific goals ==<br />
<br />
The goals of the homosexual movement include:<br />
<br />
#Destroying Christian morals<br />
#*Changing the definition of marriage, even if doing so infringes on the religious rights of Christians not to recognize it as anything other than sin <ref>www.massresistance.org, Homosexuals begin campaign of terror over Prop 8 loss]</ref><br />
#*Dilute the clear message of the [[Bible]] that [[homosexuality]] is a sin and an abomination unto [[God]].<br />
#Promote pseudoscience that legitimizes homosexuality, such as claims of a never-identified gay gene<ref>[http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/satinover.html The Gay Gene?<br />
by Jeffrey Satinover, M.D.]</ref> <br />
#*Censoring evidence that the "gay gene" is a hoax<ref>[http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/08a/born_gay_hoax/smith_0329/index.html ''Lesbian activists at Smith College riot, shut down Ryan Sorba speech on "The Born Gay Hoax" as police watch. See exclusive videos.''] Mass Resistance</ref><br />
#Censoring speech against homosexuality by branding it to possibly be "hate-speech"<ref>[http://www.silencingchristians.com Video:Silencing Christians]</ref><ref>[http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2009/06/homosexuality-its-crime-in-england-to.html Homosexuality: It’s a Crime in England to State Christian Views]</ref><ref>[http://www.ccfon.org/view.php?id=745 Bishops fight for right to criticise homosexual lifestyle, 25th May 2009]</ref><br />
#*Censoring biblical statements condemning homosexuality<ref>White, Hilary (04-21-2006) [http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/apr/06042105.html ''Court Upholds School Ban on "Homosexuality is Shameful" T-Shirt''] LifeSiteNews.com</ref> <br />
#Establishing affirmative action for homosexuals<ref>The Crimson Staff (10-13-2006) [http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=514950 ''A Box of Their Own?''] (opinion) The Crimson</ref><ref>www.afa.net, Homosexual Agenda Platforms from 1972 - 2000</ref><br />
#Expand hate crimes legislation to include sexual orientation<ref>Pelosi, Nancy Office of (09-28-2004) [http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases/Sept04/HateCrimes092804.html ''Pelosi: "Hate Crimes Prevention Legislation is Right Thing to Do, Long Overdue"''] From the office of Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi</ref><br />
#Ending the military's and Boy Scout's restrictions on homosexuality<ref>''Boy Scouts of Am. v. Dale'', 530 U.S. 640 (2000) (Boy Scouts); "Matlovich v. Secretary of the Air Force (591 F.2d 852, DC Circ. 1 978) (military)</ref><br />
#Stopping children as young as 5 years old from attending therapy to repair their sexual preference<ref>[http://www.thetaskforce.org/reports_and_research/youth_in_the_crosshairs National Gay and Lesbian Task Force:Youth in the Crosshairs]</ref><br />
#Promote homosexuality in schools<ref>[[Morrison v. Board of Education]]</ref><br />
#*In places like Massachusetts and California, where the gay lobby is the strongest, it starts as early as pre-school. They tell seven- or eight-year-old boys, "If you only like boys, there's a chance you may be homosexual," or "If you only like girls, maybe you are lesbian." Well, at that age, all members of the opposite sex "have cooties."<br />
#*You're planting a seed that can totally mess up the normal development process later, when at 12 or 14, kids enter the age of sexual confusion and discovering the opposite sex. <ref>[http://www.citizenlink.org/CLFeatures/A000000562.cfm CitizenLink: QA: The Homosexual Agenda]</ref><br />
#Force businesses to accommodate their lifestyle<ref>[http://www.thetaskforce.org/issues/nondiscrimination/ENDA_main_page Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) | National Gay and Lesbian Task Force</ref><br />
#*Suing an online dating website for discrimination<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,454904,00.html Fox News - eHarmony to Provide Gay Dating Service after Lawsuit]</ref><br />
#Undermining the [[Essay:Quantifying_Mental_Strength|resolve]] of [[Homosexuality_and_choice#Choice_and_Genetics|latent homosexuals]] so that their will becomes too weak to resist the temptations of homosexuality<ref>http://www.thetaskforce.org/activist_center/resources_and_tools/challenge_exgay</ref><br />
#Pushing for legalized adoption by gay individuals and couples<ref>http://www.thetaskforce.org/issues/parenting_and_family</ref><br />
<br />
The state-by-state push for same-sex marriage can be viewed as a means to the above goals, or a goal in itself.<ref>[[Lewis v. Harris]]</ref> An example of this would be the recent New Hampshire law that makes same-sex civil unions legal<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/06/01/new_hampshire_law_makes_same_sex_civil_unions_legal/</ref><br />
<br />
Although notable gains toward achieving its goals continue to be manifest, homosexual activists have recent been expressing a high level of and dissatisfaction against the Obama administration. Commenting on such, Massresistance.org, an organization which opposes the homosexual agenda in [[Massachusetts]], noted that the President has, <br />
<br />
*signed an order extending federal benefits to same-sex partners; <br />
<br />
*pushed an extreme hate crimes bill in Congress; <br />
<br />
*declared his intention to repeal the Defense of Marriage, <br />
<br />
*pushed a pro-homosexual and transgender version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.<br />
<br />
*appointed radical homosexual activists to high level positions, including Harry Knox, of the homosexual lobby group Human Rights Campaign, and Kevin Jennings, founder of the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network (GLSEN), which targets kids in the public schools.<br />
<br />
*declared February to be "Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month." <br />
<br />
*ordered the State Department to allow gay couples to use their married names (from marriages or civil unions) on US passports.<ref>update@massresistance.org 6/24/2009 11:56 PM</ref><br />
<br />
=== Strategies and psychological tactics ===<br />
<br />
Homosexual activists are often seen as engaging in specious argumentation, such as attempts to controvert the consistent teaching of the Bible on homosexual relations, (see [[homosexuality and biblical interpretation]]) and using false analogies, in order to gain acceptance of homosexuality. One common argument used by homosexual activists seeks to compare their quest for equal rights to that of others.<ref>Miner, Homosexuality, Civil Rights, and the Church</ref> This argument is countered by the observation that blacks were able to peacefully argue that mankind should not be "judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character"<ref>[http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm, Speech by Martin Luther King Jr.]</ref>, as the former yields no certain moral distinction. In contrast, homosexual activists are seen to seek acceptance of an immoral practice(s), and in addition, to overall engage in certain coercive and manipulative means to do so. This is evidenced to include the use of a demonstrative manner of protests, which appear to be designed to censure and intimidate those who oppose them in any way.<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/socialsciences/sellinghomosexuality.html</ref><ref>http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm</ref><ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=89526</ref><ref>http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/08c/Prop8/church_attacks.html</ref><ref>http://rebuildtheparty.ning.com/video/exodus-protest-park-street</ref><ref>http://theway2k.vox.com/library/post/homosexuals-persecuting-christians-and-mormons.html</ref><ref>http://www.hamiltonsquare.net/articlesRiotsSep1993.htm</ref><ref>http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/may/08050205.html</ref><ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=95296</ref><ref>Muehlenberg, Bill, [http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2009/06/04/another-nail-in-the-christian-coffin/ Another Nail in the Christian Coffin], [[4 June]] [[2009]]</ref><ref>[http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/09a/feder_0311/index.html Loud homosexual activists disrupt and halt Don Feder speech at UMass Amherst, despite police presence"]</ref> In addition, one pro-homosexual commentator recently took the homosexual community to task for being racist in their practice of homosexuality.<ref>LZ Granderson, ''Commentary: Gay is not the new black'', Cable News Network,July 16, 2009</ref> <br />
<br />
While not all homosexuals agree with the use of deceptive psychological tactics, these have been promoted by leading homosexual activists. The aforementioned book, ''After the Ball'', is widely regarded as the handbook for the gay agenda, in which Harvard trained marketing experts and social scientists Marshall Kirk (1957 - 2005) and Hunter Madsen advocated avoiding portraying gays as aggressive challengers, but as victims, while making those who opposed them as evil persecutors. As a means of the latter, they promoted jamming, in which Christians, traditionalists, or anyone else who opposes the gay agenda are publicly smeared. In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector ... The purpose of victim imagery is to make straights feel very uncomfortable, they suggested. <br />
<br />
Jam homophobia (i.e., disagreement with homosexual behaviors) by linking it to Nazi horror, was the strategy of Kirk and Madsen. Associate all who oppose homosexuality with images of Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered, hysterical backwoods preachers, menacing punks, and a tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed. Thus, "propagandistic advertisement can depict homophobic and homohating bigots as crude loudmouths..."<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/socialsciences/sellinghomosexuality.html http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm </ref><br />
<br />
Kirk and Madsen's open admission of their deceptive tactics is noted as most revealing: [O]ur effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof. "...the person's beliefs can be altered whether he is conscious of the attack or not"<ref>After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s, p. 152-153 (1989, Doubleday/Bantam)</ref> “The campaign we outline in this book, though complex, depends centrally upon a program of unabashed propaganda, firmly grounded in long-established principles of psychology and advertising.”<ref>Kirk and Madsen, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of the Gay’s in the 90s, p.xxvi</ref><ref>[http://banap.net/ Behavior and Not a Person]</ref> <br />
<br />
Similarly, author Robert Bauman additionally records, It makes no difference that the ads are lies . . . because were using them to ethically good effect, to counter negative stereotypes that are every bit as much lies, and far more wicked ones. <ref>The Gentleman from Maryland: The Conscience of a gay Conservative, by Robert Bauman, 1986, page 163.</ref><br />
<br />
The need for Kirk and Madsen to engage in such manipulation may be seen as being due to their sober realization of the nature of the homosexual lifestyle. <br />
<br />
“In short, the gay lifestyle - if such a chaos can, after all, legitimately be called a lifestyle - it just doesn’t work: it doesn’t serve the two functions for which all social framework evolve: to constrain people’s natural impulses to behave badly and to meet their natural needs. While it’s impossible to provide an exhaustive analytic list of all the root causes and aggravants of this failure, we can asseverate at least some of the major causes. Many have been dissected, above, as elements of the Ten Misbehaviors; it only remains to discuss the failure of the gay community to provide a viable alternative to the heterosexual family.”<ref>Kirk and Madsen, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of the Gay’s in the 90s, p.363</ref><br />
<br />
Marshall Kirk died in 2005 at the age of 48. The cause of death has not been publicly revealed.<br />
<br />
Often cited as an early example form of such tactics was the role of homosexual activists in persuading the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders (DSM-II). Dr. Ronald Bayer, though being himself a pro-homosexual psychiatrist, described this removal as being the result of power politics, threats, and intimidation, rather than any new scientific discoveries.<ref>[http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/eleven.php Exposed: The Myth That Psychiatry Has Proven That Homosexual Behavior Is Normal]</ref> In so doing, like slavery before it, the homosexual agenda is seen to threaten basic freedoms, principally the First Amendment.<ref>Adams, Guy (11-8-2008) [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/mormon-stars-face-backlash-after-gay-marriage-ban-1003967.html ''Mormon stars face backlash after gay marriage ban''] The Independent</ref> <br />
<br />
The charge of "[[homophobia]]" has also been increasingly evidenced as being part of a means of intimidation used in promoting the homosexual agenda. Due to what homophobia has been made to denote, that of being a repressed homosexual, or possessing an irrational fear of being approached by homosexuals, or of being a bigot persecuting victims, the widespread use of the term "homophobic" attaches a powerful stigma to anyone who may even conscientiously oppose the practice of homosexuality, thus silencing many who might otherwise object to it.<ref>[http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/1995papers/socarides.html Thought Reform And The Psychology of Homosexual Advocacy<br />
Charles W. Socarides, M.D.]</ref><br />
<br />
In relation to such oppression, psychologist Nicholas Cummings, former president of the American Psychological Association (APA), observed, "Homophobia as intimidation is one of the most pervasive techniques used to silence anyone who would disagree with the gay activist agenda." As an example of such fear within the APA, in addressing 100 fellow professionals Cummings related that while writing "Destructive Trends in Mental Health," with psychologist Rogers Wright, a number of fellow psychologists were invited to participate. However, these flatly turned them down, as they feared loss of tenure, loss of promotion, and other forms of professional retaliation. "We were bombarded by horror stories," Dr. Cummings said. "Their greatest fear was of the gay lobby, which is very strong in the APA.<ref>[Psychology Losing Scientific Credibility, Say APA Insiders http://www.narth.com/docs/insiders.html]</ref><br />
<br />
Noted homosexual activist and pornographer Clinton Fein, in his article, The Gay Agenda stated, Homophobic inclinations alone, even without any actions, should be criminal and punishable to the full extent of the law. <br />
<br />
Erik Holland, author of "The Nature of Homosexuality," perceives that homosexuals have become so reckless in labeling others homophobic that "anyone who questions their labeling someone a homophobe himself. Even quoting factual statistics about the connection between homosexuality and AIDS is allegedly homophobic." In addition, according to pro homosexual author Vernon A Wall, "even acceptance of homosexuality can be seen as a form of homophobia, because to talk about the acceptance of homosexuality is to imply that there is something about homosexuality that needs acceptance."<ref>http://www.homosexinfo.org/Homophobia/HomePage</ref> <br />
<br />
It may be speculated that if the liberal use of the term homophobia is not primarily a psychological tactic, then it indicates a psychological condition on the part of those who use it, in which they imagine that those who oppose them are fearful of them, or of being one.<br />
<br />
===Influence in the Academic World===<br />
<br />
Professor Jerry Z. Muller described in an article titled, "First Things" (Aug/Sept. 1993), how the homosexual lobby has gained widespread acceptance in the educational realm. <br />
<br />
[Their] strategy has been remarkably successful. With a rapidity largely attributable in large part to a total lack of articulate resistance, homosexual ideology has gained an unquestioned and uncontested legitimacy in American academic life. Within the academy, as within nonacademic elite culture, the definition of opposite to homosexuality as "homophobia - a definition which implies that it is impossible to give good reasons for the cultural disapproval of homosexuality - is the best evidence of the success of this strategy.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=cbfVg_1qhe0C&pg=PP1&lpg=PP1&dq=David+W.+Virtue+scots+college&source=bl&ots=aDW7a615Gn&sig=Y1cLsx5sCQTgUUDJ88b5AKPRkNg&hl=en&ei=8skISpP1AcGktgfi2PzsCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPR14,M1 Homosexuality, by F. Earle Fox, David W. Virtue, p. 12]</ref><br />
<br />
== Opposing Christian Agenda ==<br />
<br />
Liberals are critical of Christian groups that oppose homosexuality. These criticisms include Christian activities of:<br />
<br />
*Soliciting donations<br />
*Encouraging email activism<br />
*Producing and disseminating gay reform information<br />
*Influencing local media in what stories they produce<br />
*Lobbying local, state and federal government officials to vote in the desired way on pending legislation<ref>[http://www.cwfa.org/about.asp Concerned Women For America] About page</ref><br />
<br />
==Opponents of the Homosexual Agenda ==<br />
Some well known individuals/groups in the [[United States]] who actively oppose the homosexual agenda are: [[Focus on the Family]], [[Peter LaBarbera]]'s American's for Truth, the [[Traditional Values Coalition]] ([[Louis Sheldon]] is a chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition), and [[Matt Barber]] of [[Concerned Women of America]].<br />
<br />
==Further reading==<br />
*[http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/lively.html Homosexuality and the Nazi Party] by Scott Lively. Excellent discussion of the anti-Christian and homosexual origins of the Nazism.<br />
*[http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/BPCollectionNews.asp?ID=131 2008 McDonald's and the Homosexual Agenda], Baptist Press<br />
*[http://www.couplescompany.com/FEATURES/politics/2004/Selling%20Homosexuality.pdf Paul E. Rondeau, Selling homosexuality to America (PDF)] [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/730694/posts Or html form]<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
*[[ACT-UP]]<br />
*[[Anti-Defamation League]]<br />
*[[Homosexual belief system]]<br />
*[[Gay rights]]<br />
*"[[Homophobia]]"<br />
*[[Hate speech]], [[Hate crime]]<br />
*[[Homosexuality]]<br />
*[[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]]<br />
*[[Intimate Partner Violence]]<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
{{reflist|2}}<br />
<br />
<br />
{{liberalism}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]<br />
[[Category:Homosexuality]]<br />
[[Category: Liberal Deceit]]</div>PeterUkerhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Great_Achievements_by_Teenagers&diff=851182Talk:Great Achievements by Teenagers2011-02-22T01:30:02Z<p>PeterUker: /* Roger Mason entry */ whoops!</p>
<hr />
<div>==Clarification==<br />
Nearly all of those who accomplished great deeds while being teenagers made even greater contributions when they became adults. Especially, this list can't be used to bolster up the claim that ''most of the greatest works in history were accomplished by people who were teenagers''<br />
[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 16:49, 26 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Heavenly voices ==<br />
<br />
Is hearing heavenly voices an acheivement? Is was it leading France to victory that was the acheivement? It rather reads as if the hearing of voices was the acheivement. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:26, 26 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Reversion ==<br />
<br />
Obviously if someone produced a work ''before'' becoming a teenager it proves the same point; hence the reversion.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 21:34, 26 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Then how about renaming the page to keep it accurate? "Great Achievements by Minors", maybe? [[User:DRussell|DRussell]] 21:40, 26 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Karl Benz ==<br />
<br />
I removed [[Karl Benz]]: Though he was a child prodigy, at the given age ('''15'''), he ''"only"'' passed the entrance exam of the University of [[Karlsruhe]]. His genius really flourished in his late thirties. --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 07:10, 27 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Later Achievments==<br />
* '''7''' - Yehudi Menuhin: made his last recording age 82<br />
* '''8''' - [[Pablo Picasso]] Cubism: age 30 <br />
* '''8''' - [[Frederic Chopin]] Piano Concert No. 1: age 20<br />
* '''12''' - [[Blaise Pascal]] "Traité du triangle arithmétique": age 30<br />
* '''13''' - [[John]] stays a mistery<br />
* '''13''' - [[Joan of Arc]] inspired and led [[France]] to victory in the [[Hundred Years War]]<br />
* '''13''' - [[Anne Frank]] began writing her diary, later published as "Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl"<br />
* '''14''' - chess-player [[Bobby Fischer]] World Chess Champion: age 29<br />
* '''14''' - [[Mozart]]"Don Giovanni": age 32<br />
* '''15''' - [[Louis Braille]] invented the [[Braille]] system<br />
* '''15''' - [[Christopher Paolini]] writes the first draft of his [[Eragon]] trilogy which is published when he is 19.<br />
* '''16''' - Jean-François Champollion: deciphers the [[Rosetta Stone]] age 32<br />
* '''18''' - [[Mary Shelley]] writes Frankenstein (The Modern Prometheus) - it is only published when she is 21, however.<br />
* '''20''' - Carl Friedrich Gauss makes his first mathematical discoveries, which will lead to the completion of "Disquisitiones Arithmeticae", his magnum opus, at the age of 21.<br />
<br />
So, most of the persons in the list made contributions to their field works overshadowing there achievements as teenagers.<br />
<br />
[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 08:57, 27 December 2008 (EST)<br />
:A corrosive attitude is not beneficial. If, as Andy suggested, you opened your mind you might find nmany more examples to support this case. Bear in mind: demolition is easy, to build takes effort! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:59, 27 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Jesus==<br />
<br />
I'm not entirely certain I'm comfortable with including Jesus on a list of "teenagers." Part of that may just be a visceral reaction against applying the term to the Almighty, but setting that aside, I'm still not entirely sure he belongs on the list. After all, despite His physical age at the time he preached, He was still God, and therefore timeless and eternal. It's going to be a little hard for anyone, teenager or adult, to measure up to His list of accomplishments! --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:18, 28 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==IQ Peak==<br />
<br />
Although it is a hotly debated subject, there is no concrete evidence to suggest that IQ peaks in the pre-teen/teenage years. The linked article provides evidence to support that the rate of brain development peaks at this time, but this is idependant of a person's IQ.<br />
<br />
To highlight the diparate viewpoints, it is possible to show an IQ peak at anywhere from 14-16yrs old, all the way up to 50yrs+ - depending on what you measure, how you measure and how you interpret your findings (as with many stats i suppose).<br />
<br />
More info: http://www.albion.edu/psychology/fac_psyc/jwilson/psy101/intell.htm<br />
<br />
Hope my edit is satisfactory --[[User:J00ni|J00ni]] 18:22, 28 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Mary as "17"==<br />
<br />
Can I suggest using the word "uncertain" for Mary's age instead of assuming that it's 17? That takes nothing away from the assumption that she was a teenager when she gave birth, but it doesn't seem right for CP to state a specific age as if it were a fact when the comment goes on to acknowledge that the actual age was unknown. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 09:20, 30 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: The footnote is clear enough. No one doubts she was a teenager, and 17 was an average age of betrothal. The purpose of this list is plainly not to pinpoint precise ages, but merely to show the teenagers as a group.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 09:24, 30 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:: I don't disagree with that. I've added an asterisk after her age to highlight that it's an approximation, and leaving the rest as-is. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:03, 30 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::It could be even earlier; in the middle ages it was not uncommon for girls to give birth at 14, so in this case I think it could be as young as 15 (but I think it's 16, personally). [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:29, 30 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::: I too was given to believe she was younger than 17 at the time. My maternal family line has a long tradition of Mary-derived names in firstborn daughters, (I'm Regina, yes, that's Mary Derived, have "Ave Regina") and my mother always told the story that she was around 15. When I was little that seemed quite grown up, but when I was 15 myself, it struck me just how very brave she was, and how young. I think the note of approximation is important for this reason, it is true she could have been as old as 17, but at that young age, two years is a world of difference in maturity and self assurance. If she was indeed younger than 17, bumping up her age underestimates the greatness of her faith. Best err on the side of caution and reverence. [[User:BirdieA|Birdie]] 13:25, 30 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::: I side with Birdie, I have always understood it as the age of 15. --Jpatt 14:27, 30 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Bill Gates==<br />
<br />
A 13-year-old programming is not a remarkable achievement, and Gates' significant accomplishments occurred as a young adult, not a teen. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:06, 30 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:I understand your point and I for one do not wish to glorify an atheist. By todays standards, that is not an achievement. At age thirteen in 1968, think about the computer he was working with? It is a bright child that succeeded, is it a great achievement? --Jpatt 14:24, 30 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Under further scrutiny, I have decided against including Bill Gates. What did he achieve at 13? computer skills, not a great achievement. Also, he has enough accolades, believes in the God of nothing (catch that prying eyes?), listed next to Anne, no way the two should reside together :) --Jpatt 20:28, 31 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== remove some or move the page? ==<br />
<br />
If it is going to be Great achievements be teenagers, then we need to limit the list to teenagers only, not 8 and 10 year olds and 20 year olds. We need to remove the non-teenagers from the list, or else change it to something like "great achievements by young people" --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] <small>(CPAdmin1)</small><sup>[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]]</sup> 19:55, 30 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:12 year olds are also not teenagers. It sounds like we're getting technical, but saying that 8, 10, 12 and 20 year olds are teenagers is effectively the same as saying girls who wear pants are boys. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 20:02, 30 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::not really. It is more like saying that 4 is an odd number because it is close to 5 which is an odd number. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] <small>(CPAdmin1)</small><sup>[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]]</sup> 20:06, 30 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Roger Mason entry ==<br />
<br />
The Roger Mason entry does not rise to the level of achievement of the others. Even if it was a meaningful discovery, which is dubious, we don't have the shepherd who discovered the Dead Sea Scrolls and I don't see why would include Mason's "discovery" as a great achievement either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:53, 13 August 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Although I didn't add that entry, I did feel it was right to change it to state it as ''what some believed'' rather state it as scientific fact. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]<sub><small><small>/Admin</small></small></sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 20:11, 13 August 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: I agree with your edit, and am suggesting that we go further and either toss the entry or downgrade it further in an appropriate way. It just does not rise to the level of, say, David slaying Goliath.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:37, 13 August 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: OK, so I see there's been some discussion of Roger Mason. The point is that he didn't just stumble over some strange markings in the rock: he knew they were fossils and he knew the rocks were pre-Cambrian. His teenage open-mindedness led him to see what older, more closed-minded professors did not see. He had the confidence to go to a professor and tell him what he'd discovered - the professor didn't believe him till he'd seen it with his own eyes. A whole new era of biological life? A big discovery by anyone's standards. I've part-reverted the deletion, i.e. I've made it clear why it was such a big deal. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 18:30, 3 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
Mason's achievement is that he discovered the first fossil to come from rocks that were undoubtedly of a Pre-Cambrian era. Before that, the consensus of professional scientists was that there were no complex lifeforms before the Cambrian. Mason knew the rocks were Pre-Cambrian and he knew that what he found was a fossil. The fossil is named for the place it was found, Charnwood Forest, and for him: ''Charnia masoni''. Very very few people have revolutionised a whole area of science as teenages - Mason is one of them. You can read about it in New Scientist, issue of April 14, 2007.<br />
<br />
The text I wrote looks pretty much correct (bar one spelling mistake). I suggest you re-insert it in the article:<br />
'''16''' - Roger Mason discovers fossils from a whole era of complex life, the Ediacran (c.600 million years ago). His open-mindedness leads to an insight which overturns the limited preconceptions of earlier scientists, including Darwin, about life on Earth. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 19:26, 5 February 2011 (EST)<br />
: There have been no objections to this text so I've added it to the page. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 14:57, 6 February 2011 (EST)<br />
::And I've removed it again. When the site owner and a senior administrator agree something should be removed, and tell you to discuss it on the talk page, you don't just add it back in without their input. Wait for their response. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]]<sub>[[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]]</sub> 15:10, 6 February 2011 (EST)<br />
::: 1. When's he going to respond?<br />
::: 2. I thought this was an encyclopedia that gathers knowledge from the public, not one person's private website.<br />
::: 3. OK, I'll wait a little while longer. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 15:17, 6 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::: Your edits are heavy on opinion without links to back it up. "Roger Mason" is a name few have heard of, and perhaps for good reason. You'll need to back up your claim with far more than you have before it merits inclusion in this impressive list. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:36, 6 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
Responding to your request on my talk page, here are two key references and a brief commentary:<br />
* http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/geoscientist/geonews/page4300.html: Explains the importance of the Ediacaran period in geology and explains the great importance of the discoveries made by teenager Roger Mason in revealing the origins of complex life forms in the pre-Cambrian period.<br />
* http://wapedia.mobi/en/Charnia: Explains the importance of the fossils of the genus ''Charnia'' to studies of pre-Cambrian life and the important role that Roger Mason, as a teenager, played in discovering fossils within pre-Cambrian rocks.<br />
* A ''New Scientist'' article (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19425991.500-ediacarans-the-long-fuse-of-the-cambrian-explosion.html) reports the importance of the Ediacaran fauna and the personal role played by Mason but you need a subscription to read it in full.<br />
[[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 19:55, 6 February 2011 (EST)<br />
:::Perhaps you can also explain what is meant by "600 million years ago," given the fact that Biblical inerrancy as a pretty big deal 'round these parts. [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 19:58, 6 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::Benjy, greatness is not apparent from your descriptions, or the links. At best it appears that some teenagers stumbled upon some fossils, of which there are millions, and then speculation by some professors followed. This hardly ranks with, for example, the achievements of the author of the [[Gospel of Mark]], wbich is part of the most influential book of all time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:27, 6 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::Perhaps the better comparison would be with Kathryn Aurora Gray. --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 21:29, 6 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
Aschlafly, you're missing the point: Mason's breakthrough was that '''''as a schoolboy''''' he recognised fossils in what he knew were pre-Cambrian rocks. The very strong consensus among professional / academic geologists at the time was that there were '''no''' complex life-forms in the pre-Cambrian - and hence no complex fossils in pre-Cambrian rocks. Mason, as a teenager, was not hide-bound by the preconceptions of the academic world. This exactly fits your own criterion of "the natural open-mindedness of young people before they may experience attempts to indoctrinate them towards certain worldviews".<br />
<br />
As for the the scale of his achievement, there are 11 recognized geological eras and Mason discovered the first fossils recognized to definitely come from one of them ''and knew exactly what he had done'' (i.e. unlike the shephard discovering the Dead Sea Scrolls, who had no idea what the pieces of parchment were). That's a pretty big deal<br />
<br />
Another good reference is this radio programme (''In Our Time'', a weekly science-for-non-scientists programme on a talk radio channel over here): http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00lh2s3.<br />
<br />
Martyp, young earth creationism may be a big deal for some people round here but evidently not everybody: I've read enough CP to know that.<br />
<br />
I'll give it an hour or so to let others respond further, then make the appropriate edit to the page. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 15:32, 7 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Well, it's now ''two'' hours later and there haven't been any adverse comments. So as there are no further objections, I've restored the entry for Roger Mason. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 17:44, 7 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
:: Aschlafly, just taking the entry out isn't good enough. You need to give a reason. It's getting late on this side of the pond so I leave it up to your conscience whether you let another day go by with or without one of the outstanding teenage scientists in your encyclopedia. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 19:42, 21 February 2011 (EST)<br />
:::What are you trying to achieve here BenjyB? Why not try making some substantive contributions instead of trying to push your bizarre agenda and insulting the owner and founder of the site? [[User:PeterUker|PeterUker]] 20:06, 21 February 2011 (EST)<br />
::::He's gone. Just another UK troll from a ragwiki elsewhere.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 20:19, 21 February 2011 (EST)<br />
:::::I only noticed that after I'd posted, sorry! What's a 'ragwiki'? Is that a UK term as I'm not familiar with it? [[User:PeterUker|PeterUker]] 20:30, 21 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
== ''Teen''agers ==<br />
<br />
<!-- Hi, just found this excellent website whilst searching for information on young Kathryn Aurora Gray's outstanding achievement - I will certainly be reading through a lot more articles here and encourage my friends at church to do the same!<br />
However -->I noticed that there are a few people on this list that are not teenagers and so must have been added by mistake - shall I go ahead and remove them so that the article's content matches its title? I don't want to do so without asking as I'm new here. <!-- Thanks and God bless.--> [[User:BobG|BobG]] 12:55, 5 January 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
:You haven't said what you think are mistakes. Go ahead and edit the content entry and let's what you think are mistakes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:14, 5 January 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Bob, the individuals listed with a non-teen year obviously had remarkable contributions as teenagers also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:45, 5 January 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Sorry, I hadn't realized that! Shall we rephrase their entries in order to make that clear, such as by listing the teenage achievements primarily (along with the age at that point) and giving the currently listed achievements as footnotes or 'also achieved' in parentheses)? If you can help me finding information on these teenage achievements I'd be delighted to take on the task! Thanks. [[User:BobG|BobG]] 14:45, 5 January 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
Apart from the interesting idea that 10 year-old Kathryn Aurora Gray is a [[teenager]], is a source (from main page news report - which I added to entry) like [[CNN]], owned by [[leftist]] mogul [[Ted Turner]], with its [[liberal bias]] and support for the [[liberal]] agenda really a reliable source? The article claims the supernova happened 240 million years ago which is patent nonsense since that predates [[creation]]. CNN also claim that the girl’s father was an amateur astronomer, however, according to [http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/01/10-year-old-girl-becomes-youngest-person-to-discover-a-supernova/68911/ this source] the girl’s father is a professional astronomer, so it seems extremely likely that this is an example of [[liberal deceit]] and [[professor values]] where unjustified claims of expertise and knowledge are being made on behalf of a child in a [[Narcissism|narcissistic]] frenzy of publicity seeking [[liberal arrogance]]. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 14:21, 6 January 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
:The quibble is over the term "teenagers", and this suggestion could be made into a constructive one if we renamed the article to something like [[Great achievements by young people]]. <br />
<br />
:As a middle aged man, I am far from discouraging the next generation to make contributions. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:45, 7 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Zuckerberg "commercializes" Facebook==<br />
<br />
I'm curious about the choice of words for the Zuckerberg entry. Why "commercialized" instead of "created"? Is it because there's an argument over who really created the site? "Commercializing" doesn't seem like such a great achievement. [[User:EMorris|EMorris]] 11:47, 7 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
:My understanding is that Facebook was created for Harvard students, and existed in that form before it was commercialized. I agree that commercializing something is not as great an achievement as other items on the list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:02, 7 February 2011 (EST)</div>PeterUkerhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Great_Achievements_by_Teenagers&diff=851180Talk:Great Achievements by Teenagers2011-02-22T01:06:27Z<p>PeterUker: /* Roger Mason entry */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Clarification==<br />
Nearly all of those who accomplished great deeds while being teenagers made even greater contributions when they became adults. Especially, this list can't be used to bolster up the claim that ''most of the greatest works in history were accomplished by people who were teenagers''<br />
[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 16:49, 26 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Heavenly voices ==<br />
<br />
Is hearing heavenly voices an acheivement? Is was it leading France to victory that was the acheivement? It rather reads as if the hearing of voices was the acheivement. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:26, 26 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Reversion ==<br />
<br />
Obviously if someone produced a work ''before'' becoming a teenager it proves the same point; hence the reversion.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 21:34, 26 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Then how about renaming the page to keep it accurate? "Great Achievements by Minors", maybe? [[User:DRussell|DRussell]] 21:40, 26 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Karl Benz ==<br />
<br />
I removed [[Karl Benz]]: Though he was a child prodigy, at the given age ('''15'''), he ''"only"'' passed the entrance exam of the University of [[Karlsruhe]]. His genius really flourished in his late thirties. --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 07:10, 27 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Later Achievments==<br />
* '''7''' - Yehudi Menuhin: made his last recording age 82<br />
* '''8''' - [[Pablo Picasso]] Cubism: age 30 <br />
* '''8''' - [[Frederic Chopin]] Piano Concert No. 1: age 20<br />
* '''12''' - [[Blaise Pascal]] "Traité du triangle arithmétique": age 30<br />
* '''13''' - [[John]] stays a mistery<br />
* '''13''' - [[Joan of Arc]] inspired and led [[France]] to victory in the [[Hundred Years War]]<br />
* '''13''' - [[Anne Frank]] began writing her diary, later published as "Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl"<br />
* '''14''' - chess-player [[Bobby Fischer]] World Chess Champion: age 29<br />
* '''14''' - [[Mozart]]"Don Giovanni": age 32<br />
* '''15''' - [[Louis Braille]] invented the [[Braille]] system<br />
* '''15''' - [[Christopher Paolini]] writes the first draft of his [[Eragon]] trilogy which is published when he is 19.<br />
* '''16''' - Jean-François Champollion: deciphers the [[Rosetta Stone]] age 32<br />
* '''18''' - [[Mary Shelley]] writes Frankenstein (The Modern Prometheus) - it is only published when she is 21, however.<br />
* '''20''' - Carl Friedrich Gauss makes his first mathematical discoveries, which will lead to the completion of "Disquisitiones Arithmeticae", his magnum opus, at the age of 21.<br />
<br />
So, most of the persons in the list made contributions to their field works overshadowing there achievements as teenagers.<br />
<br />
[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 08:57, 27 December 2008 (EST)<br />
:A corrosive attitude is not beneficial. If, as Andy suggested, you opened your mind you might find nmany more examples to support this case. Bear in mind: demolition is easy, to build takes effort! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:59, 27 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Jesus==<br />
<br />
I'm not entirely certain I'm comfortable with including Jesus on a list of "teenagers." Part of that may just be a visceral reaction against applying the term to the Almighty, but setting that aside, I'm still not entirely sure he belongs on the list. After all, despite His physical age at the time he preached, He was still God, and therefore timeless and eternal. It's going to be a little hard for anyone, teenager or adult, to measure up to His list of accomplishments! --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:18, 28 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==IQ Peak==<br />
<br />
Although it is a hotly debated subject, there is no concrete evidence to suggest that IQ peaks in the pre-teen/teenage years. The linked article provides evidence to support that the rate of brain development peaks at this time, but this is idependant of a person's IQ.<br />
<br />
To highlight the diparate viewpoints, it is possible to show an IQ peak at anywhere from 14-16yrs old, all the way up to 50yrs+ - depending on what you measure, how you measure and how you interpret your findings (as with many stats i suppose).<br />
<br />
More info: http://www.albion.edu/psychology/fac_psyc/jwilson/psy101/intell.htm<br />
<br />
Hope my edit is satisfactory --[[User:J00ni|J00ni]] 18:22, 28 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Mary as "17"==<br />
<br />
Can I suggest using the word "uncertain" for Mary's age instead of assuming that it's 17? That takes nothing away from the assumption that she was a teenager when she gave birth, but it doesn't seem right for CP to state a specific age as if it were a fact when the comment goes on to acknowledge that the actual age was unknown. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 09:20, 30 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: The footnote is clear enough. No one doubts she was a teenager, and 17 was an average age of betrothal. The purpose of this list is plainly not to pinpoint precise ages, but merely to show the teenagers as a group.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 09:24, 30 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:: I don't disagree with that. I've added an asterisk after her age to highlight that it's an approximation, and leaving the rest as-is. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:03, 30 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::It could be even earlier; in the middle ages it was not uncommon for girls to give birth at 14, so in this case I think it could be as young as 15 (but I think it's 16, personally). [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:29, 30 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::: I too was given to believe she was younger than 17 at the time. My maternal family line has a long tradition of Mary-derived names in firstborn daughters, (I'm Regina, yes, that's Mary Derived, have "Ave Regina") and my mother always told the story that she was around 15. When I was little that seemed quite grown up, but when I was 15 myself, it struck me just how very brave she was, and how young. I think the note of approximation is important for this reason, it is true she could have been as old as 17, but at that young age, two years is a world of difference in maturity and self assurance. If she was indeed younger than 17, bumping up her age underestimates the greatness of her faith. Best err on the side of caution and reverence. [[User:BirdieA|Birdie]] 13:25, 30 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::: I side with Birdie, I have always understood it as the age of 15. --Jpatt 14:27, 30 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Bill Gates==<br />
<br />
A 13-year-old programming is not a remarkable achievement, and Gates' significant accomplishments occurred as a young adult, not a teen. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:06, 30 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:I understand your point and I for one do not wish to glorify an atheist. By todays standards, that is not an achievement. At age thirteen in 1968, think about the computer he was working with? It is a bright child that succeeded, is it a great achievement? --Jpatt 14:24, 30 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Under further scrutiny, I have decided against including Bill Gates. What did he achieve at 13? computer skills, not a great achievement. Also, he has enough accolades, believes in the God of nothing (catch that prying eyes?), listed next to Anne, no way the two should reside together :) --Jpatt 20:28, 31 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== remove some or move the page? ==<br />
<br />
If it is going to be Great achievements be teenagers, then we need to limit the list to teenagers only, not 8 and 10 year olds and 20 year olds. We need to remove the non-teenagers from the list, or else change it to something like "great achievements by young people" --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] <small>(CPAdmin1)</small><sup>[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]]</sup> 19:55, 30 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:12 year olds are also not teenagers. It sounds like we're getting technical, but saying that 8, 10, 12 and 20 year olds are teenagers is effectively the same as saying girls who wear pants are boys. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 20:02, 30 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::not really. It is more like saying that 4 is an odd number because it is close to 5 which is an odd number. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] <small>(CPAdmin1)</small><sup>[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]]</sup> 20:06, 30 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Roger Mason entry ==<br />
<br />
The Roger Mason entry does not rise to the level of achievement of the others. Even if it was a meaningful discovery, which is dubious, we don't have the shepherd who discovered the Dead Sea Scrolls and I don't see why would include Mason's "discovery" as a great achievement either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:53, 13 August 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Although I didn't add that entry, I did feel it was right to change it to state it as ''what some believed'' rather state it as scientific fact. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]<sub><small><small>/Admin</small></small></sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 20:11, 13 August 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: I agree with your edit, and am suggesting that we go further and either toss the entry or downgrade it further in an appropriate way. It just does not rise to the level of, say, David slaying Goliath.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:37, 13 August 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: OK, so I see there's been some discussion of Roger Mason. The point is that he didn't just stumble over some strange markings in the rock: he knew they were fossils and he knew the rocks were pre-Cambrian. His teenage open-mindedness led him to see what older, more closed-minded professors did not see. He had the confidence to go to a professor and tell him what he'd discovered - the professor didn't believe him till he'd seen it with his own eyes. A whole new era of biological life? A big discovery by anyone's standards. I've part-reverted the deletion, i.e. I've made it clear why it was such a big deal. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 18:30, 3 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
Mason's achievement is that he discovered the first fossil to come from rocks that were undoubtedly of a Pre-Cambrian era. Before that, the consensus of professional scientists was that there were no complex lifeforms before the Cambrian. Mason knew the rocks were Pre-Cambrian and he knew that what he found was a fossil. The fossil is named for the place it was found, Charnwood Forest, and for him: ''Charnia masoni''. Very very few people have revolutionised a whole area of science as teenages - Mason is one of them. You can read about it in New Scientist, issue of April 14, 2007.<br />
<br />
The text I wrote looks pretty much correct (bar one spelling mistake). I suggest you re-insert it in the article:<br />
'''16''' - Roger Mason discovers fossils from a whole era of complex life, the Ediacran (c.600 million years ago). His open-mindedness leads to an insight which overturns the limited preconceptions of earlier scientists, including Darwin, about life on Earth. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 19:26, 5 February 2011 (EST)<br />
: There have been no objections to this text so I've added it to the page. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 14:57, 6 February 2011 (EST)<br />
::And I've removed it again. When the site owner and a senior administrator agree something should be removed, and tell you to discuss it on the talk page, you don't just add it back in without their input. Wait for their response. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]]<sub>[[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]]</sub> 15:10, 6 February 2011 (EST)<br />
::: 1. When's he going to respond?<br />
::: 2. I thought this was an encyclopedia that gathers knowledge from the public, not one person's private website.<br />
::: 3. OK, I'll wait a little while longer. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 15:17, 6 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::: Your edits are heavy on opinion without links to back it up. "Roger Mason" is a name few have heard of, and perhaps for good reason. You'll need to back up your claim with far more than you have before it merits inclusion in this impressive list. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:36, 6 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
Responding to your request on my talk page, here are two key references and a brief commentary:<br />
* http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/geoscientist/geonews/page4300.html: Explains the importance of the Ediacaran period in geology and explains the great importance of the discoveries made by teenager Roger Mason in revealing the origins of complex life forms in the pre-Cambrian period.<br />
* http://wapedia.mobi/en/Charnia: Explains the importance of the fossils of the genus ''Charnia'' to studies of pre-Cambrian life and the important role that Roger Mason, as a teenager, played in discovering fossils within pre-Cambrian rocks.<br />
* A ''New Scientist'' article (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19425991.500-ediacarans-the-long-fuse-of-the-cambrian-explosion.html) reports the importance of the Ediacaran fauna and the personal role played by Mason but you need a subscription to read it in full.<br />
[[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 19:55, 6 February 2011 (EST)<br />
:::Perhaps you can also explain what is meant by "600 million years ago," given the fact that Biblical inerrancy as a pretty big deal 'round these parts. [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 19:58, 6 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::Benjy, greatness is not apparent from your descriptions, or the links. At best it appears that some teenagers stumbled upon some fossils, of which there are millions, and then speculation by some professors followed. This hardly ranks with, for example, the achievements of the author of the [[Gospel of Mark]], wbich is part of the most influential book of all time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:27, 6 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::Perhaps the better comparison would be with Kathryn Aurora Gray. --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 21:29, 6 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
Aschlafly, you're missing the point: Mason's breakthrough was that '''''as a schoolboy''''' he recognised fossils in what he knew were pre-Cambrian rocks. The very strong consensus among professional / academic geologists at the time was that there were '''no''' complex life-forms in the pre-Cambrian - and hence no complex fossils in pre-Cambrian rocks. Mason, as a teenager, was not hide-bound by the preconceptions of the academic world. This exactly fits your own criterion of "the natural open-mindedness of young people before they may experience attempts to indoctrinate them towards certain worldviews".<br />
<br />
As for the the scale of his achievement, there are 11 recognized geological eras and Mason discovered the first fossils recognized to definitely come from one of them ''and knew exactly what he had done'' (i.e. unlike the shephard discovering the Dead Sea Scrolls, who had no idea what the pieces of parchment were). That's a pretty big deal<br />
<br />
Another good reference is this radio programme (''In Our Time'', a weekly science-for-non-scientists programme on a talk radio channel over here): http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00lh2s3.<br />
<br />
Martyp, young earth creationism may be a big deal for some people round here but evidently not everybody: I've read enough CP to know that.<br />
<br />
I'll give it an hour or so to let others respond further, then make the appropriate edit to the page. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 15:32, 7 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Well, it's now ''two'' hours later and there haven't been any adverse comments. So as there are no further objections, I've restored the entry for Roger Mason. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 17:44, 7 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
:: Aschlafly, just taking the entry out isn't good enough. You need to give a reason. It's getting late on this side of the pond so I leave it up to your conscience whether you let another day go by with or without one of the outstanding teenage scientists in your encyclopedia. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 19:42, 21 February 2011 (EST)<br />
:::What are you trying to achieve here BenjyB? Why not try making some substantive contributions instead of trying to push your bizarre agenda and insulting the owner and founder of the site? [[User:PeterUker|PeterUker]] 20:06, 21 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
== ''Teen''agers ==<br />
<br />
<!-- Hi, just found this excellent website whilst searching for information on young Kathryn Aurora Gray's outstanding achievement - I will certainly be reading through a lot more articles here and encourage my friends at church to do the same!<br />
However -->I noticed that there are a few people on this list that are not teenagers and so must have been added by mistake - shall I go ahead and remove them so that the article's content matches its title? I don't want to do so without asking as I'm new here. <!-- Thanks and God bless.--> [[User:BobG|BobG]] 12:55, 5 January 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
:You haven't said what you think are mistakes. Go ahead and edit the content entry and let's what you think are mistakes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:14, 5 January 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Bob, the individuals listed with a non-teen year obviously had remarkable contributions as teenagers also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:45, 5 January 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Sorry, I hadn't realized that! Shall we rephrase their entries in order to make that clear, such as by listing the teenage achievements primarily (along with the age at that point) and giving the currently listed achievements as footnotes or 'also achieved' in parentheses)? If you can help me finding information on these teenage achievements I'd be delighted to take on the task! Thanks. [[User:BobG|BobG]] 14:45, 5 January 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
Apart from the interesting idea that 10 year-old Kathryn Aurora Gray is a [[teenager]], is a source (from main page news report - which I added to entry) like [[CNN]], owned by [[leftist]] mogul [[Ted Turner]], with its [[liberal bias]] and support for the [[liberal]] agenda really a reliable source? The article claims the supernova happened 240 million years ago which is patent nonsense since that predates [[creation]]. CNN also claim that the girl’s father was an amateur astronomer, however, according to [http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/01/10-year-old-girl-becomes-youngest-person-to-discover-a-supernova/68911/ this source] the girl’s father is a professional astronomer, so it seems extremely likely that this is an example of [[liberal deceit]] and [[professor values]] where unjustified claims of expertise and knowledge are being made on behalf of a child in a [[Narcissism|narcissistic]] frenzy of publicity seeking [[liberal arrogance]]. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 14:21, 6 January 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
:The quibble is over the term "teenagers", and this suggestion could be made into a constructive one if we renamed the article to something like [[Great achievements by young people]]. <br />
<br />
:As a middle aged man, I am far from discouraging the next generation to make contributions. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:45, 7 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Zuckerberg "commercializes" Facebook==<br />
<br />
I'm curious about the choice of words for the Zuckerberg entry. Why "commercialized" instead of "created"? Is it because there's an argument over who really created the site? "Commercializing" doesn't seem like such a great achievement. [[User:EMorris|EMorris]] 11:47, 7 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
:My understanding is that Facebook was created for Harvard students, and existed in that form before it was commercialized. I agree that commercializing something is not as great an achievement as other items on the list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:02, 7 February 2011 (EST)</div>PeterUkerhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homosexualization&diff=850984Homosexualization2011-02-21T04:05:06Z<p>PeterUker: Created page with "'''Homosexualization''' can refer to either *The way in which homosexuals attempt to 'turn' young, vulnerable men in to homosexuals, often tacitly encouraged at [[public scho..."</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Homosexualization''' can refer to either<br />
*The way in which [[homosexual]]s attempt to 'turn' young, vulnerable men in to homosexuals, often tacitly encouraged at [[public schools]] and [[liberal]] [[college]]s.<br />
*The [[Liberal creep|creeping]] of the [[homosexual agenda]] in to all aspects of [[American]] life, done slowly and subtly by interested parties, hoping that it will sneak past those who object.<br />
<br />
[[Category:Homosexuality]]<br />
[[Category:Liberalism]]</div>PeterUkerhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=GOProud&diff=849760GOProud2011-02-16T23:28:42Z<p>PeterUker: /* Leftist Policies */ military</p>
<hr />
<div>'''GOProud''' is a gay rights group that consists of [[RINO]]s. They consider themselves conservatives who believe in [[limited government]], individual liberty, free markets, national defense and a strong foreign policy. Per their website "We believe that every individual should be equal under the law." This stance would include the right to gay marriage. Some people believe the group has more in common with conservatism than the [[libertarian]] wing. Traditional conservatism is defined by social issues; God, heterosexual marriage, etc. As such, GOProud divides the conservative movement which is now evident in the annual [[CPAC]] convention and the refusal of social conservative groups to attend an event that promotes [[homosexuality]] from GOProud. The co-founders of GOProud are Jimmy LaSalvia and Christopher Barron, a political director for [[Planned Parenthood]].<ref>[http://www.gaypatriot.net/2005/11/16/breaking-news-log-cabin-loses-political-director-to-planned-parenthood/ BREAKING NEWS: LOG CABIN LOSES POLITICAL DIRECTOR TO PLANNED PARENTHOOD, Gay Patriot, November 16, 2005]</ref> In a rejection of the [[homosexual agenda]], the CPAC board of directors voted to exclude GOProud from future CPAC conferences.<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=263673 GOProud out at annual summit of conservatives]</ref><br />
<br />
==Leftist Policies==<br />
*Christopher Barron calls Cleta Mitchell, a conservative lawyer fighting same-sex marriage in D.C., a "nasty [[bigot]]." <ref>[http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/02/10/this-is-too-much-for-me/ This is Too Much For Me, Red State, February 10, 2011]</ref><br />
*GOProud attacks conservative [[Tim Pawlenty]] for his support of Don't Ask Don't Tell. <ref>[http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/02/08/reciprocal-courtesy-on-a-bridge-too-far/ Reciprocal Courtesy On a Bridge Too Far, Red State, February 2011]</ref> <br />
*GOProud calls conservative leader [[Jim DeMint]] "outrageous and bizarre" for suggesting the barring of openly [[gay]] teachers from school. <ref>[http://www.goproud.org/jim-demint-trying-his-best-to-make-alvin-greene-look-sane/ Jim DeMint: Trying His Best to Make Alvin Greene Look Sane, GOProud, October 5, 2010]</ref><br />
*GOProud attempt to [[dilute]] the [[Biblical]] condemnation of [[homosexuality]] as a [[sin]] and an [[abomination]] unto [[God]].<br />
*GOProud support attempts to force the [[military]] to allow openly [[homosexual]] men and women to serve.<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
* [[Log Cabin Republicans]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==External Links==<br />
* [http://www.goproud.org Official website]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Homosexuality]]<br />
[[Category:Politics]]</div>PeterUkerhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hollywood_values&diff=849741Hollywood values2011-02-16T21:22:13Z<p>PeterUker: Undo revision 849739 by LindaP (talk) No need to censor the values of these people</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:Hollywood-sign wikimedia.jpg|right|200px]]<br />
'''Hollywood values''' are characterized by decadence, [[narcissism]], rampant [[drug|drug use]], [[adultery|extramarital sex]] leading to the spread of sexually-transmitted [[disease]], [[abortion]], lawlessness, promotion of the [[homosexual agenda]] and death. A 2006 poll by MSNBC said that 60% of [[Americans]] agree that "Hollywood's values are not in line with the rest of America and that the quality of movies has diminished in recent years."<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11714540/</ref><br />
<br />
The lack of [[morals]] and [[values]] in [[Hollywood]] culture has been destroying the fabric of American culture, particularly the family.<br />
<br />
There have been, however, a handful of prominent people whose work in Hollywood opposed these values. [[Ronald Reagan]], [[James Stewart]], [[Charlton Heston]], [[Pat Boone]], [[Paul Schofield]], [[Walt Disney]] and many others practiced conservative values while working in Hollywood and the productions of these and many others also reflect these values, irrespective of the star names associated with them: [[The Chronicles of Narnia]] and ''Independence Day'' (a movie about [[Independence Day]]) being recent examples.<br />
<br />
Hollywood values include a flagrant disrespect and disregard for:<br />
<br />
* [[marriage]] and [[abstinence]]<br />
* [[patriotism]]<br />
* [[religion]] and [[spirituality]] (Hollywood's profits depend on the [[advertising]] and sale of [[materialism|material goods]] and other superficial "solutions" to problems.)<br />
* [[accountability]]<br />
* the U.S. military<ref>[http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/hollywood_gets_it_right_p4d84a9jyymsfLw0THb7EM Hollywood gets it right, New York Post, March 09, 2010]</ref><br />
* family responsibilities, like childrearing<ref>[[Britney Spears]] "doesn't want [her] kids back." [http://www.nypost.com/seven/02132008/news/nationalnews/brit_doesnt_want_her_kids__1st_ex_97425.htm]</ref><br />
* laws that apply to everyone else<br />
* Commonly accepted behavioral boundaries and values of human decency<br />
<br />
In addition, Hollywood portrays these values as rebellious and [[counterculture|countercultural]]. They portray religious and spiritual institutions as greedy, self-serving, sexually perverted, prejudiced, ignorant, and unscientific. When comparing the satisfaction brought about by faith, spirituality, family, and friendship, which may happen to include donations to a church or other organization, it is clear that the profits of Hollywood and the industries which rely upon Hollywood for profit are the true establishment - thus making traditional values truly rebellious and countercultural, and Hollywood values a lie.<br />
<br />
==Deaths ==<br />
Hollywood values are deadly. Tourists in Hollywood can visit over 30 sites of typically self-inflicted Hollywood celebrity deaths.<ref>http://www.hollywoodusa.co.uk/celebrity-death-sites.htm</ref> A sampling of deaths caused by Hollywood values include:<ref>http://www.abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=4174733&page=1</ref><ref>http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/entertainment/news/article/20021--list-of-celebrities-taken-by-drug-use-tragic-and-growing</ref><br />
*[[John Barrymore]], 60, cirrhosis of the liver from heavy drinking<br />
*[[John Belushi]], 33, was a repeated drug abuser who ultimately died of a lethal injection of cocaine and heroin<br />
*[[Clara Blandick]], 81, suicide<br />
*[[John Bonham]], 32, after too much drinking, asphyxiated on vomit<br />
*[[Elisa Bridges]], 28, 'Playboy' magazine model, drug overdose combining heroin, methamphetamine and other drugs<br />
*[[David Carradine]], 72, died from suffocation most likely suicide, had history of suicidal thoughts, alcohol and narcotics abuse <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,525177,00.html Thai Police: Carradine Death May Be Accidental Suffocation] Fox News, June 05, 2009 </ref><br />
*[[Stephen Clark]], 30, Def Leppard guitarist, drug and alcohol overdose<ref>http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1108020/bio</ref><br />
*[[Lana Clarkson]], 40, actress and model murdered by [[Phil Spector]]<br />
*[[Kurt Cobain]], 27, lead singer from the band Nirvana, a heroin addict who committed suicide with a shotgun blast to the head.<br />
*[[Ray Combs]], 40, host of the TV game show Family Feud committed suicide by hanging himself in a psychiatric ward.<br />
*[[John Costelloe]], 47, actor from HBO's The Sopranos known as "Johnny Cakes", shot himself in the head. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,472864,00.html 'Sopranos' Actor Shocks Fans, Loved Ones With Holiday Suicide] NYPost, December 25, 2008</ref><br />
*[[Bob Crane]],49, the actor's success led to a bizarre life of sex addiction. He was bludgeoned to death.<br />
*[[Karl Dane]], 47, suicide by gunshot<br />
*[[James Dean]], 24, a notoriously reckless and frequently ticketed driver crashed fatally head-on into a car turning left in front of his Porsche (see also crime, below)<br />
*[[Eazy-E]], 31. [[AIDS]] contracted through drug use.<br />
*[[Brian Epstein]], 32, overdosed on sleeping pills and alcohol<br />
*[[Chris Farley]], 33, overdose of morphine and cocaine<br />
*[[Judy Garland]], 47, overdosed on sleeping pills<br />
*[[Lucy Gordon]], 28, British actress from the movie Spiderman 3, hung herself <ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/Movies/wireStory?id=7642829 Actress Lucy Gordon Found Dead at Age 28 in Paris, ABC News, May 21, 2009]</ref><br />
*[[Lee Grivas]], 26, the on-again, off-again boyfriend of actress Christina Applegate, 36, was found dead of an apparent drug overdose<ref>http://www.bloggernews.net/116552a</ref><br />
*Corey Haim, 38, teen idol who starred in many movies and then a reality show, died of a drug overdose.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8560246.stm</ref><br />
*[[Phil Hartman]], 49, murdered in his million-dollar house by his drug-addicted third wife Brynn Hartman<br />
*[[Margaux Hemingway]], 42, suicide<br />
*[[Jimi Hendrix]], 27, an enthusiastic abuser of illegal drugs, choked on his own vomit after overdose of sleeping pills.<br />
*[[Rock Hudson]], 59, AIDS<br />
*[[Michael Hutchence]], 37, asphyxiated during an auto-erotic act while alone in a Sydney hotel. His wife, Paula Yates (see below), also fell victim to Hollywood Values.<br />
*[[Richard Jeni]], 49, suicide<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258231,00.html</ref><br />
*[[Russell Tyrone Jones]] (a.k,a. "Old Dirty Bastard"), 35, musician, died of drug overdose two days before his 36th birthday<br />
*[[Janis Joplin]], 27, heroin overdose<br />
*[[Andrew Koenig]], 41, child actor in the TV series Growing Pains committed suicide. <ref>[http://omg.yahoo.com/news/andrew-koenigs-body-found-in-vancouver-park/36485?nc Andrew Koenig's Body Found in Vancouver Park, Yahoo News, February 25, 2010]</ref><br />
*[[Heath Ledger]], 28, found dead in his [[Manhattan]] apartment. "Prescription sleeping pills and anti-anxiety pills were found in bottles in Ledger's bedroom and bathroom, and police have speculated the death was caused by an accidental drug overdose." "Ledger died of an accidental overdose of painkillers, sleeping pills, anti-anxiety medication and other prescription drugs, the New York City medical examiner said Wednesday." <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,328828,00.html</ref><br />
*[[Bruce Lee]] (Li Xiaolong), actor, 33, collapsed and died; trace amounts of cannabis found in bloodstream at postmortem; the official cause of death was acute cerebral edema (swelling of the brain) from hypersensitivity to aspirin.<br />
*[[Stuart Lubbock]], 31, found dead in the swimming pool of popular TV entertainer [[Michael Barrymore]], having suffered severe anal trauma, after a drug-fueled party at the star's home <br />
*[[Queen (band)|Freddie Mercury]], 45, born Farrokh Bulsara, lead singer of the band Queen, died from AIDS-related bronchial pneumonia.<br />
*[[Sal Mineo]], 37, murdered under circumstances that suggested "a homosexual motive".<br />
*[[Marilyn Monroe]], 36, overdosed on sleeping pills.<br />
*[[Keith Moon]], drummer of [[The Who]], 32, overdose of Clomethiazole prescribed to treat his [[alcoholism]].<br />
*[[Jim Morrison]], 27, died of an apparent heroin overdose.<br />
*[[Brittany Murphy]], 32, motion picture film actress died of cardiac arrest from combining prescription drugs <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/02/27/brittany-murphy-taken-vicodin-days/ Brittany Murphy May Have Taken 109 Vicodin in 11 Days, Fox News, February 27, 2010]</ref> Official death from pneumonia and drug intoxication.<br />
*[[Chris Penn]], 40, brother of [[Sean Penn]], "died accidentally from an enlarged heart and the effects of a mix of multiple medications".<br />
*[[River Phoenix]], 23, died from an overdose of cocaine and heroin.<br />
*[[Dana Plato]], 34, ''Diff'rent Strokes'' star, suicide by drugs overdose after posing for lesbian pornography.<br />
*[[Elvis Presley]], 42, large drug intake causes a cardiac arrhythmia and rumored to have suffocated on the carpet when he collapsed from a drug overdose.<br />
*[[Freddie Prinze]], 22, actor from Chico and the Man committed suicide by gunshot to the head.<br />
*[[Virginia Rappe]], 30, died of a ruptured bladder incurred at a party hosted by [[Roscoe Arbuckle]].<br />
*[[Robert Reed]], 59, actor known as Mike Brady was a homosexual with AIDS, died from cancer in 1992. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/entertainment/2009/08/14/brady-bunch?slide=25 Robert Reed in 1990, Fox News]</ref><br />
*[[Brad Renfro]], 25, became addicted to heroin and was found dead after a night of drinking<br />
*[[George Reeves]], 45, played Superman from the series Adventures of Superman, suicide by gunshot<br />
*[[Anna Nicole Smith]], 39, accidental overdose on prescription drugs<br />
*[[Dorothy Stratten]], 20, murdered by spouse after engaging in extramarital affair<br />
*[[David Strickland]], 29, cast member of NBC's Suddenly Susan hung himself in a Las Vegas hotel.<br />
*[[Sharon Tate]], 26, an actress with a [[hippie]] lifestyle who was murdered by followers of [[Charles Manson]], a [[Beatles]]-obsessed musician wannabee; Manson's followers murdered Tate, who was pregnant and only two weeks from birth, her unborn child, her prior lover, who was staying with her while her husband, movie producer [[Roman Polanski]] (see 'Crime', below), was away, and another unmarried couple staying in the house. (It is believed that Manson had actually intended his followers to kill the home's previous residents, [[Terry Melcher]] (son of [[Doris Day]]) and [[Candice Bergen]].) <ref>The Polanski Problem [http://moviegeeksclub.blogspot.com/2008/04/polanski-problem.html]</ref> <ref>Sharon Tate Official Site: Sharon's Biography [http://www.sharontate.net/bio4.html]</ref><br />
*[[Lou Tellegen]], 52, suicide<br />
*[[Sid Vicious]], 21. [[Heroin]] overdose while awaiting trial for his girlfriend's murder.<br />
*[[Kenneth Williams]], 62, overdose.<br />
*[[Natalie Wood]], 43, drowned while intoxicated.<br />
*[[Paula Yates]], 41, heroin overdose.<br />
*[[Layne Staley]], 34, found dead in apartment two weeks after a drug overdose.<ref>http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/staley1.html</ref> Layne promoted the use of hard drugs in the 1992 [[Alice in Chains]] song "Junkhead"<ref>http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Junkhead-lyrics-Alice-In-Chains/3A665DABDFC00AD54825688F0010CD45</ref><br />
*[[Paul Gray]], 38, bassist of heavy metal band Slipknot, died of an overdose of morphine and fentanyl. <ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100622/ap_on_en_mu/us_slipknot_bassist_autopsy</ref><br />
*Shannon Michelle Wilsey, a.k.a Savanna, a pornographic film star, committed suicide after a drunken car accident.<br />
<br />
==Sexually Transmitted Diseases==<br />
The loose sexual morals characteristic of the lifestyle defined by Hollywood Values often lead to sexually transmitted diseases. Examples include,<br />
<br />
* [[Rock Hudson]] died of AIDS-related complications after contracting the disease through homosexual intercourse.<br />
* Michael Jeter, who was homosexual, also died due to AIDS-related complications. <br />
* Freddie Mercury of the rock group [[Queen (band)|Queen]], notorious for his flamboyant onstage presence, also contracted AIDS through his wildly promiscuous homosexual lifestyle, and subsequently perished of the self-inflicted condition.<br />
<br />
== Crime ==<br />
'''Hollywood values often include being arrested or convicted for a variety of crimes. Here are some examples:'''<br />
<br />
* [[Paris Hilton]] was arrested in Las Vegas, 8/27/2010, for possession of a controlled substance, [[Cocaine]]. The hotel heiress was a passenger in a vehicle that was stopped by police. The driver was arrested for DUI '''pertaining to drugs, not alcohol'''. Through further interaction between Hilton and authorities, it was discovered she was in possession of a controlled substance. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/08/28/paris-hilton-arrested-drug-possession/ Paris Hilton arrested in Las Vegas.]</ref><br />
* Actress Lori Petty, who was featured in "Free Willy" and "A League of their Own" and ran into a 14-year-old skateboarder and was arrested for felony drunk driving charges.<ref>http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7015343906</ref><br />
* Craig Phillip Robinson, the actor famous for playing Darryl Philbin on NBC's "The Office," "was arrested on June 29, 2008, on suspicion of possessing MDMA, also known as ecstasy, and methamphetamine."<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/TV/08/15/office.actor.arrested.ap/index.html</ref><br />
* [[Winona Ryder]] was convicted of convicted of vandalism and grand theft for stealing designer merchandise worth $5,560.40.<ref>http://www.courttv.com/trials/ryder/</ref><br />
* [[O.J. Simpson]] is widely believed to have murdered his wife and her friend, and was found liable in a civil (but not criminal) trial. He has since been convicted of unrelated felonies.<br />
* [[Paris Hilton]] was convicted of driving while intoxicated, and then violated the terms of her probation, leading to a 45-day prison sentence.<ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18472845/ Paris Hilton sentenced to 45 days in jail], MSNBC, May 4, 2007</ref><br />
*[[Hugh Grant]] was arrested in 1995 when found in a car with a prostitute.<ref>[http://www.mugshots.org/hollywood/hugh-grant.html]</ref><br />
*[[Stacy Keach]], movie actor, was sentenced to 9 months imprisonment in the [[United Kingdom]] in 1984 after being arrested at [[London]] [[Heathrow Airport]] in possession of a large quantity of [[cocaine]].<br />
*[[Kiefer Sutherland]] was given a 48-day sentence for DUI in 2007, an offense committed while still on probation following a 2004 conviction for DUI.<ref>Sutherland is released from jail [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7200633.stm BBC]</ref><br />
*[[George Michael]] was convicted of "committing a lewd act in public", having been arrested in a public restroom by a plain clothes police officer. Arrested in September 2008 in a [[London]] public lavatory, he was found in possession of crack cocaine and cannabis - but merely received a caution. <ref>http://uk.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUKLL28201720080921</ref><br />
*[[Snoop Dogg]], a popular [[rap|rapper]], was arrested in 2006 for [[marijuana]] possession. He is a libertarian<ref>http://www.ucllibertarians.com/celebrities.html</ref> who advocates marijuana use.<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/dailydish/detail?blogid=7&entry_id=21457</ref><br />
*[[Roman Polanski]], Polish-born film producer, is unable to return to Hollywood as he skipped bail and fled to [[France]] after being convicted in 1978 on charges of unlawful sexual intercourse with a thirteen-year old girl.<br />
* Rapper DMX (Earl Simmons) was caught on camera drag racing at a speed over 110 miles on a freeway, and then a SWAT team was used to arrest him three days later on drug and animal cruelty charges. "The Maricopa County sheriff's office says the 37-year-old, whose real name is Earl Simmons, at first tried to barricade himself in his bedroom. He came out as a SWAT team entered during the early-morning raid Friday."<ref>http://news.aol.com/entertainment/music/music-news-story/ar/_a/dmx-arrested-on-animal-cruelty-charges/20080509163709990001</ref><br />
*[[Martha Stewart]] was charged with illegal [[insider trading]] in 2003.<ref>[http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2003-69.htm SEC press release (SEC Charges Martha Stewart, Broker Peter Bacanovic with Illegal Insider Trading)]</ref><br />
*[[Tatum O'Neal]] arrested in 2008 for [[cocaine]] possession. <ref><br />
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,361361,00.html Tatum O'Neal Released After Drug Arrest], [[Associated Press]], ''[[Fox News Channel|Fox News]]'', June 02, 2008.</ref><br />
*[[James Dean]] displayed an unhealthy interest in a twelve-year-old boy. His former director Elia Kazan later commented: "I've known many actors who have been twisted up in their sex lives, but never anybody as sick and unhealthy as Dean was."<br />
*Redmond O'Neal, son of Farrah Fawcett and Ryan O'Neal, plead guilty to possessing heroine and methamphetamine as well as driving under the influence of drugs.<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080627/ap_on_en_ot/people_redmond_o_neal;_ylt=AiQCBwpJpxqBOFWVyqEycXsDW7oF Redmond O'Neal pleads guilty to drug charges</ref><br />
*[[Actor]] Nick Nolte was arrested for drunk driving in 2002<ref>http://www.thesmokinggun.com/mugshots/nolte1.html</ref><br />
*[[Sean Bean]] was arrested and spent the night in a cell after allegedly beating his wife.<ref>http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hR3pX0eEytJcMo7m5LRLHOYpasSA</ref><br />
*[[Shelley Malil]], 43, worked as an actor in [[movies]] and television. He is charged with causing great bodily injury and using a deadly weapon on Kendra Beebe, a 35-year-old [[mother]] of two. He appeared on the back patio of Kendra's house and stabbed her 20 times. Now held on a $10 million dollar bond. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Aug13/0,4670,ActorArrested,00.html 40-Year-Old Virgin' actor pleads not guilty] AP, August 13, 2008</ref><br />
*Former Power Rangers actor [[Skylar Deleon]], will have three separate trials for four murders. The first trial is set for the murder of Tom and Jackie Hawks, who were allegedly bound to the anchor of their yacht and tossed overboard. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,433765,00.html 'Power Rangers' Actor Set to Stand Trial in Yacht Killings] AP, October 7, 2008</ref> he was sentenced to death for committing murder.<ref>http://www.dcourier.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=66850</ref><br />
*Musician George O'Dowd, better known by his stage name, [[Boy George]], has been convicted (and will likely go to prison) for handcuffing a male escort to a bed against his will and then beating him with a chain.<ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1092168/Guilty-Boy-George-warned-judge-faces-jail-falsely-imprisoning-male-escort.html</ref> Earlier he had been convicted of cocaine possession.<br />
*Dana Plato was arrested for armed robbery and prescription forgery.<br />
*Todd Bridges assaulted a motorist and was repeatedly arrested for drug-related offenses.<br />
*Gary Coleman was arrested for assaulting a woman by punching her in the face.<br />
*Musician/Producer [[Phil Spector]] was found guilty of second-degree murder for the shooting death of actress Lana Clarkson. He was convicted of second-degree murder. <ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30194936/</ref><br />
*Kiefer Sutherland, Fox television's "24" star was charged with misdemeanor assault for allegedly head-butting a fashion designer at a nightclub. <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=47880 ‘24’ Star Kiefer Sutherland Charged for Allegedly Head-Butting a Fashion Designer] Associated Press, May 8, 2009</ref><br />
*Actor Elmore "Rip" Torn was arrested for breaking into a bank and carrying a firearm while intoxicated. In 2009, he was given probation in a drunk-driving case. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/01/30/actor-rip-torn-arrested-allegedly-breaking-connecticut-bank/?test=latestnews Actor Rip Torn Arrested for Allegedly Breaking Into Connecticut Bank, Fox News, January 30, 2010]</ref><br />
*Former teen actor Leif Garrett was arrested for possession of a controlled substance. He has a number of former arrests including [[heroin]] possession. <ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/02/03/crimesider/entry6170622.shtml Leif Garrett Arrested: Former Teen Idol Busted for Controlled Substance, CBS News, February 3, 2010]</ref><br />
*[[Sean Penn]] was charged with criminal battery and vandalism for attacking the paparazzi in October 2009. <ref>[http://www.tmz.com/2010/02/19/sean-penn-crime-battery-vandalism-prosecution-jail-paparazzi/ Sean Penn Charged With Crimes, TMZ, February 19, 2010]</ref><br />
*Comedian [[Andy Dick]] was arrested for groping an employee and a patron of a nightclub in West Virginia. <ref>[http://www.herald-dispatch.com/breaking/x818845820/Andy-Dick-arrested-by-HPD Andy Dick charged with felony, shows still on, Herald Dispatch, January 23, 2010]</ref><br />
*Actor Nicholas Brendon had been arrested March '10 in a drunken scuffle with police. He is charged with resisting arrest, two counts of battery against a police officer and felony vandalism. Brendon has a history of alcoholism. <ref>[http://www.popeater.com/2010/04/07/nicholas-brendon-arrested-charged/ 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' Star Charged With Police Battery, Vandalism, PopEater.com, April 7, 2010]</ref><br />
*Hollywood television producer Bruce Beresford-Redman of CBS's "Survivor" series is arrested as the lead suspect in the murder of his wife. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/04/08/mexican-official-hollywood-tv-producer-suspect-wifes-death/?test=latestnews 'Survivor' Producer 'Suspected' in Wife's Death in Mexico, FOX News, April 8, 2010]</ref><br />
*Actor Chris Klein, star of the American Pie films, which glorify sex and alcohol abuse, was arrested for drunk driving in June 2010<ref>http://www.tmz.com/2010/06/16/american-pie-chris-klein-busted-for-dui-arrest/</ref><br />
*Actor Michael Brea played roles in Ugly Betty and Step Up 3D, kills his 55-year old mother with a sword while yelling Bible verses. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/11/24/ugly-betty-actor-allegedly-kills-mother-foot-sword-screaming-repent/ 'Ugly Betty' Actor Allegedly Kills Mother With 3-Foot Sword While Screaming 'Repent', FOX News, November 24, 2010]</ref><br />
*TV host and actor Gary Collins was arrested and charged with a felony for allegedly leaving a restaurant without paying his $59.35 tab. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/01/05/tv-host-gary-collins-arrested-skipping-restaurant/ TV Host Gary Collins Arrested for Skipping Out on $59 Restaurant Bill, FOXNews, January 5, 2011]</ref><br />
*Actress Jaime Pressly was arrested for driving under the influence. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/01/11/jaime-pressly-wasted-dui-arrest/ Jaime Pressly Blew Nearly Three Times Legal Limit on Breathalyzer Before Arrest, Fox News, January 11, 2011 ]</ref><br />
*Korey Rowe, producer of the 9/11 conspiracy film ''Loose Change'' is arrested for selling heroin. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/31/conspiracy-film-producer-arrested-drug-charges/?test=latestnews 9/11 Conspiracy Film Producer Arrested on Drug Charges, Fox News, January 31, 2011]</ref><br />
*Lindsay Lohan is facing felony grand theft charge, she was accused of stealing a $2500 necklace from a Venice boutique. <ref>[ttp://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/02/05/lindsay-lohan-facing-years-state-prison-jewelry-theft Lindsay Lohan Facing Three Years in State Prison, Fox News, February 5, 2011]</ref><br />
<br />
== Falsehoods ==<br />
<br />
[[Hollywood values]] perpetuate [[liberal]]-driven [[Essay:Liberal Falsehoods|falsehoods]]:<br />
<br />
*[[Inside Job]]<br />
:A 2010 film by Democrat donor Charles Ferguson that blames the Great Recession on [[Wall Street]], deregulation, the [[Bush Administration]]. The film whitewashes Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's role and claims the financial system corrupted politics. Capitalists are the bad guys.<br />
*[[Fair Game]]<br />
:Another Bush bash flick starring communist [[Sean Penn]]. 2010 film rehashes the lead up to the war in Iraq and [[Valerie Plame]]'s role. Typical un-American Hollywood film ''"The narrative that [[Karl Rove]] and Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff [[Scooter Libby]] were nefarious behind-the-scenes players intent on destroying innocent reputations while pushing the nation into war on false pretenses."'' <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/10/hollywood-hit-job-fair-game-propagates-easily-disprovable-myths-about-lead-up-to-iraq-war/ Hollywood hit job: ‘Fair Game’ propagates easily disprovable myths about lead up to Iraq War http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/10/hollywood-hit-job-fair-game-propagates-easily-disprovable-myths-about-lead-up-to-iraq-war The Daily Caller, November 11, 2010]</ref><br />
*[[The Iron Lady]]<br />
: Meryl Streep plays [[Margaret Thatcher]] in this gross mistake of a film. Liberals distort her triumphs and her low career points. Streep portrays Thatcher as a dementia-sufferer looking back at her life with sadness. The director defended the film as "a fictional film but it will be fair and accurate.” Thatcher's children Mark and Carol are appalled and say “They think it sounds like some Left-wing fantasy." <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/7895160/Margaret-Thatchers-family-are-appalled-at-Meryl-Streep-film.html Margaret Thatcher's family are 'appalled' at Meryl Streep film, Telegraphe.co.uk, July 17, 2010]</ref> <br />
<br />
*[[The Tillman Story]]<br />
:A liberals view of the circumstances surrounding the death of football star and Army Ranger [[Pat Tillman]]. The film portrays each and every fact as sinister. Plus, each and every fact is evidence of a conspiracy. Typical Hollywood [[George W. Bush]] bashing flick. The bias was clear, make Tillman a liberal atheist anti-war hero that was cannon-fodder for the government. Tillman's actions speak louder than any twisted accusations presented in this documentary. <ref>[http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/kschlichter/2010/07/13/the-tillman-story-dont-let-the-facts-get-in-the-way-of-your-agenda/ FILM REVIEW: Absurd Conspiracy Theories Abound in Agenda-Driven ‘Tillman Story’, BigHollywood.com]</ref><br />
<br />
*[[Matthew Shepard Fallacy]]<br />
:Adherents to Hollywood values "green-lighted a troika of [[Matthew Shepard]] movies after he was senselessly killed because it affirmed their gut feeling that a gay young man living in backward America is destined for death at the hands of hateful ultraconservatives. A street in West Hollywood still stands in his name despite ABC News reporting the story false: He was killed by crazed meth addicts for drugs and money -- not because he was gay. Isn't that tragic enough? Yet Shepard is still the icon of gay victims' rights, and the mistaken story of his 'fate' soon thereafter befell Jake Gyllenhaal's character in 'Brokeback Mountain.' The Oscar statuette stands as the exclamation point."<ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-dustup26sep26,0,1800794,full.story</ref><br />
<br />
*[[Inherit the Wind]] <br />
:Hollywood perpetuated complete lies about the [[Scopes Trial]] in order to smear Christianity, including:<br />
<br />
:*portraying [[William Jennings Bryan]] as being ignorant, harsh and punitive, based on a false portrayal of his actions and testimony<br />
<br />
:*falsely claiming that at the end Bryan, in a senseless fit of madness, died in the courtroom amid caring and reasonable Darwinists<br />
<br />
:*falsely portraying the Darwinists in a positive light and the Christians as deceitful<br />
<br />
:In real life, Bryan and the Christians won the trial and were charitable to the end, while the Darwinist Darrow was deceitful in reneging on his deal to take the witness stand after Bryan did.<br />
<br />
*[[U 571]]<br />
:The 2000 film [[U 571]] had a plot which was based on the first capture of a German Enigma machine in [[World War 2]]. However, in the film the capture is made by Americans. In fact the first Enigma machine was captured by the British in 1941 prior to the Americans entering the war.<br />
<br />
*[[Loose Change]]<br />
:The 2005 9/11 conspiracy film that blames the U.S. government for attacking its own citizens.<br />
<br />
*[[Recount]]<br />
:The 2008 [[HBO]] movie on the 2000 Presidential elections and its aftermath in Florida. A look into how the [[Republicans]] stole the election and the role of its party members that made it happen. Republicans are portrayed as ghoulish and cited as manufacturing demonstrations. Both the real Warren Christopher and James Baker contend the film’s portrayal of the former is hopelessly untrue. <ref>[http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/hbos-recount-hanging-chads-and-black-humor/ HBO’s Recount: Hanging Chads, Black Humor] The Washington Times, May 4, 2008</ref><br />
<br />
*[[Winter Soldiers]]<br />
:The 1972 film about U.S. troops from Vietnam put on record as baby killers, human rights violators, and general disservice to America. This myth was propagated by a few anti-war activist liberal actors that never did see combat in [[Vietnam]] and some were never in the country. The initial result was to hold hearings in Congress over the matter. All allegations were proven fabrications, falsehoods, and lies.<br />
<br />
*[[An Inconvenient Truth]]<br />
:The 2006 false documentary about man-made [[global warming]] created & hyped by [[Al Gore]]. A [[British]] court found the film contained at least [http://www.conservapedia.com/Global_warming#Al_Gore.27s_.22Inconvenient_Truth.22_Movie_Claims 11 material falsehoods]. The Science and Public Policy Institute has found 35 falsehoods associated with the film. <ref>[http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html 35 Inconvenient Truths, Science and Public Policy Institute]</ref><br />
<br />
*[[Fahrenheit 911]]<br />
:A [[Michael Moore]] film that was a false portrayal of why America fought a war against [[Saddam Hussein]]'s Iraq. The main theme was to attack [[George W. Bush]] during wartime.<br />
<br />
*[[Sicko]]<br />
:Another [[Michael Moore]] film which spread many falsehoods about American healthcare while unduly glorifying the so-called benefits of socialized healthcare. Memorably referred to Cuban healthcare as being better than American healthcare.<br />
<br />
==Disrespect for marriage==<br />
<br />
Many celebrities and other exponents of Hollywood Values have no respect for the sanctity of marriage - their own or anyone else's. This is manifested in a high rate of marriage breakdown, and by the home-wrecking activities of the promiscuous, whose moral outlooks have been distorted by Liberal and atheistic teachings.<br />
<br />
*[[Elizabeth Taylor]] has been married eight (8) times, including a nearly 6-year marriage to [[John Warner|Senator John Warner]] (R-VA).<ref>http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000072/bio</ref><br />
*[[Valerie Bertinelli]] said her divorce from [[Eddie Van Halen]] was caused by infidelity and drug use - by her too. She said she was "destroying my body," trying to keep up with a rock-star lifestyle. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,332551,00.html Valerie Bertinelli About Divorce From Eddie Van Halen: 'I Wasn't An Angel Either'], [[Fox News Channel]], ''[[Associated Press]]'', February 26, 2008</ref><br />
*[[Zsa Zsa Gabor]] has been married nine (9) times. One of her marriages - to Felipe de Alba - was annulled after one day.<br />
*[[Mickey Rooney]] has been married eight (8) times, but has been with his last wife for 30 years after embracing religion and abandoning his previous lifestyle.<br />
*[[Charlie Chaplin]] married four (4) times, including his marriage at the age of 54 to an 18-year-old bride.<br />
*[[Johnny Carson]] married four (4) times, and frequently made light of his having divorced three times, as if this were something funny.<br />
*[[Meredith Baxter]] married and divorced four (4) times; she finally admitted in 2009 that she was a [[homosexual]].<br />
*In 2009, the married [[David Letterman]] admitted to having had adulterous sexual relationships with multiple members of his staff; he had previously fathered a child out of wedlock.<br />
*[[Jayne Mansfield]] was married three times and had numerous extramarital affairs. She appeared in the centerfold of the pornographic magazine Playboy, and died in an automobile accident.<br />
*[[Britney Spears]]' 2004 marriage to Jason Alexander lasted 55 hours.<br />
*Musicians [[Cher]] and [[Gregg Allman]] were married for eight days in 1975.<br />
*[[Drew Barrymore]] has two of the shortest celebrity marriages on record, one of 30 days and a five-month marriage to notorious lowbrow comedian Tom Green. Barrymore is a poster child for Hollywood values, as a former child star who became an alcoholic and drug addict who also posed for pornographic magazines.<br />
<br />
== Offensive Behavior/Moral depravity ==<br />
<br />
* [[Charlie Sheen]] to Wife Brooke Mueller: "I'll Kill You." <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/08/09/charlie-sheen-wife-brook-mueller-ill-kill-you/?test=latestnews Charlie Sheen to Wife Brooke Mueller: "I'll Kill You"]</ref><br />
* Trashing hotel rooms is a favorite form of offensive behavior by Hollywood types. Many examples are readily available on the [[internet]].<ref>See, e.g., [http://www.budgettravel.com/bt-dyn/content/article/2007/12/21/AR2007122101034.html]</ref><br />
*[[Mel Gibson]], who had started drinking again, was arrested after being stopped for driving at 84 mph in a 45 mph zone on a notoriously dangerous road in Malibu, California.<ref>''Mel Gibson apologizes after DUI arrest'' [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14080210/ Associated Press]</ref> A breathalyzer test confirmed he was drunk and next to him was an open bottle of Tequila; after being arrested he hurled Anti-Semitic abuse at a Jewish police officer.<ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2292336,00.html Mel Gibson rants against Jews in drink-drive arrest], Times Online, July 30, 2006</ref><br />
*The parents of [[Miley Cyrus]], just 15 years old, allowed [[Annie Liebowitz]] to pose the starlet without a shirt or bra (nominally [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/topless "topless"]) and with just a sheet covering her front for Vanity Fair magazine.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/business/media/28hannah.html?_r=1&oref=slogin</ref><ref>http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20195785,00.html</ref><ref>http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23608789-5001026,00.html</ref> "I took part in a photo shoot that was supposed to be 'artistic' and now, seeing the photographs and reading the story, I feel so embarrassed," Cyrus said Sunday in a statement through her publicist. "I never intended for any of this to happen and I apologize to my fans who I care so deeply about." <ref>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0</ref><br />
:"... a situation was created to deliberately manipulate a 15-year-old in order to sell magazines," a network statement said. <ref>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0</ref><br />
*Many Hollywood stars who have purposely sought fame have then turned upon photographers and fans. [[Sean Penn]] is well known to lash out at photographers.<br />
*The parents of 16-year old Jamie Lynn Spears allowing her unwed pregnancy to be publicly portrayed as a normal act even though she is a role model for millions of underage teenagers. Mayor of Gloucester, Carolyn Kirk recently blamed the glamorizing of teen pregnancy by Jamie Lynn Spears for the 17 high school teenagers that got pregnant at the same time. <ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/06/gloucester_mayo.html Gloucester mayor rebuts report of teen pregnancy pact], June 23, 2008</ref><br />
*Despite an upcoming ballot initiative to remove gay marriage from California law, [[Ellen DeGeneres]] proudly displays her [[gay]] sexuality for all to see. On August 16, 2008, DeGeneres "married" Portia de Rossi in a small ceremony in Beverly Hills. Fox News called it "the biggest celebrity union since California legalized same-sex marriage." <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,405085,00.html Reports: Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi Wed] AP, August 17, 2008</ref> Now, her fans and millions of young girls can read about her gay marriage in magazines such as People and Us Magazine, hear about it on celebrity news television shows.<br />
*Rapper [[Kanye West]] and bodyguard attacked the paparazzi at [[LAX]] airport and allegedly smashed a camera on the floor valued at $10,000. The pair were arrested for felony vandalism. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,420869,00.html Kanye West Arrested in Altercation With Paparazzi] Ap, September 11, 2008</ref><br />
*[[Heather Locklear]] was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence of a controlled substance. The officer noticed Locklear's car parked on a state highway and blocking a lane in Montecito, Ca. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,429388,00.html Heather Locklear Arrested on Suspicion of DUI] AP, September 29, 2008</ref><br />
*[[Charlie Sheen]] was arrested on Christmas Day for domestic abuse of his current wife Brooke. He was booked for second-degree assault, menacing, and criminal mischief. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2009/12/25/actor-charlie-sheen-arrested-domestic-violence-charges/?test=faces Actor Charlie Sheen Released From Jail After Domestic Abuse Arrest, Fox News, December 25, 2009]</ref> Sheen has a history that includes assaults against girlfriends and his former wife. He is also infamous for drug/alcohol abuse, having tried (and failed) numerous attempts in rehab clinics. In true Hollywood hypocristy, he currently stars in the sitcom Two and A Half Men, where he plays an "amusingly" alcohol-abusing ladies' man, except the lifestyle proves consequence-free.<br />
*Celebrity of the moment [[Kourtney Kardashian]] gave a risque lingerie shoot while pregnant with her boyfriend's child. After birth, Mom and baby adorned magazine covers, highlighting the modern acceptance of single motherhood. The cover reads ''"Baby Mason will bring our family together,"'' obscuring the traditional meaning of family. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/entertainment/2009/10/16/kardashian-sisters?slide=2 The Kardashian Family, Fox News]</ref><br />
*Actor [[Jude Law]] had a sexual relationship with model Samantha Burke that produced a daughter. It is reported that Law finally went to visit his daughter for the first time, 5 months after she was born. <ref>[http://www.celebrity-gossip.net/celebrities/hollywood/jude-law-makes-first-visit-to-love-child-216056/ Jude Law Makes First Visit To Love Child, CelebrityGossip.net, March 1, 2010]</ref><br />
*Actor [[Tom Hanks]] called Mormons 'un-American' for their support of Proposition 8 in California. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2009/01/23/tom-hanks-apologizes-calling-mormon-supporters-proposition-american/ Tom Hanks Apologizes for Calling Mormon Supporters of Proposition 8 'Un-American', Fox News, January 23, 2009]</ref><br />
*[[Woody Allen]] seduced and took pornographic photographs of the youthful daughter of his then girlfriend [[Mia Farrow]].<br />
*[[John Cusack]] calls for satanic death cult to descend on Fox News, Dick Armey, Newt Gingrich and GOP welfare freaks. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/08/31/actor-john-cusack-calls-satanic-death-fox-news-gop-leaders/?test=faces John Cusack Calls for 'Satanic Death' of Fox News, GOP Leaders, FOXNews, August 31, 2010]</ref><br />
*[[Brad Pitt]], appearing in a Spike Lee film announces his desire to see BP executives get the death penalty. <ref>[http://www.politico.com/click/stories/1008/pitt_death_penalty_for_bp.html Brad Pitt: Death Penalty For BP, Politico, August 23, 2010]</ref><br />
<br />
== Hollywood "humor" ==<br />
Another manifestation of Hollywood's offensiveness and moral depravity is found in many of its "comedy" movies. More so than any other entertainment industry, many Hollywood productions rely on lowbrow, juvenile humor. Unlike more intelligent comedies of the early to mid-20th century (such as ''The Great Dictator'' or ''Arsenic and Old Lace''), many contemporary Hollywood comedies eschew intelligence, social commentary, wit or satire in favor of lower-hanging fruit, such as "toilet humor," nudity/sex, gratuitous violence and shock value. Examples of such films include:<br />
<br />
*''American Pie'' - a long-running film franchise primarily dealing with teenage sex and alcohol, relies on jokes about sex and bodily functions<br />
*''Jackass'' - essentially a montage of ridiculous stunts and pranks with no coherent story<br />
*''South Park'' - uses constant iterations of urine, feces, farting and shock humor, such as jokes about abortion, rape and the Holocaust<br />
*''There's Something About Mary'' - contains gratuitous sex and jokes about bodily functions<br />
*''Family Guy'' - notorious for its shock tactics, this show routinely employs willful tastelessness for comedic shock value. Examples include one regular character who is a pedophile, as well as constant Hitler jokes<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Rehab ==<br />
Hollywood values often result in [[Celebrity|celebrities]] going into rehab. Here are some examples:<br />
<br />
*[[Kirsten Dunst]] checked into the [[Cirque Lodge]] treatment facility in [[Utah]] after a week of hard partying at the [[Sundance Film Festival]], according to a source at the lodge, although the lodge's director of operations denies this. <ref name = "foxkirsten"><br />
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,329545,00.html Reports Say Kirsten Dunst in Rehab; Rep for Facility Denies It], ''[[Fox News]]'', February 08, 2008</ref><br />
<br />
The following all checked into the above facility seeking treatment for various psychological problems:<br />
<br />
*[[Lindsay Lohan]]<ref name = "foxkirsten"/><br />
*[[Eva Mendes]]<ref name = "foxkirsten"/><br />
*[[Mary-Kate Olsen]]<ref name = "foxkirsten"/><br />
*[[Robert Downey Jr.]]<br />
*[[Courtney Love]]<br />
<br />
*[[Heather Locklear]]<ref>"A spokeswoman for the 47-year-old star said: 'Heather has been dealing with anxiety and depression.'" She "checked into a clinic in [[Arizona]] that treats depression."[http://www.pnas.org/content/101/11/3721.full]</ref><br />
<br />
*[[David Arquette]], enters rehab for for treatment of alcohol abuse and depression. <ref>[http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/gossip/2011/01/david-arquette-rehab-alcohol-courteney-cox-arquette.html David Arquette enters rehab; Courteney Cox supportive, L.A. Times, January 3, 2011]</ref><br />
<br />
*[[David Duchovny]], having boosted Hollywood Values through his role in a decadent television series, now finds himself trapped by the depravity that he promoted, and has had to enter rehab for his addiction to unchastity<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSN2835847820080829</ref>.<br />
<br />
== Hypocrisy ==<br />
<br />
Hollywood personalities often propose legislation such as outlawing private gun ownership, or speak out against things such as anti-gun laws, but have at the same time acted in movies contrary to their public opinions: <br />
<br />
* [[George Clooney]] on hearing that fellow actor and gun-rights advocate, [[Charlton Heston]], suffers from Alzheimer's disease, said: ''"I don't care. Charlton Heston is the head of the [[National Rifle Association]]. He deserves whatever anyone says about him."''<ref>http://www.funnyreign.com/quotes-georgeclooney.shtml</ref> Clooney starred in the film ''The Peacemaker'', in which he played an American military man defending the country from a nuclear attack; scenes in the film showed him using a gun to defend himself and others. <br />
<br />
* [[Mark Wahlberg]] upon meeting Charlton Heston on the set of the remake of ''Planet of the Apes'', Wahlberg rudely told Heston, "It was very disturbing meeting you." Later, Wahlberg would have this to say at the MTV Movie Awards: ''"I believe Charlton Heston is America's best villain because he loves guns so much. Maybe he should get the award for being president of the National Rifle Association."''<ref>http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2360</ref> Wahlberg's character in ''Planet of the Apes'' uses a gun to defend himself and other humans from the apes who would rule over them.<br />
<br />
* [[Helen Mirren]] played Queen Elizabeth II in a movie 'The Queen', but [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,414361,00.html admits she used to use cocaine] as a result of her poor life choices as a younger woman.<br />
<br />
==Using appearances to promote their [[liberal]] political views==<br />
*Rapper Kanye West infamously went way off script during a live benefit concert for victims of Hurricane Katrina, criticizing the media's treatment of images of black and white people and saying President [[George W. Bush]] "doesn't care about black people."<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/03/AR2005090300165.html</ref><br />
*During the live broadcast of the 2007 Emmy Awards, actress Sally Field went on a sputtering anti-war rant, eventually concluding by saying, "If the mothers ruled the world, there would be no g**d*** war in the first place." She received thunderous applause from the Hollywood audience for her vulgar remark.<ref>http://www.abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=3610891</ref><br />
*[[Michael Moore]] surprised no one by criticizing President Bush during his 2003 Oscar acceptance speech for "Bowling for Columbine," saying, "We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elect a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man who's sending us to war for fictitious reasons, whether it's the fiction of duct tape or the fiction of orange alerts. We are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Mr. Bush. Shame on you."<ref>http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/features/20030323-2028-oscars-moore.html</ref><br />
*Actress Jessica Lange verbally attacked President Bush and the Iraq War during a 2008 commencement speech at Sarah Lawrence College in Yonkers, New York, stating, "We are living in an America that, in the last seven and a half years, has waged an unnecessary war, established prison camps, condoned torture, employed corporate armies, eliminated the right of habeas corpus, practiced extraordinary rendition, and believe me, this is only a partial list."<ref>http://cbs5.com/politics/Jessica.Lange.President.2.732264.html</ref><br />
*Actress Megan Fox was recently quoted by MSN in a piece entitled "The Wit and Wisdom of Megan Fox" discussing her new movie Transformers 2. She said "why not just take out all of the white trash, hillbilly, anti-gay, super Bible-beating people in Middle America?” <ref>[http://www.onenewsnow.com/Blog/Default.aspx?id=559876 Megan Fox would barter using ‘Bible-beating white trash’]OneNewsNow.com</ref><br />
<br />
==Vanity and [[Idol]] Worship==<br />
[[Hollywood]] places a value on appearance and it is driven into the minds of those who they seek profits and adulation from. There is such the need to be rich and famous that anything goes. It may be glamorizing to reveal skin <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/entertainment/2009/07/15/lovely-talented-khloe-kardashian?test=faces The youngest of the Kardashian gals decided flashing photographers was the best way to get some attention, FOX News, April 1, 2010]</ref> or shamelessly being sex symbols to audiences. Pat-your-back awards ceremonies whereby we breathlessly await the ''Stars'' to arrive. Naturally, scandals make big headlines and these people are no stranger to controversy, for [[money]]. These fake [[Gods]] have captured the hearts of millions upon millions who follow their every move. Negative stereotypes poison the minds of their followers. Women feel less worthy due to the overwhelming influence touching every part of society. [[Pennsylvania State University|Penn State's]] Media Research found the following regarding Women's magazines, "Past research indicates that exposure to thin models results in lower [[self-esteem]] and decreased weight satisfaction, and to increased depression, guilt, shame, [[stress]], insecurity and body dissatisfaction." <ref>[http://www.psu.edu/dept/medialab/research/selfworth.html Construction of Beauty as a Measure of Self-Worth] Penn State Media Research</ref><br />
<br />
[[File:Celebrity.jpg|right|250px]]<br />
<br />
==Award Shows==<br />
Fans of Hollywood are served copious amounts of vanity and glamour as celebrities are greeted on the red-carpet attending award events. Paparazzi snap pictures and the stars are rated for their appearance in various tabloids and entertainment television. Once the celebrities have arrived at the awards, television cameras capture for the masses acceptance speeches of their beloved stars. Once limited to couple of banquets such as the [[Emmy Award|Emmys]] or [[Golden Globe]]s, now some two-dozen award shows are vying for exposure. These new award shows offer glimpses into ego and moral depravity of Hollywood. It's not uncommon for the stars to act cool by cussing to the audience during acceptance speeches. These awards shows have become tawdry events that are marketed mostly to teens. <br />
<br />
*Madonna engages in a lustful-lesbian kiss onstage to [[Britney Spears]] at the 2003 MTV Music Video Awards. <ref>[http://top40.about.com/od/britneyspears/ig/Britney-Spears-Photo-Biography/Britney-Spears-Kissing-Madonna.htm Britney Spears and Madonna Kiss, About.com, 2003]</ref><br />
*A notoriously self-serving [[Kanye West]] jumped onstage at the [[MTV Video Awards]] to interrupt an acceptance speech by [[Taylor Swift]]. <ref>[http://www.examiner.com/x-15972-Raleigh-Pop-Culture-Examiner~y2009m9d14-MTV-Video-Music-Awards-inspire-annual-controversy MTV Video Music Awards inspire annual controversy, Examiner.com, September 14, 2009]</ref> <br />
*[[Mariah Carey]] attended the Palm Springs International Film Festival. Her acceptance speech was made while completely drunk. <ref>[http://neonlimelight.com/2010/01/06/video-mariah-carey-accepts-film-festival-award-drunk/ Video: Mariah Carey Accepts Film Festival Award Drunk, Neonlimelight.com, January 6, 2010]</ref> <br />
*[[Miley Cyrus]] performed at the [[Teen Choice Awards]] in August 2009. The 16-year old was dancing around on a stripper pole. <ref>[http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1619183/20090820/cyrus__miley.jhtml Billy Ray Cyrus Defends Miley's Teen Choice Pole Dance, MTV.com, August 20, 2009]</ref> <br />
*Actor [[Jack Black]] opened the 2009 MTV Video Awards by leading everyone in a prayer to [[satan]]. <ref>[http://christianpress.com/content/entertainment/11-lifestyle/360-jack-black-leads-a-prayer-to-the-devil-at-the-2009-mtv-awards satan Jack Black Leads A Prayer To The Devil At The 2009 MTV Awards, Christian Press, September 14, 2009 ]</ref> <br />
*Adam Lambert’s [[American Music Awards]] performance received over 1500 complaints for flipping off the audience, kissing a male keyboard player, and fondling several of his backup dancers. <ref>[http://www.ecanadanow.com/entertainment/2009/11/28/did-you-find-adam-lamberts-american-music-awards-performance-offensive/comment-page-1/ Did You Find Adam Lambert’s American Music Awards Performance Offensive?, eCanadanow.com, November 28, 2009]</ref><br />
<br />
==Preying on Underage Stars==<br />
<br />
Very many child actors and actresses have gone on to have damaged and tragically short lives as a result of early exposure to Hollywood Values.<br />
<br />
Debbie Gibson reflects on her life as a sixteen-year-old teenage Pop star and her exposure to the very sinister side of show business. “It is very disheartening that there are so many older men that prey on young performers.” What is even more disturbing than dirty male fans would be older male record executives trying to take her to adult parties and corrupt her with alcohol. Even the way the paparazzi stalk the younger artists is very different from following around adults. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,533542,00.html?test=faces Debbie Gibson Speaks Out About Pedophile Fans Wanting to 'Corrupt Little Girls' Fox News, July 17, 2009]</ref><br />
<br />
The father of teen idol Miley Cyrus said Disney destroyed their family. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/02/15/billy-ray-cyrus-scared-daughter-miley-says-hannah-montana-destroyed-family/#?test=faces Billy Ray Cyrus Scared For Daughter Miley, Says Hannah Montana 'Destroyed My Family', Fox News, February 15, 2011 </ref> Billy Ray Cyrus accuses Miley's 'handlers' (Disney Executives) of going too far to promote her and when she got bad press they made the father the scapegoat.<br />
<br />
==Productions==<br />
The diseased moral values of the Liberal-dominated entertainment industry are manifested all too clearly in many of the products of that industry - motion pictures and television programs that offer no edification or instruction to the viewer, but plumb a cesspit of license and depravity. Some recent examples include the television series ''Desperate Housewives'' and the TV series/movie ''[[Sex and the City]]''.<br />
<br />
==Religion==<br />
A short study of the ten most successful actors <ref>http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-successful-actors-at-the-box-office.php 10 most successful actors] </ref> shows that only 50% are Christian (compared to 76% for the general population), with 30% expressing no religious beliefs at all (15% in the general public). These actors have had successful careers and it is very likely that religious affiliation in regular actors is much lower, exposing or predisposing them to the influence of Hollywood values.<br />
<br />
[[Scientology]] is practiced by many Hollywood personalities. Tom Cruise and John Travolta are major spokesmen for this religion.<br />
<br />
==Books==<br />
* ''Hollywood Against America''<br />
* ''Hollywood Babylon'' (1965) by Kenneth Anger (US edition)<br />
* ''Hollywood Babylon II'' (1984) by Kenneth Anger<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
*[[Supermodel]]s<br />
*[[Gallery of American Heroes]]<br />
*[[World Famous Pictures]]<br />
<br />
{{Liberalism}}<br />
== References ==<br />
{{Reflist|3}}<br />
<br />
==External Links==<br />
*[http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ic_Q3agTpruvzoCJ5UxWaAqGJW3A Bush attacks 'Hollywood values'], ''AFP'', Oct 1, 2007<br />
*[http://www.thesmokinggun.com/mugshots/index.html Mug-shots of arrested Hollywood stars]<br />
*[http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/news/articles/2010/mtvmovieawards.asp Parent's Television Council: MTV’s Movie Awards Will Honor Profanity]<br />
*[http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/vernon/100802 From Hollywood: to Hitler with love (Stalin, too)]<br />
*[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/12/17/dumbest-things-celebs-said/?test=faces Ten Dumbest Things Celebs Said in 2010]<br />
*[http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/entertainment/2011/01/04/foul-mouthed-celebs/?test=faces#slide=1 Foul Mouthed Celebrities]<br />
*[http://www.irishexaminerusa.com/mt/2011/01/04/pop_culture_killing_classic_tr.html Pop Culture Killing Classic Traditions]<br />
[[category:entertainment]]<br />
[[Category:Liberal Traits]]<br />
[[Category:Social Problems]]</div>PeterUkerhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=GOProud&diff=849530GOProud2011-02-15T20:40:16Z<p>PeterUker: /* Leftist Policies */ ignorance of the Bible</p>
<hr />
<div>'''GOProud''' is a gay rights group that consists of [[RINO]]s. They consider themselves conservatives who believe in [[limited government]], individual liberty, free markets, national defense and a strong foreign policy. Per their website "We believe that every individual should be equal under the law." This stance would include the right to gay marriage. Some people believe the group has more in common with conservatism than the [[libertarian]] wing. Traditional conservatism is defined by social issues; God, heterosexual marriage, etc. As such, GOProud divides the conservative movement which is now evident in the annual [[CPAC]] convention and the refusal of social conservative groups to attend an event that promotes [[homosexuality]] from GOProud. The co-founders of GOProud are Jimmy LaSalvia and Christopher Barron, a political director for [[Planned Parenthood]].<ref>[http://www.gaypatriot.net/2005/11/16/breaking-news-log-cabin-loses-political-director-to-planned-parenthood/ BREAKING NEWS: LOG CABIN LOSES POLITICAL DIRECTOR TO PLANNED PARENTHOOD, Gay Patriot, November 16, 2005]</ref> In a rejection of the [[homosexual agenda]], the CPAC board of directors voted to exclude GOProud from future CPAC conferences.<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=263673 GOProud out at annual summit of conservatives]</ref><br />
<br />
==Leftist Policies==<br />
*Christopher Barron calls Cleta Mitchell, a conservative lawyer fighting same-sex marriage in D.C., a "nasty [[bigot]]." <ref>[http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/02/10/this-is-too-much-for-me/ This is Too Much For Me, Red State, February 10, 2011]</ref><br />
*GOProud attacks conservative [[Tim Pawlenty]] for his support of Don't Ask Don't Tell. <ref>[http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/02/08/reciprocal-courtesy-on-a-bridge-too-far/ Reciprocal Courtesy On a Bridge Too Far, Red State, February 2011]</ref> <br />
*GOProud calls conservative leader [[Jim DeMint]] "outrageous and bizarre" for suggesting the barring of openly [[gay]] teachers from school. <ref>[http://www.goproud.org/jim-demint-trying-his-best-to-make-alvin-greene-look-sane/ Jim DeMint: Trying His Best to Make Alvin Greene Look Sane, GOProud, October 5, 2010]</ref><br />
*GOProud attempt to [[dilute]] the [[Biblical]] condemnation of [[homosexuality]] as a [[sin]] and an [[abomination]] unto [[God]].<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
* [[Log Cabin Republicans]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==External Links==<br />
* [http://www.goproud.org Official website]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Homosexuality]]<br />
[[Category:Politics]]</div>PeterUkerhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&diff=849529Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth2011-02-15T20:37:03Z<p>PeterUker: /* Dissipation of Underground Well Water */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''''For older discussions, see the archives: [[Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth/Archive 1|Archive 1]].'''''<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
<!----- New discussions below this line ---><br />
I'd like to take out the phrase "asserted by atheists" from one of the Astronomy counterexamples, because it is not just atheists who believe in an [[Old Earth]] but also [[Old Earth Creationists]]. Any objections? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 07:37, 20 April 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Freshwater lakes are known to be relatively young. ==<br />
<br />
I'd like to have this point removed: The [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth/Archive_1#Countering_the_counter_examples|previous discussion]] has shown that it doesn't have any merit.<br />
<br />
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 15:05, 2 May 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
As no one added to the previous discussion, I removed the point. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 14:18, 9 May 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== continued existence of fragile natural arches ==<br />
<br />
That's as bad as the example of the lakes: it reminds me of stating: ''he cannot be old, all his pimples are recent''. And the given references don't mention any ''extrapolation''. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 14:03, 9 May 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Great Lakes ==<br />
<br />
''The massive [[Great Lakes]] are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago''<br />
<br />
That would be only a counterexample, if there were any geologist who thought them to be millions of years old. But it seems to be scientific consensus that these lakes were created during the last great ice age ca. 10,000 years ago. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 14:07, 9 May 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Salt Water Lakes ==<br />
<br />
''The existence of inland saltwater lakes, such as [[Mono Lake]] and the [[Great Salt Lake]], suggest a recent global [[flood]]''<br />
<br />
No, it doesn't. It just suggests that [[endorheic]] lakes exist - lakes without an outflow to rivers or the ocean. If such a sea has an inflow, any dissolved material (like salts) will accumulate, while the water just evaporates.<br />
<br />
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 14:12, 9 May 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Reply to above 4 comments ==<br />
<br />
The 4 comments above are not substantive. In each case, the evidence is that a basic attribute of Earth ''is'' young, and nothing above supports the denial of this fact.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:58, 9 May 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:No. But they are all counterarguments to the concreteness of your examples. The comments above are all traditionally accepted and easily verifiable scientific theories that offer a more plausible and widely accepted version of what happened than the case you present. Take for example, your point regarding inland saltwater lakes. You make the claim that they can ONLY exist with the aid of a global flood. This is CATEGORICALLY untrue, and demonstrates a dangerous predisposition to jump to conclusions without scientific fact. As mentioned above. The existence of said lakes is attributed to a chemical tendency known as distillation. Water is volatile and salt is not, therefore water evaporates out of the lake until the concentration of salt and other solids is extremely high. You can duplicate this experiment at home by taking a large jug of tap water and allowing it to sit in a hot, bright, dry room for a few weeks. When you return, the tap water will have an extremely high salinity, no ocean water needed.<br />
<br />
:Conversely, the claim about a global flood has numerous holes in it. For one, there is no uniform layer of sediment that exists evenly in global geological strata. Such a layer would be inevitable if the world really was entirely submerged for any appreciable period of time. Secondly, and more importantly, there isn't enough water to fill the oceans AND cover the land. A global flood would require that there had once been a lot of water that is no longer present on earth, and this simply can't happen.<br />
<br />
:I'm sorry to say, Andy, but YOUR arguments are not substantive.--[[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 17:02, 29 Sept 2010 (GMT+2)<br />
<br />
== What's a counterexample? ==<br />
<br />
Maybe we have to start with the question above. I think it is reasonable to expect a ''counterexample'' to have some basic properties:<br />
<br />
# it should not be easily - or even obviously - be reconciled or explained within the theory of an ''Old Earth''.<br />
# it should be at least as well be explained within the concurring theory of a ''Young Earth'' and finally:<br />
# the negation of the counterexample should be even more obviously and more easily be reconciled or explained within the theory of an ''Old Earth''.<br />
<br />
What are the theories saying? Here are two working definitions...<br />
<br />
'''Old Earth''': Since the 18th century, scientist are convinced that the surface of the Earth is changing gradually over long periods of time. So, if there is a somewhat widespread geological feature, we expect that we can observe it in all stages of development.<br />
<br />
'''Young Earth''': The surface of the Earth was mainly shaped as we find it now by the Great Flood.<br />
<br />
So, how do the examples fit in?<br />
<br />
: Frank, the style of your remarks reflect a lack of an open mind towards this issue. You state, "Since the 18th century, scientist[s] are convinced ... over long periods of time." This is an historical distortion, and unhelpful to an open-minded discussion even if were true.<br />
<br />
: I welcome open-minded discussions, but closed-minded discussions are often a waste of time. So please show some signs of an open mind about this first. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:10, 11 May 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I'm all for an open-minded discussion, too, and I'm sorry if my previous comment didn't convey this. So, let's drop the historical aspect, and just say:<br />
::*'''Old Earth''': The surface of the Earth is changing gradually over long periods of time, and the rate of this change is roughly constant.<br />
::*'''Young Earth''': The surface of the Earth was mainly shaped by the Great Flood a couple of thousands years ago.<br />
<br />
::But I hope you can agree with the basic properties (points 1-3 above) a ''counterexample to an Old Earth'' should have? <br />
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 07:46, 12 May 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Frank, are you trying to refute any of the counterexamples? (In which case please provide some actual evidence) Your closed-minded insistence on causing argument seems pointless. [[User:ArnoldR|ArnoldR]] 08:34, 12 May 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
=== The continued existence of fragile natural arches without having collapsed a short time period for erosion and stresses on them ===<br />
''Fragile natural arches'' exist, as there are always formed new ones. Old natural arches collapse, but [http://www.archmillennium.net/Baby_Arch.htm others] may [http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/close/kcb60/level2/lith61.html replace] them. What if there were no natural arches? I don't think that anybody had thought of them then.<br />
<br />
=== The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago ===<br />
No geologists thinks that these lakes are millions of years old: they were created during the last ice age. Lakes are constantly created (e.g., when rivers change there bed), and happen to perish over time ([[Messel pit]]). Some are older than others ([[Baikal sea]]). The absence of new lakes would be quite puzzling for geologists! And Earth isn't as young as the youngest lake, but much older than the oldest one... (by FrankC)<br />
<br />
: The "ice age theory" was a patch to try to explain away the counterexample. The patch fails, however, because freshwater lakes exist near the Equator, too far from any plausible ice.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:20, 15 May 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::It quite a leap to get from ''Great Lakes were created during the last ice age'' to ''all lakes were created during the last ice age''! There a various mechanisms to form a lake, though in the north (Canada, US, Finland) the ice age is responsible for most of them. I doubt that Young Earth Creationists claim that all lakes were created during the [[Great Flood]], though I assume that they think that no lake is older than this. <br />
::BTW, what do you think of the three basic properties of a counterexample which I mentioned above?<br />
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:45, 18 May 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Well, then, the freshwater lakes that were not formed by the (implausible) "ice age" theory serve as a counterexample.<br />
<br />
::: As to your suggestion of three basis properties of a counterexample, I comment on each here:<br />
<br />
::::1. it should not be easily - or even obviously - be reconciled or explained within the theory of an Old Earth.<br />
<br />
:::::This would work if you include a requirement of plausibility.<br />
<br />
::::2. it should be at least as well be explained within the concurring theory of a Young Earth and finally:<br />
<br />
:::::No, this is not required, but illustrates a basic flaw in Old-Earth-thinking. Do you think mathematicians accept the validity of a hypothesis as long as no competing hypothesis has been proven? Of course not.<br />
<br />
::::3. the negation of the counterexample should be even more obviously and more easily be reconciled or explained within the theory of an Old Earth. <br />
<br />
:::::This is incoherent, but illustrates the contorted logic of Old-Earth advocates.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:39, 18 May 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::''implausible ice age theory''? What's implausible about that? It just doesn't fit your YEC preconceptions.<br />
::::::# Yes, I include the requirement of plausibility. What's the point of implausible counterexamples?<br />
::::::# Is there a third theory I haven't heard of? If the Earth isn't young, it is old. <br />
::::::# ''This is incoherent, but illustrates the contorted logic of Old-Earth advocates''. No, I'm afraid, that' just obvious common sense.<br />
::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:55, 18 May 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::: Frank, if you're not going to address my substantive points, then please don't respond. I make a direct analogy to mathematical hypotheses and you ignored it. Do you really think a mathematical hypothesis must be true if there is no proof for the converse?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:16, 18 May 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I'm sorry, I seem to have missed the substantive points, so I try to make myself clearer by using the language of logic. So, let's '''C''' be a counterexample to the Old Earth Theory ('''OET'''). If '''C''' is true, than '''OET''' should be false, that's the first point:<br />
::::::::'''1: ''' '''C &rArr; ~OET'''. If '''C''' is a good counterexample, than this equation should be obvious for everyone. <br />
::::::::I thought the Young Earth Theory ('''YET''') and the Old Earth Theory to be complementary, so ''' YET = ~OET'''. Therefore obviously<br />
::::::::'''2: ''' '''C &rArr; YET'''<br />
::::::::And from ''1'', one gets<br />
::::::::'''3: ''' ''' OET &rArr; ~C'''<br />
::::::::I hope that this straightforward formulation is less confusing than my verbose ''the negation of the counterexample should be even more obviously and more easily be reconciled or explained within the theory of an Old Earth. '' I formulated it this way, as all this isn't as ''exact'' as one would wish for: what's an obvious relation for one, needs quite an elaborate explanation for another. <br />
<br />
::::::::But now for ''The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago ''. As I said before, OET don't claim that these lakes existed millions of years ago, but are quite recent. You then said : '' The patch fails, however, because freshwater lakes exist near the Equator, too far from any plausible ice.'' So, what's your ''counterexample'' now? Do you claim that the OET implies that all lakes are of the same age or were created in the same way? It seems to me that you are saying: ''As there are lakes near the Equator, the Great Lakes are millions of years old - according to OET''. But that's just a [[strawman]], and shouldn't be included in the list.<br />
::::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:31, 21 May 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
=== The existence of inland saltwater lakes, such as Mono Lake and the Great Salt Lake, suggest a recent global flood ===<br />
As said earlier, saltwater lakes are explained easily as being [[endorheic]]. If there were no saltwater seas, then the endorheic basins would have to be very unstable, preventing bodies of water to become older than a couple of hundred years. This would imply quite a geologic activity, which we don't observe. But how do these inland saltwater lakes fit within the theory of a ''Young Earth''? Do you imply that the Earth was inundated by a salty ocean for forty days and nights? How could anything survive - and multiply - on this salty ground when the water receded? To explain these lakes with a global flood poses quite a few problems. <br />
So, this ''counterexample'' is especially unconvincing, as it fails all three basic properties...<br />
<br />
=== An extrapolation of time between the collapse of weaker arches with still-standing stronger arches supports a young earth age ===<br />
Has anyone done this extrapolation? Without it, the point is moot.<br />
<br />
At the moment, the article impresses with the quantity of examples. But the obvious weakness of some examples distracts from other examples which may have some merit.<br />
<br />
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:00, 11 May 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Lakes again ==<br />
<br />
*It was repeatedly explained why the ''Great Lakes'' are no countexample to an Old Earth.<br />
*Aschlafly concluded: ''Well, then, the freshwater lakes that were not formed by the (implausible) "ice age" theory serve as a counterexample."''<br />
*Aschlafly, could you reformulate the ''counterexample'' in question? Thanks.<br />
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:49, 1 June 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: There are large freshwater lakes near the Equator. Do you think an "Ice Age" formed them also?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:10, 1 June 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::To quote myself: ''There a various mechanisms to form a lake, though in the north (Canada, US, Finland) the ice age is responsible for most of them. I doubt that Young Earth Creationists claim that all lakes were created during the Great Flood, though I assume that they think that no lake is older than this.'' [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:15, 1 June 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: You may quote yourself, but your answer was less than direct. You seem to admit that that the Ice Age did NOT form the large freshwater lakes near the Equator. But I'm confident that any testing done on those lakes will reveal a young age for them also. That defies explanation consistent with an Old Earth theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:29, 1 June 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: Pfft, in the 70's [[Liberal|liberals]] were saying that the earth was cooling. Now, its supposedly warming. I wouldn't be surprised if they change their tune about the "Ice Age" in 40 years.<br />
<br />
''But I'm confident that any testing done on those lakes will reveal a young age for them also.''<br />
<br />
I'm afraid that your confidence is misplaced - the examinations and tests of geologists lead to different results. Let's have a closer look - what lakes are we talking about? Near to the equator - say in the strip between 5° North and 5° South - the number of lakes of considerable size isn't big:<br />
*[[South America]]: none<br />
*[[Indonesia]]: '''Lake Toba''' on [[Sumatra]], '''Lake Tempe''' and '''Lake Poso''' on [[Sulawesi]]. Lake Toba is the largest volcanic lake in the world, resulting from an eruption 69,000 - 78,000 years ago. So, it's older (according to the test of geologists) than the last [[Ice Age]], but fairly young on a geological scale. Lake Tempe is a flood plain of an average depth of 5m, so it's quite volatile in geological standards. Lake Poso is a tectonic lake and regarded as ancient (1 - 2 million years).<br />
*[[Africa]]: Here you find the [[African Great Lakes]], in the area of our interest especially, the [[Lake Victoria]], [[Lake Tanganyika]], [[Lake Turkana]], [[Lake Albert]], [[Lake Kivu]], and [[Lake Edward]]. These are located in the [[Great Rift Valley]], which is - according to geologists - a continental rift zone. Though you may call ''Lake Victoria'' young - as it's only 500,000 old and dried out a couple of times, the other lakes are estimated to be roughly 4 million years old.<br />
<br />
All of these lakes are older than the American [[Great Lakes]]. So, I repeat my request: please, remove ''The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago '' from the list of counterexamples:<br />
* it is misleading, as ''atheistic geologists'' don't claim that these lakes ''have existed millions of years ago''<br />
* your alternate approach (''Well, then, the freshwater lakes that were not formed by the (implausible) "ice age" theory serve as a counterexample'') doesn't work neither, as there are ancient (&asymp; 4 million years) freshwater lakes.<br />
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:47, 2 June 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: None of the freshwater lakes are older than 10,000 years, and you cite nothing to the contrary. Carbon dating, for example, repeatedly confirms that even the oldest freshwater sources are young.<br />
<br />
: I've answered your question, now how about answering mine below, repeated here for your convenience: do you agree that arguing against your view of creationism is no basis for defending the [[Old Earth]] theory? {{unsigned|Aschlafly}}<br />
<br />
::''None of the freshwater lakes are older than 10,000 years, and you cite nothing to the contrary.''<br />
::On the contrary, there is little doubt under geologists that all of the lakes above are not young (with the possible exception of Lake Tempe) . Every textbook on geology will tell you that the oldes of Great African Lakes were formed &asymp; 4 mya ago, with Lake Victoria being the youngest of the lot<ref>John Reader, ''Africa'', National Geographic 9/2001</ref>. The [http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/volcano.cfm?vnum=0601-09= Toba event] took place &asymp; 70,000 years ago.<br />
::''Carbon dating, for example, repeatedly confirms that even the oldest freshwater sources are young.''<br />
::This doesn't make sense. Carbon dating is only used on relatively young (holecenic) freshwater sources. (More in a separate section)<br />
::''I've answered your question, now how about answering mine below, repeated here for your convenience: do you agree that arguing against your view of creationism is no basis for defending the [[Old Earth]] theory?''<br />
::I thought that I've answered this question, too, but I'll elaborate: <br />
::*no, arguing against one theory doesn't defend the other. But both theories can't be true simultaneously - though both could be false. OTOH, there aren't that many concurring theories out there. And entries like [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&diff=784643&oldid=784484 this] of your fellow sysop ''Conservative'' show that on this page, Old Earth Theory and Young Earth Theory are put against each other.<br />
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:58, 5 June 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: You still don't explain why you have repeatedly argued that an Old Earth theory must be true because you think that your view of creationism is false. I don't know why you include creationism at all in your reasoning, given that you think it is false. Would you expect a mathematician to chant as part of his proof of a difficult problem a statement that another proposed proof is false? Of course not. The Old Earth theory is disproved by the numerous counterexamples, and creationism is irrelevant to that disproof or a reasoned discussion of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:07, 6 June 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Implausibility of the Ice Age Theory ==<br />
<br />
What's implausible about it? The article [[Ice Age]] doesn't say anything about plausibility. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:51, 1 June 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: What is implausible is that sheets of ice from the north would carve the Great Lakes in their unique shape, plus the Mississippi bluffs that sometimes face north-to-south, plus other unexpected formations. Has a computer simulation ever duplicated this result? I've never found a paper about such a simulation in my search for one. Have you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:29, 1 June 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I'm not aware of any computer simulation of the formation of the Great Lakes and the Mississippi which encompasses the whole of North America and is granular enough to show features like the bluffs you spoke of - neither for the last [[Ice Age]] nor for the [[Great Flood]].<br />
<br />
::The creation of the Great Lakes however can be studied by geologists who examined the history of this area. Their surveys paint an interesting picture of the formation of the Great Lakes ([http://www.emporia.edu/earthsci/student/damery1/gl_form.html here] an introduction).<br />
<br />
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:49, 2 June 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Frank, you repeatedly reason in an "either-or" manner, as though the only two possibilities are the [[Old Earth]] and your view of [[creationism]]. That's not logical or scientific. Both could be wrong. No mathematician would claim that if one proof is defective then an alternative proof must be correct.<br />
<br />
<br />
::: If the Ice Age theory provided a plausible explanation for the Great Lakes and other observed formations (such as the Mississippi bluffs), then a computer simulation would be easy to build. But it hasn't been done, which suggests that the Ice Age theory is implausible in explaining all that is observed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:14, 2 June 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::*both could be false, both aren't simulated globally<br />
:::*are you ''confident'' that such a simulation could be easily build? The formation of the Great Lakes has been simulatied - that's something I'm confident of.<br />
:::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:24, 2 June 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::(Could you please answer to my substantive edits in the previous section? Thanks. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:25, 2 June 2010 (EDT))<br />
<br />
:::: Computer simulations would be easy to make. scientists clearly have access to computers. If they're so confident of their "theories" why not make an accurate simulation and add that as proof? I think they know there irratioinal beliefs won't help up to scruteny. FrankC, just have an open mind. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 12:36, 2 June 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::: Actually, this PDF contains the results of just such a survey: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V72-48F04CM-26&_user=10&_coverDate=08/20/1990&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1478705466&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=4e83cc89688e873bc3fa1889ab02a7b4&searchtype=a<br />
<br />
:::::Andy, and ReligiousRight, I would suggest you both take your own advice on open-mindedness and try to read it.--[[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 17:17 29 Sept 2010 (GMT+2)<br />
<br />
:::::And, just as a side note: As a programmer, I can assure you that simulating systems that involve literally millions of variables is about as easy as as it sounds.--[[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 17:17 29 Sept 2010 (GMT+2)<br />
<br />
== All carbon dating of water supplies, even the most ancient and the deepest underground reservoirs, result in relatively young ages ==<br />
<br />
# All [[carbon dating]] of water supplies, even the most ancient and the deepest underground reservoirs, result in relatively young ages,<ref>http://www.betalabservices.com/PDF/Geyh.pdf</ref> and no water has been found suggesting an Old Earth.<br />
<br />
The source doesn't corroborate the claim. The authors of the study seem to be well aware of the limits of [[carbon dating]], and don't try to apply it to pre-Holecene water. And of course, a reservoir can be older than the water it holds (you can't judge the age of the glass by the vintage of the wine!).<br />
<br />
Conservapedia's article on [[carbon dating]] highlights the fact that it can't be used to determine ages older than 50,000 years. <br />
<br />
nota bene: the source shouldn't be used for ''lakes'' at all: it mentions lakes only in a passing reference to the founder of the science of dating water, Franke and Deevey.<br />
<br />
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:08, 5 June 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
:"14C dating of the DIC in palaeowater is indispensable for paleohydrological and palaeoclimatologi-<br />
cal reconstructions and for applied hydrogeological studies. Numerical mass-transport modeling<br />
profits from the improvement of hydrogeological conceptions and the revision of boundary condi-<br />
tions. In the case of non-steady-state recharge conditions, maximum and minimum recharge rates in<br />
the past may be estimated from 14C dates of DIC via numerical modeling.<br />
<br />
:14C dates measured from DIC enable the determination of regional geohydraulic parameters and<br />
allow water balances to be checked. In most applications, complementary environmental isotope<br />
analyses of hydrogen and oxygen together with general hydrochemical measurements are recom-<br />
mended to facilitate a comprehensive and thorough interpretation of the 14C dates (Cark and Fritz<br />
1997).<br />
<br />
:A primary task towards a significant improvement in the applied 14C dating of groundwater remains<br />
with the development of procedures that will enable 14C activities measured from DIC to be confi-<br />
dently included in the calibration of finite-element and compartmental modeling exercises."<br />
<br />
:This is a quote from the conclusion of the paper Andy cited to make his point about C-14 testing. In short, the conclusion says that it is necessary to further develop C-14 testing for dissolved carbons so as to improve our understanding of paleohydrology. The paper never makes concrete assertions about the "age" of the water, just suggestions for a method of testing the organic mater in water to help determine the age of isolated aquifers (NOT LAKES, which would have inconsistent levels due to evaporation and run-off.<br />
<br />
:Andy, please start showing more discretion with the scope of your claims, and present better evidence. Bad arguments are a detraction from the integrity of this site, and your posts only end up hurting our argument.--[[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 17:43 29 Sept 2010 (GMT+2)<br />
<br />
== Answer to Aschlafy ==<br />
<br />
You asked: ''You still don't explain why you have repeatedly argued that an Old Earth theory must be true because you think that your view of creationism is false. I don't know why you include creationism at all in your reasoning, given that you think it is false. Would you expect a mathematician to chant as part of his proof of a difficult problem a statement that another proposed proof is false? ''<br />
<br />
I don't think that the reason for the Old Earth theory to be true is that Young Earth creationism is false. But even if I followed the insinuated reasoning above, that shouldn't influence the topic of our discussion: ''counterexamples to an Old Earth''. On this talkpage, I want to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these counterexamples.<br />
<br />
Just for an analogy. Often, you hear criticism of the infallibility of the Bible phrased as questions like ''Whom did Cain marry?'' ''What's the value of π according to 1 Kings 7:23?''. These questions can be phrased as ''counterexamples to Biblical inerrancy'':<br />
<br />
*Cain dwelt in the land of Nod. There were no other people. So he couldn't get a wife.<br />
<br />
*The circumference and the diameter of a bronze vessel are given as 30 units and 10 units. Therefore, the Bible claims that π equals 3.<br />
<br />
Are these valid ''counterexamples''? Would someone using these examples in a discussion impress his dialog partners? No , of course not! The first one makes a claim (''there were no other people'' - Adam and Eve had other children!) not made in the Bible - therefore erecting a straw-man, the second one talks about the features of a special object: maybe there was a brim? And ''3''' ''is'' an approximation for π.... a These so-called ''counterexamples'' are easily explained within the Biblical framework, and anyone using them shows just his ignorance in these matters. Therefore, repeating them and ignoring the given explanation is just a Mantric exercise for those who chose not to face reality: I hope that we can agree that these ''counterexamples'' are weak, and their weakness can be seen be everyone - believing in Biblical inerrancy or not.<br />
<br />
I'm afraid that the same must be said about some of the ''counterexamples to an Old Earth'': the most impressive about them is their number. But the individual examples tend to be quite weak. What happens to a pupil using them in a discussion with his fellow students - or his teacher? He will be faced with further questions and explanations. For instance, look at:<br />
<br />
*The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago <br />
<br />
Here, the straw-man are the ''millions of years'': no geologist is claiming that the Great Lakes are that old. What do you expect the pupil to answer to this? Should he chose to ignore the explanation and go on to the next point in the list? After a couple of easily refuted points, his public will get weary and start to think that there isn't a good counterexample against an Old Age of the Earth.<br />
<br />
To prevent this, you should perhaps elaborate the examples, and give refutations for the explanations of geologists.<br />
<br />
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:39, 8 June 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:What if we assume that geologists really do think that the Great Lakes were made by icebergs 10,000 years ago instead of 10,000,000? There is still no proof of this, not even a computer model (which I assure you could be easily done). Your argument is much ado about nothing. [[User:NateSmall|NateSmall]] 14:59, 8 June 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::See my post responding to this topic earlier. The model is there in the link. Other proof includes any of the numerous geological surveys that can be found by googling the topic in google scholar. Also, "much ado about nothing" is taken from Shakespearian slang for sex crazed. I find the assertion that Frank is a sex addict just because you disagree with him to be insulting.--[[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 17:49 29 Sept 2010 (GMT+2)<br />
<br />
== Observations on some deceitful points in this article ==<br />
<br />
Hi. I'm new here after finding this site from a google search on abortion. I also came across this, um, peculiar article. I looked at some of the facts presented and it looks deliberately misleading:<br />
<br />
*For example, because freshwater lakes appear to be "young" (subjective term but we'll go with it) has no indication on the age of the earth.<br />
<br />
*The earth's magnetic field is indeed declining, but when I go to that NASA site, in the ''same, exact'' paragraph, it says:<br />
<br />
{{Cquote|There have been about 170 of these reversals during the last 76 million years <u>according to geological evidence</u>. The time between reversals seems to be growing longer, and is currently about 300,000 years or so. The last one of these happened about 770,000 years ago (0.77 on the graph). We are currently living during a period that has been called the Brunhes Magnetic Chron when the South Magnetic Pole is in the Northern Hemisphere. During the previous Matumaya Magnetic Chron, the North Magnetic Pole was in the Northern Hemisphere! Note that, from the polarity figure, at a time 0.94 million years ago (940,000 years ago) the magnetic field reverse itself by going nearly to 'zero' but then after a few thousand years it recovered and began to increase in strength. During the next 150,000 years it rose to a maximum strength and then began to decline. Notice, also, how fast the magnetic field recovers after it reaches 'zero', in some cases much less than 10,000 years.}}<br />
<br />
.. but then the article has:<br />
<br />
''Presently, Earth's magnetic field is weakening in strength by 5% every 100 years. ... Not comparable to an old earth''<br />
<br />
Kind of deceptive and misleading, if not blatantly lying, no? <br />
<br />
Thanks for your feedback, [[User:DouglasM|DouglasM]] 15:45, 8 June 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
===Another observation===<br />
Religulous Right [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&diff=786079&oldid=786069 undid] an edit of mine, so I'll explain why I removed it. First off, it's highly speculative and opinionated to an individual:<br />
*Are SAT scores going down everywhere? Is this a pattern? I should think that such a remarkable conclusion should have a reference.<br />
*Personal letters and style of writing does not necessarily reflect intelligence. I'd see this as more of a "times change" event. Not to invoke a response here, but language evolves: compare old english to the english of the 1700s to today: all 3 are very different. Because language and social cues change throughout human history doesn't compare to overall intelligence and thus certainly not to the age of the earth. Thanks [[User:DouglasM|DouglasM]] 19:21, 8 June 2010 (EDT)<br />
: I realize you're new here. However, you can't just walk into somebody's living room and strart deleting their work because you don't approve of it. Either you make your case here or contribute to the project with material before you start deleting stuff. If all new useres starting deleting everything they didn't like we would end up with no material. Also, if you didn't notice, there were four footnotes in the section you deleted. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 19:47, 8 June 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I made my case above, did you not read it? [[User:DouglasM|DouglasM]] 19:50, 8 June 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
:::Hopefully I can address a few of your concerns here, Douglas.<br />
:::*''Are SAT scores going down everywhere? Is this a pattern? I should think that such a remarkable conclusion should have a reference.'' The only data I could find on this statement is [http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/08/26/sat here], which does show a slow and steady decline within the past five years of critical reading skills, while mathematics has stayed steady the past three years. The average high school student's SAT score, given the data, has dropped, though I concede that there is perhaps not enough data to make a definitive statement on the matter.<br />
:::*''Personal letters and style of writing does not necessarily reflect intelligence. I'd see this as more of a "times change" event. Not to invoke a response here, but language evolves: compare old english to the english of the 1700s to today: all 3 are very different. Because language and social cues change throughout human history doesn't compare to overall intelligence and thus certainly not to the age of the earth.'' Style of writing does not necessarily reflect intelligence, but linguistics and grammar do. The spoken word has become&mdash;for lack of a better word (heh)&mdash;lazy due to either lost interest in proper spoken word or lack of mental ability to comprehend and utilize it. I believe that one's speech capabilities are intertwined with how intelligent he is.<br />
:::In the future, please wait for someone to address your points before making changes to a sensitive article. -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|<sub>Discussion</sub>]] 20:05, 8 June 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: Yes. However, I'm saying make your case BEFORE you start deleting points that could possibly be great insights. We don't want to be engaging in [[Liberal censorship]]. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 19:59, 8 June 2010 (EDT)<br />
Thanks for the aid, RR, but this user has been politely removed from the site. He may return in three days. Until then, RR, may I suggest you do something more productive than bicker with liberals on talk pages? I understand they are infuriating, but trust me, us admins have got it under control. Nothing gets by us. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]]<sub>[[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]]</sub> 20:03, 8 June 2010 (EDT)<br />
I didn't realize he was a liberal. I thought he just may have been a deluded conservative. Even they make me very angry! But you're right. I'll do something more productive. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 20:09, 8 June 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::''Administrators'', RR, will offer instruction to other users, not other editors. Is that clear? I am disturbed by the continual similarities in your observations and those of past users we eventually found not to be of good intentions. Jacob's suggestion for you if far more polite than any I would offer at this moment, as I would have blocked you both for two days. While your contributions are appreciated the same as anyone else editing here, refrain from emulating other editors style, especially administrators, and completely refrain from bombast and unsupported statements, RR. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big><sub>/Admin</sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 04:38, 9 June 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Sources ==<br />
<br />
The sources for some of the ''counterexamples'' highlight their weaknesses:<br />
* [http://www.newsweek.com/id/201582 Newsweek: "An embarrassing little secret of astronomy ...."] is a broken link. I couldn't find the actual article. When stating sources, it is helpful (and add to their credibility) if basic information is given, like the date of the publishing, the name of the author, etc.<br />
* [http://www.unisci.com/stories/20021/0207023.htm "Hubble Shows Galaxy Rotating In The Wrong Direction"] this source doesn't say anything about the age of the galaxy<br />
* http://www.amazon.com/review/R1WTZL8GG4H9K0 is a hint to the review from some Portuguese guy whoe writes about the book ''The Young Earth''. I commented this one out as the [[Conservapedia:Commandments]] state ''Sources should be authoritative works, not merely published opinions by others.''<br />
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:38, 15 June 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*I get an error for http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/109865519/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 , too<br />
The reinsertion of the link I took out is somewhat surprising. Could someone define what is to be understood by an ''authoritative work''? [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:19, 15 June 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Frank, your comments are nit-picky stuff. This is a site for the open-minded, earnest search for the truth. A galaxy spinning in a direction opposite to its tail confounds old earth theories, and that problem is not to be dismissed because a reporter didn't fully address it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:22, 15 June 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Where are you getting this information, Andy? You shoot down other's intuition and demand fact when people oppose you, but you refuse to offer fact, when you've been backed into a corner. That isn't fair. intuition doesn't make an argument. You need REAL sources for these assertions. It isn't nit-picky to say that the links you provide for most citations DO NOT remotely support your point. [[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 17:54 29 Sept 2010 (GMT+2)<br />
<br />
== Newsweek ==<br />
<br />
I couldn't find the article in ''newsweek'' - some censorship on their part? I reread the somewhat bizarre discussion in the [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth/Archive_1#Instability_of_the_Solar_System|archived talk page]] of this article, and [http://www.google.de/#hl=en&q=%22the+planetary+orbits+will+indeed+become+chaotic%2C%22+laughlin&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=b52ff5a993c4ca35 googling] for the quote ''But the chances of orbits changing with less-than-catastrophic results are greater, notes Laughlin: "the planetary orbits will indeed become chaotic," with "the time required for chaos to significantly degrade the predictability of a system [on] the order of 5 million years."'', I came up with this article on [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7248/full/459781a.html Nature]. But the conclusion of this article is somewhat the opposite of the statement made here, as it's abstract states:<br />
<br />
''Simulations show that orbital chaos can lead to collisions between Earth and the inner planets. But Einstein's tweaks to Newton's theory of gravity render these ruinous outcomes unlikely in the next few billion years.''<br />
<br />
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:54, 15 June 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Our citations to articles are for the factual information provided, and sometimes for well-reasoned arguments, but rarely for reporters' conclusions, which of course can be mistaken or biased.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:27, 15 June 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::The quote above wasn't from some ''reporter'', but made by Gregory Laughlin (Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, California), while your counterexample seems to be based on conclusion of the reporter of Newsweek. The factual information can be found here: [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7248/full/nature08096.html Existence of collisional trajectories of Mercury, Mars and Venus with the Earth] and can be summarized as: yes such collisional trajectories exist, but they are even more improbable than thought earlier. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:34, 15 June 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::The basic counterexample that planetary orbits are unstable and chaotic is not refuted by anything factual.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:12, 15 June 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::You give excellent advice: ''Our citations to articles are for the factual information provided, and sometimes for well-reasoned arguments, but rarely for reporters' conclusions, which of course can be mistaken or biased''. As I stated above, I couldn't find the piece in ''Newsweek'' anymore. You are aware that reporters of popular magazines tend to prefer a sensational headline over a more level-headed one, i.e. ''doom incoming!'' over ''scientists say incoming doom unlikely''.<br />
::::Fortunately, the very articles the Newsweek's journalist wrote about are still available, and I linked to them in [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]. Here, you find the factual information, summarized by Gregory Laughlin:<br />
::::'''Their [i.e. J. Laskar's & M. Gastineau's] work shows that the orbits of the terrestrial planets -- Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars -- have a roughly 99% chance of maintaining their current, well-ordered clockwork for the roughly 5 billion years that remain before the Sun evolves into a red giant and engulfs the inner Solar System''''''<br />
::::Getting from this to ''The planetary orbits in the solar system - including Earth's - are unstable and unsustainable over the very long time periods asserted by atheists'' or ''The basic counterexample that planetary orbits are unstable and chaotic is not refuted by anything factual'' is quite surprising.<br />
::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:50, 22 June 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Receding Moon ==<br />
<br />
''The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate suggesting it would have been too close a billion years ago ''<br />
<br />
What's ''too close''? [http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html According to NASA], the current rate is 3.8 cm/year<ref>[http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html Measuring the Moon's Distance] ''Apollo Laser Ranging Experiments Yield Results'' by Fred Espenak, GSFC Planetary Systems Laboratory (LPI Bulletin, No. 72, August, 1994.)</ref>. If we assume that this rate is constant, than it gained over the last billion years:<br />
<br />
'''1,000,000,000 year × 3.8cm/year = 3,800,000,000cm = 38,000,000m = 38,000km'''<br />
<br />
That roughly 10% of the current mean orbital radius of the [[Moon]] of 378,000km!<br />
<br />
But the [[Roche limit]] of the system Earth-Moon is 18,000km - even 5 billion years ago the moon would not have been within this critical region.<br />
<br />
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:25, 23 June 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: 10% off the mean is a huge difference, which would have many dire effects. Note that it is bigger than 10% with respect to the closest distance. Have you looked into that? Also, Old Earth believers claim the age is far older than 1 billion years.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:08, 23 June 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Pattern ==<br />
<br />
<br />
*''The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate suggesting it would have been too close a billion years ago '': that is wrong, a billion years ago, there was no problem with the Moon's orbit, even at the current rate of receding.<br />
*''The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago '': that is deceptive, as geologists don't claim that the Great Lakes existed millions of years ago.<br />
*''The planetary orbits in the solar system - including Earth's - are unstable and unsustainable over the very long time periods asserted by atheists'' That is misleading, as they probability that the solar system maintains stable is 99%.<br />
<br />
What is to be achieved by massing up a great number of flawed statements? <br />
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:31, 23 June 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I've addressed your first point in the section above. Your second point does not rebut the truth of the statement. The Great Lakes are very young, and people misled by Old Earth teachings are not typically taught that, or even aware of it. Your third point about probabilities is purely speculative. The solar system is unstable, and that is undeniable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:12, 23 June 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::''The Great Lakes are very young, and people misled by Old Earth teachings are not typically taught that, or even aware of it.'' Science isn't about the public misconceptions of a theory, but the theory itself.<br />
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 13:33, 26 June 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
== Strontium Isotopes ==<br />
<br />
The concentration of strontium isotopes in seawater is fluctuating - and the concentration at various times is well known (and tabled). ''Long-term erosion'' is not the only cause of changing concentrations (e.g, have a look [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989AREPS..17..141V here]), so the assumption of a monotonous process is overly simplistic.<br />
<br />
For short: not a good example, neither.<br />
<br />
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:49, 26 June 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I added a fact tag, as there doesn't seem to be a source to back up the claim made in this ''counterexample''. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:08, 28 June 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Speculations ==<br />
<br />
Dear Andy,<br />
above, you write ''Your third point about probabilities is purely speculative.'' No, it is not - as the quoted article states, the probabilities are calculated using the best current models and the best simulations. So, ''purely speculative'' doesn't fit this point at all!<br />
<br />
OTOH, I have to read: ''The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely a billion years ago, causing tidal catastrophes and other problems, and colliding with the Earth before that.'' '''Colliding with the Earth before that'''? Have you done any calculation? Made a simple simulation? I doubt it! In fact, a simple back-of-an-envelope calculation would have shown that the Moon was far from ''colliding'' - even making the assumption of a constant rate of recession!<br />
<br />
I'm prone to erase this speculative (or better. factually incorrect) statement, but I don't want to be accused of ''censorship''. Therefore, I just added a <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki>-tag, giving you the possibility to back up this sentence with ''facts''.<br />
<br />
I'll do the same for the for the entry ''An extrapolation of time between the collapse of weaker arches with still-standing stronger arches supports a young earth age.'', as I couldn't find such an extrapolation anywhere, especially not in the given source.<br />
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 13:16, 26 June 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Frank, your comments are longwinded, but did you respond to the defect in your comparison of the distance that Moon recedes to its mean distance from the Earth? Obviously the relevant comparison is to the closest distance of the Moon to the Earth. Please respond to that relevant issue.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:35, 26 June 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::*Assuming a constant rate of recession, I get the following values:<br />
:::{|<br />
|Recession of the Moon over one billion years (assuming a constant rate)||''' 38,000km'''<br />
|-<br />
|Current mean orbital radius:||'''378,000km'''<br />
|-<br />
|Current perigee:||'''363,000km'''<br />
|}<br />
::So, a billion years ago, the [[Moon]] would have been 10.05% (mean orbital radius) or 10.47% (closest distance) nearer to the Earth than it is now. Yes, there are consequence of such a closer distance (e.g., more and greater tidal movements), but I doubt that simple multicellular ocean-based life-forms would bother, so this isn't that relevant, is it?<br />
::*Now, could you address the following problems:<br />
:::#What calculation or simulation accounts for the idea that the Moon would collide with the Earth if its orbit was lowered by 38,000km - or 190,000km (five billion years) - or even 300,000km? <br />
:::#Where is the extrapolation of the ''time between the collapse of weaker arches with still-standing stronger arches''?<br />
::*JacobB deleted the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tags I added to the two statements above without any further comment (or indeed coming up with sources/calculations/simulations). As he obviously doesn't like when comments of a sysop are reversed, I refrain from doing so. But I do think that these was the perfect place to insert such tags, as<br />
:::#The statements aren't obvious, as they involve estimations and calculations<br />
:::#I did research, and couldn't find any source to back up the claims<br />
:::#In fact, according to my own estimations, these statements are wrong<br />
:::#I stated the reasons for inserting the tags above<br />
:::So, please, back up the statements, or reinsert the tags (hoping that someone else comes up with an explanation), or just delete the statements.<br />
:::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:54, 28 June 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Solar Fusion ==<br />
<br />
''The primary reaction in the [[Sun]] is the fusing of [[hydrogen]] to make [[helium]], but the ratio of these remains too high for the Sun to have been burning for millions of years.''<br />
<br />
Could someone add some numbers to this? For me, it sounds just wrong, and I couldn't find any source for it. It's something different from the [[Faint young Sun problem]], I suppose. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:02, 28 June 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:http://neutrino.aquaphoenix.com/un-esa/sun/sun-chapter5.html<br />
<br />
:This article explains the life of the sun so far, with some great equations that explain the rate of H and He depletion in the solar fusion reaction. As you can see, the math supports a sun of at least 4.5 billion years old, with a life span that will extend for another 5 to 10 billion years.<br />
<br />
:No doubt, Andy will chastise me for posting this, and demand that i be more open minded (ie. believe only what he believes and disregard "liberally biased math" in favor of the more biblically friendly "no real evidence at all")<br />
<br />
== Geothermal Activity ==<br />
<br />
''The interior of the earth is heated by decay of radioactive isotopes, which could not possibly still be persisting in sufficient quantities after 5 billion, or even half a billion, years.''<br />
<br />
Why not? [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:12, 28 June 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Questionable Probabilities ==<br />
<br />
''If each of the 25 counterexamples provided here (as of June 28, 2010) has merely a 10% chance of being valid, which is certainly an underestimate, then the probability that the Earth is billions of years old is only 7%. From another perspective, these counterexamples demonstrate that the Earth must be young with 93% probability.'' <br />
<br />
This seems to be modeled after [[Counterexamples to Evolution]]:<br />
<br />
''Moreover, if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that), then the odds that these counterexamples are all incorrect and that evolution is true is infinitesimally small (only a 6% chance that evolution is true with 54 possible counterexamples).''<br />
<br />
There are quite a few problems with these statements:<br />
*Why 10% in the first case, but only 5% in the second? Is it that otherwise these counterexamples demonstrate that the Earth must be young with probability of 72% - and that value isn't convincing enough?<br />
*Where do these probabilities come from? Is there a source which utters statements of which one in ten (or one in twenty) is correct?<br />
*To assume that all these counterexamples are '''independent''' is ''very'' problematic!<br />
*Generally, these counterexamples don't make predictions about unknowns, so, the validity of a statement like ''The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely a billion years ago, causing tidal catastrophes and other problems, and colliding with the Earth before that'' can be calculated at this very moment: The probability that this counterexample is correct is ''zero'' as the statement is wrong.<br />
<br />
I won't delete these ''"calculations"'', but I'll add <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tags to give the authors (or others) the opportunity to state their lines of reasoning: So, why are these probabilities reasonable estimates, and why are the ''odds far higher than that'' resp. why are these ''underestimates''?<br />
<br />
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:03, 29 June 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: The calculation concerning the overall effect of counterexamples on the likely validity of the theory is helpful. It does not claim to be precise, and is almost certainly an ''underestimate'' of the probabilistic effect. A number of 50% could be used for the probability of each counterexample, rather than merely 10% or 5%. Regardless, the point is clear and educational.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:04, 29 June 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::*''The calculation concerning the overall effect of counterexamples on the likely validity of the theory is helpful.'' Helpful for what? <br />
::*''It does not claim to be precise, and is almost certainly an ''underestimate'' of the probabilistic effect.'' Stating probabilities like '''6%''' or '''93%''' is a claim to be precise. Getting such precise numbers by putting together some very rough estimates (''50% could be used for the probability of each counterexample, rather than merely 10% or 5%'') isn't good statistical practice.<br />
::*''Regardless, the point is clear and educational.'' What's the educational purpose of this point: ''add percentages to your statements because that sounds scientific'' ?<br />
::*Above, I answered to your question on perigee vs. mean radius. Could you please address my problems:<br />
:::#What calculation or simulation accounts for the idea that the Moon would collide with the Earth if its orbit was lowered by 38,000km - or 190,000km (five billion years) - or even 300,000km? <br />
:::#Where is the extrapolation of the ''time between the collapse of weaker arches with still-standing stronger arches''?<br />
::Thanks, [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:53, 30 June 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Frank, this site isn't "wikianswers" for endless questions. The effect of multiple counterexamples on the likelihood of truth of the original proposition is important to accept with an open mind. If you have a better way of stating it, let's see it. But we're not going to censor the point itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:55, 1 July 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::''Frank, this site isn't "wikianswers" for endless questions. '' No, it's a ''Trustworthy Encyclopedia''. That's why I'm not posing random questions, but I'm questioning dubious and unsourced statements. I'm not doing so frivolously, but only after checking into the statements myself. As you made these statements, you should either be able to give the necessary calculations/estimations/simulations to affirm them, or you should '''delete''' these questionable counterexamples. To paraphrase one of your comments: '''Please respond to these relevant issues''' - as you expect us to answer your questions...<br />
::::''The effect of multiple counterexamples on the likelihood of truth of the original proposition is important to accept with an open mind.'' I'm sorry but I'm getting the idea that this is a scatter-shot approach where most of the projectiles are expect to miss...<br />
::::''If you have a better way of stating it, let's see it.'' No, I've no better way of stating it, as I don't think it can be stated correctly. May I add that deleting a wrong point from an ecyclopedia isn't censorship, but just due editorial process? <br />
::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:29, 1 July 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::: No, Frank, you're challenging a mathematical truth here. We welcome suggestions on explaining truths better. [[Censorship]] is not welcome here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:36, 1 July 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::*I don't doubt the mathematical truth that 1-0.9<sup>25</sup> ~ 0.93, but I doubt that this model is applicable. That's a difference.<br />
::::::*Above, you asked me a question. I answered it - obviously satisfactorily, as there was no follow-up question of you. Now, I asked you two questions. Could you please try to answer them?<br />
:::::::#What calculation or simulation accounts for the idea that the Moon would collide with the Earth if its orbit was lowered by 38,000km - or 190,000km (five billion years) - or even 300,000km? <br />
:::::::#Where is the extrapolation of the ''time between the collapse of weaker arches with still-standing stronger arches''? <br />
::::::*The counterexamples concerned by these questions aren't self-evident, and the first statement seems to be plainly wrong to me. If you fail to address these problems, if any query for additional information (i.e., the <nowiki>{{fact]]</nowiki>-tags) is removed, you give the impression that the only reason for these examples to be included in the list is that you just like them. Is this sufficient for an encyclopedia?<br />
::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:59, 3 July 2010 (EDT)<br />
* The Earth-Moon collision is not a statemente about a future fact, but a statement about a past event. ''Given the current models'' of tidal friction, and extrapolating backwards ''ceteris paribus'', the Earth-Moon ''would have'' collided (or, being as close as you wish) about 10<sup>9</sup> years ago. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 13:23, 29 September 2010 (EDT)<br />
** Or, more precisely, about 2 x 10<sup>9</sup> years ago, according to "Lunar nodal tide and distance to the Moon during the Precambrian", J.C.G. Walker, K.J. Zahnle - Nature, 1986. There may be other theories (even negating this); I found that using Google Academic with "tidal friction earth moon collision". [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 13:36, 29 September 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Severe problems from the moon being in close proximity to the earth would arise well before the 2 billion years you cite.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:31, 29 September 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
The [[Christian apologetics|evidence for Christianity and the Bible is extremely strong]] and Bible exegesis does not support an old earth and that is why traditional Judaism and most of the early Church fathers who spoke on the issue believe in a young earth. Plus, there is [http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth plenty of evidence for a young earth.] The probability for an old earth is zero. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:20, 29 September 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Your link to evidence for a young earth has some interesting examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:31, 29 September 2010 (EDT)<br />
:: Interesting but totally unscientific I'm afraid. And illogical. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 11:35, 12 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
::: I wonder what your score, "Darkmind", would be on an [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|openmindedness test]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:11, 12 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Dissipation of Underground Well Water ==<br />
<br />
I was wondering if anyone has more information or explanation about the counterexample, "The plentiful supply of high concentrations of underground well water, which would be expected based on familiar principles of entropy to dissipate over a long period of time." This is a very intriguing counterexample, but I don't quite understand it based on my understanding of entropy (from a classical thermodynamics perspective) and I could not find any supporting sources. Also, "high concentrations of underground well water" seems either vague or imprecisely worded (does this mean high ''volumes'', or is it high concentrations within a geographic area...). Thanks. --[[User:Toadaron|Toadaron]] 15:21, 15 February 2011 (EST)<br />
:As I understand it, all things tend to disorder over time. If the atheistic belief of a billions of years old earth were true, this water would have long since lost its order and would now be in a completely random, disordered state. This is clearly not the case and once again the evolutionists are proven wrong. [[User:PeterUker|PeterUker]] 15:37, 15 February 2011 (EST)</div>PeterUker