Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:CE

2008-09-16T16:16:29Z

QuickFixer: /* Merrium websters */ new section

{{protect|Aschlafly}}

==Comments==
Since others have already commented about the tolerance issue among scholarly works, I'll pass over that issue except to say that they are correct and it would be an error to assume that it is an attempt to destroy Christianity. However, the related point that I would like to address is the article statement that reads "While use of "Common Era" attempts to erase recognition for the Christian basis of the calendar, there are not similar attempts to erase non-Christian religious names from the calendar, such as the days of the week named after Norse gods." In fact, although it is not accepted by the "common culture" of the United States, the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) did away with the names for the days and months centuries ago in order not to give creedance to other gods even in common speech. They count the days or months instead of naming them. For instance, January is called First Month and Sunday is called First Day. In the last generation, many Quakers have discontinued this custom, but it survived for centuries and is still practiced by some of the older or most conservative Quakers. Most of them still retain it where it has become part of the name of something. For instance, Quaker children do not go to Sunday School but rather to First Day School.

In point of fact, all religions/ denominations/ societies reckon time by the significant dates in their religious history -- where they figure the start date from, what they call things, etc. It makes as much sense for Christians to reckon time as the (approximate) birth of Jesus as it does for Jews or Confucians to reckon it from Creation or Muslims to reckon it from the Hajj. By the same token, it makes sense for each of them to count time passed with reference to the things they consider holy -- the things of the life cycle, the yearly cycle, etc. The names of the days and months are no different, so it's a wonder that the rest of the culture didn't do as the Quakers long ago in naming the days and months since most of the culture was at least nominally Christian. -- VJR

Isn't the BCE/CE designed to be more inclusive of other cultures that do not believe in Christianity. For non-Christians, having the birth and death of Christ as starting points to a calendar must seem rather arbitrary. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually, on checking, I find that "common era" can be
*a generic term meaning ''any'' standardized system of numbering years based on any epoch, e.g. the Jewish year is in "the common era of the Jews."
*a term used to distinguish the "ordinary" BC/AD epoch ''from others used by Christians.'' E.g. "puts his death in the seventh year of Trajan, i.e. in 104 of the common era."[http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC04334900&id=qLfiIApQVDkC&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=%22common+era%22&as_brr=1]

And the phrase has been in use for well over a century.

Thus: "The common era of the Jews places the creation in B. C. 3760" (where B. C. here means "before the common era ''of the Jews.'') [http://books.google.com/books?vid=0HE_WUCP1d5BX8OJ&id=GMfyJ2PeD-cC&pg=RA12-PA207&lpg=RA12-PA207&as_brr=1 1874: The popular encyclopedia, volume V, p. 307]

"It was probably the original intention of Caefar to commence the new year with the fhorteft day, the winter folftice at Rome, in the year 46 B. C. (common era)." [http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC03079044&id=cS8EAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA2-PA4&lpg=RA2-PA4&&as_brr=1 1889: "Handy-book of Rules and Tables for Verifying Dates with the Christian Era"]

"Prior to the year A. D. 1865, the Jewish style, namely, the year of the world, was observed by Red Men in dating their documents. At the council held in G. S. 1526, this system was discontinued, and G. S. D. or Great Sun of the Discovery was adopted, the year 1492 being considered G. S. D. 1. To find the date of the old style, add to the common era 3760; e.g. 1877 + 3760 = 5637. To find the date by Red Men's style, subtract 1491 from the common era." ("Red Men" here is a reference to a fraternal organization.) [http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC03825672&id=kZLbGv92SjUC&pg=RA16-PA495&lpg=RA16-PA495&as_brr=1 1893: Official History of the Improved Order of Red Men].

So it's not a ''new'' phrase. In fact, it seems to me that "Christian era" means "the system used by Christians," whereas calling the AD/BC system the "common era" means "this system used by everyone" and thus emphasizes that Christian usage is '''the''' general usage of our society.

The story may be more complicated than that, but that's what I've found so far. Not sure when, how, by whom or for what reason the abbreviations BCE and CE were introduced. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:22, 20 December 2006 (EST)

:That's fascinating material. Thanks. Maybe I'm obsessed with this, but it does seem odd that a phrase recently pushed by schools, Wikipedia writers and tests has unknown origin. It's not even in the 1972 dictionary!!! In a current dictionary, it's defined as a substitute for BC/AD without any reference to Jewish people. My quote from the online rabbi shows Judaism is not the source.
:I'll study your sources further. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:22, 20 December 2006 (EST)

Well, your quote from the rabbi shows that he doesn't know the source. In Rabbi Raphall's "Post Biblical History of the Jews", he uses BCE, and you start seeing "BCE" and either "ACE" or "CE" from 1890 on.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 13:52, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

888888888888888888888888888
What do you mean "It's not in the 1972 dictionary"? Is that the Complete Websters, the Oxford or some dog-eared little junior high book? Here's a current definition from a free on-line encyclopedia at http://www.reference.com/search?q=Common%20Era

"The Common era (also known as the Christian era or the Current era, abbreviated to CE) is the period of measured time beginning with the year 1 on the Gregorian calendar. The notations CE and BCE (Before the Common Era) are alternative notations for AD (anno Domini, Latin for "in the year of (Our) Lord") and BC (Before Christ), respectively. The CE/BCE system of notation is chronologically equivalent to dates in the AD/BC system, i.e. no change in numbering is used and neither includes a year zero. The abbreviations may also be written C.E. and B.C.E.

The term common era is preferred by some as an alternative to the more overtly religious AD and BC, since Common Era does not explicitly make use of religious titles for Jesus, such as Christ and Lord, which are used in the AD/BC notation. Some criticize Common Era notation as a euphemism that does not alter the pivotal year one still centering on the life of Jesus. Many others criticize the notation as an unnecessary attempt at political correctness."

This is the sort of clear and simple info, obtainable at the press of a button that the writer of this article has struggled for 25 years (in vain) to determine, receiving no help from a nameless "professor of European history" as quoted here:

"Now, 25 years and a number of common errors later, I assume that Common Era simply means "the date commonly accepted and used." But the truth is that I don't know, so I asked your question to a professor of European history. He didn't know either. (Last two sentences bolded to emphasise the enormous irony of it all)"

We are indeed fortunate that someone so self-confessedly ignorant on a subject should not have been deterred from knocking off a piece on that very matter for a global encyclopedia.

Some brief points:

1. I was taught that the BCE/CE dating convention was adopted primarily for works of an academic nature, typically in the fields of comparative religious studies and the like, where there is a focus on inter-faith dialogue, so as not to appear unnecessarily chauvinistic in asserting the tenets of Christian faith over those of others. In particular the Jews most expressly do NOT believe that Jesus “Was [their] Saviour” as is implied by the words behind the acronyms.

2. Call this a sop, or “caving in to the enemy” or whatever, but it was never intended to indicate that Christians were abandoning their faith, but merely as a gesture of tolerance within fields of study where respect for diversity (and OTHER PEOPLE'S faith) was essential.

3. To foment an acrid dispute over suchlike sounds a lot like the battle of the Big Endians and Little Endians in Swift’s “Gulliver’s Travellers”. Or, more recently and far less fictiously, the kind of throat-cutting vendettas pursued by Balkans over how many fingers you should use when you cross yourself.

4. Personally, if this upsets SOME conservatives so much - those who have divined in this practice a wholesale betrayal of the faith of their fathers - I would quite gladly recommend reversion to the earlier practice. Frankly, wise and well-intentioned man and women of all faiths would understand the nature of the predicament, more than many of you will begin to guess.

5. This controversy, and the even more asinine one on “American spellings”, seems to have provided the requisite steam power for blow-hards to arouse themselves to elevated levels of indignation and over what most other folk would perceive to be trifling matters of custom, protocol and etiquette. Here too, I would recommend adhering to American spelling, which is invariably simpler and more logical. But where would Conservapedia be if the Liberals relented on such epochal issues?
88888888888888888888888888888888

:One thing: how exactly is American spelling of English more logical or simple than any other spelling? "Organize" vs. "Organise." I'm having trouble seeing how logic applies. Bigotry, maybe. You're a moron. --[[User:Eatsilk|Eatsilk]] 19:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::There's probably an interesting story there. I grant you that the spread of BCE and CE probably ''do'' have ''something'' to do with acknowledging diversity, or political correctness, or liberalism, or something. It's always hard to find out how and why things go in and out of fashion, though. I have a long list of puzzles of that kind. Why did the phrase "to fill the bill" rather suddenly get replaced with "to fit the bill" circa 1990 or so? Why did the phrase "to go missing" or "went missing," which I'd always thought were British, suddenly become ubiquitous in the U. S. starting in, I don't know, the late 1990s? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:46, 21 December 2006 (EST)

I heard that there were originally inacuracies in determining the times of various events which resulted in Jesus having been born in the year 4 B.C. It seems that with this information available, it would be foolish to continue saying that the year of our lord began when He was 4 years old. [[User:Scienceisstupid|Scienceisstupid]] 15:17, 21 June 2007 (PST)

== Original Research ==

Should original research be allowed in this article? Also, CE is not some conspiracy that is trying to destroy the foundations of Christianity. There are no citations in this article even attempting to show that this view is held outside of this web page. AD/BC where established by Christian scholars and prevailed because the "western" powers remained solidly Christian and happened to colonize most of the world. Now, the world might be 1/6th Christian, but the other 5/6ths are not. Science is a consensus of scientist from around the world and do not only include the U.S. So it would not be prudent to keep the current age as Anno Domini, since the "Lord" is no longer consisting of the majority of the world. The usage of AD is still valid, but CE is not trying to discredit or undermine in some way the original dating method. So I'm going to try to make this article more neutral in the future, but if a majority of you guys think i'm vandalizing or something like that, I'll move on.
As a side note, the Roman Catholic Church (the universal church of Christ) was responsible for the dark ages.

:So CE isn't trying to destroy the foundations of Christianity, but what it is trying to do is remove the word "Lord" from the vocabulary of the general public. I absolutely love Liberal Logic! --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 23:29, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: Well if I may, there is a real concern here for Jews and Muslims - saying that is the year of the lord is inaccurate and indeed arguably idol worship to use the term. So for those religions at least use of the term "AD" is very problematic (BC less so for obvious reasons). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:33, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: If the general public doesn't want the the word "LORD" in the vocabulary then it shouldn't be there. Unless Christianity suddenly implodes i don't think just because a shift in the secular world from AD/BC to CE/BCE is going to do anything. My main concern is if we are trying to counter bias with bias? Also, i'm going to get rid of the original research in this article unless someone adds some citations or something cause i'm not sure where that comes from. [[User:Pinion|Pinion]] 00:50, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::: If this was A Jewish or Muslim site, you might have a point. But as this is a Christian/Conservative Site that does not strive to be politically correct, your point is not valid. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:47, 6 March 2007 (EST)
:::: I wasn't commetning on whether it should be used ''here'' I was commenting on how the general motivations of those who use it are not nearly as nefarious as some editors here seem to think. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:55, 6 March 2007 (EST)

== Common Sense, ppl ==

I've heard some good evidence and argument in this talk page, but the idea that BCE and CE are a liberal agenda thing or one of "wikipedia's bias" signs is an absolutely baseless and, furthermore, stupid notion. Let me introduce a theory:

We don't know the year of Jesus's birth. We DO know that it is almost absolutely NOT 0 BC/AD. [http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_date.htm#year].

So BCE/CE was created with this date (since people are just used to it, no need to change it. Pretty conservative of them, wouldn't you say?) as the reference. It's just a reference date with no meaning, so we can have an absolute origin point on a timeline. Say it with me. "Its just a reference date." That felt good, huh?

Don't you think it's a positive thing for the Christian religion to remove an obvious error from it? Hell, they do us a favor by just separating the two topics. You should be thankful, not suspicious. [[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 00:18, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== Rabbi Dialogue ==

This dialogue is pointless and makes this article seem fabricated and arbitrary. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

What is the point of the dialogue between the rabbi and whoever? What purpose does it serve to illuminate people as to what CE means? Furthermore the "reference" doesn't have any other references, nor does it even say who the professor of European history was. It also doesn't have a copy of the transcript between the rabbi and the supposed professor. --[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 02:36, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:This section is unecessary and has to much first person. It doesn't sound encyclopaedic. [[User:Bobtexas|Bobtexas]] 02:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Anecdotal evidence is the most wonderfully personal evidence there is. Too bad personal isn't the same as important. Allow me to cite a conversation I heard once between an onion farmer and a prince. It seems there was this onion farmer, you see… --[[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]] 01:31, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

The dialogue also does nothing to demonstrate the point it tries to make (illustrating that the term "Common Era" did not come from Judaism). Just because one rabbi was taught to refer to CE as the "Common Error" doesn't mean that all Rabbis were taught that (certainly not mine, who uses CE and BCE).

==Christian Era==
Where is the proof that CE stands for Common Era? I thought that it stood for Christian Era. As the article implies, the term CE was not in wide use 35 years ago. It has since caught on, but for what reason?

The term Christian Era appears to be much older, and it is listed in all the major dictionaries, including Merriam-Webster's, American Heritage, and Compact Oxford English Dictionary. It may be true that CE was promoted by people claiming that it was a non-Christian term, but maybe it only was accepted by people who took it to mean Christian Era. Does anyone know?

I think that the article should be revised to say that CE stands for Christian Era. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:40, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: Yeah, then we can refrain from using CE, 'cause ''clearly'' it shows bias. --[[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]] 01:32, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I can't source this, I assumed it was common knowledge....
An obvious reason for not wishing to use the BC AD system is that many feel term 'In the year of our Lord" aggressively exclusive. In an increasingly global society, we see most countries adopting our calender, and yet there is a great proportion, indeed a majority, who are not in fact christian and do not feel that God is 'Our' (Their) Lord. The point is that a calender does not need to be religious but by using the idea of Christian Era, no-one is denying the ancestry of the term (which debunks a fair portion of the current argument about anti-christianity)

Perhaps a good compromise between the ambiguous "Common Era" and the patronizing "Year of our Lord" would be something along the lines of AJ for "Year of Jesus." It doesn't ignore the original meaning of the term, but it also doesn't imply, as many feel "AD" does, that the user personally accepts Jesus of Nazareth as his "Lord." --[[User:Anschelsc|Anschelsc]] 16:13, 20 January 2008 (EST)

== References ==

There are no references to whatever Common Era means only to some irrelevant site with a quotation explaining about someone not knowing what CE means. Dictionaries could be referenced at least. A brief skimming of most dictionaries will also come up with "Christian Era" and "Current Era" as other meanings for "CE."

== Lack of dictionary definition ==

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but might the reason for the fact that a 1972 edition of a dictionary might not have the term be that it wasn't in common use in 1972? You might try looking in a more modern dictionary. It doesn't seem like the most credible piece of evidence. [[User:Alethiophile|Alethiophile]] 18:25, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I couldn't agree more. I just finished a History undergraduate degree and we used CE/BCE exclusively. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm also inclined to agree. Currently the Merriam-Webster's Website does indeed have a definition for "Common Era", linking it to "Christian Era", which is defined as "the period dating from the birth of Christ". Other dictionaries such as The American Heritage Dictionary and WordNet also have similar definitions. Also of importance is that, while the 1972 edition was the seventh Merriam-Webster's edition, the most current is the eleventh. I would recommend a deletion regarding that particular piece of evidence.

== Unfortunate Truth ==

Unfortunately, no. There are, sadly, a lot of ignorant people in the world who truly believe that what they call "Conservatism" is, in fact, unbiased. This 'encyclopaedia' as they so insultingly call it is little more than an entire website subtly advocating the perpetuation of many of the evils which have led the world to the state it is in now. Intolerance, misinformation and insufficient education are but three of the factors in this ever-deepening spiral of destruction held on to by the last dying grasp of 'conservatism', a 'movement' which seeks dominion by stasis- a sheer lack of progress for the world. They try to deny such obvious truths such as Global Warming and Evolution while putting forward theories and hypotheses completely unfounded in science such as 'young earth theory'... seriously, who can say that this website is anything it supposes to stand for? Educational? It looks to me more like religious indoctrination like the old Taliban regime which they so criticize- little better than 'Terrorists'.
The terrorists issue is another point of failure for the Conservapedia. The rules and regulations clearly state- "No Liberalist Bias" and state the example of "terrorists" as "calling a spade a spade" so to speak and not attempting to hide their "true nature". But isn't the "terrorist" label just another way of dehumanizing people who are essentially the same as us? All these unfortunate victims of conservative government after conservative government have arms, legs, heads just like the governments themselves. The only difference, you could say, is the way they go about things.
I ask: how true is this for real? How does a terrorist make his point? by yelling something in arabic then blowing up a truck? How does the U.S. military (An admirably conservative organisation) make it's point? By yelling something in English then blowing up an oil derrick? Or some Iraqis? Really, whoever does it- the Terrorists or the oh-so-very-friendly US military the Iraqis kind of get in the behind, don't they?
Let's face it. Conservatives in positions of power have, over a period of less than 200 years, brought the world to a point of political and environmental destruction. How can they deny Global Warming when its effects are clearly visible in highly populated areas of the world. How can they continue chugging CO2 into the atmosphere, completely blind to the destruction they cause? It is little more than childish greed, greed for power, money and resources, childish because they care only for themselves- not even their children. Because, by the time the world is set on a path to complete destruction where not even the powerful conservatives can save it, all the living leaders today will be dead. And that is why the do not care. They do not care about the environment. They do not care about your lives. All they care about is their own prosperity and happiness and the continuation of the status quo- because this status quo, this conservative ideal, is the one where their lives are perfect, where they have what they want. It's not about religion. It's not even about political orientation. It is nothing more than an evil self-feeding cycle where only the Conservatives gain.

Conservatives ARE the Devil.

:Last time I checked, [[Global warming]] was not protected. If you have scientific evidence of the bad effects of higher average atmospheric temperature, please add it to the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:21, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

THANK YOU!! This makes soo much sense. [[User:Potatocakes|Potatocakes]] 05:43, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

== Article Locked? ==

Why has this article been locked? Surely this is against the principles of a freely editable encyclopedia? Also and encyclopedia should present both the evidence/views '''for and against''' the topic in question - this article does not do this. --[[User:Tomt|Tomt]] 11:59, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Your thinking that this place is committed to neutrality. It's not. It's committed to promoting a viewpoint, one that is (happily) on the decline in the United States, where its proponents think it has its greatest strength. --[[User:Eatsilk|Eatsilk]] 19:45, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== I've always heard something different ==

I've always heard that CE and BCE are very old terms meaning "Christian Era" and "Before the Christian Era."--[[User:Ollie Garkey|Ollie Garkey]] 18:25, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Did you hear that from some Christians? Anyway, you heard wrong. --[[User:Eatsilk|Eatsilk]] 19:43, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Rabbi dialogue revisited ==

The person who added this to the article is, sadly, a moron. What exactly does this prove? Also, the term is "Common Era" not (chuckle) "Christian Era." The people who made the calendars were Christian. Now, in a global climate that has ''progressed'' to be more tolerant of individuals of different religious and cultural backgrounds, it has been decided by reasonable individuals not to enforce the religion of some upon the time-telling of everyone. So, rather than change what day it is and and change the dates of all of history, we simply change the suffix from something that blatantly promotes ''one'' of the world's major religions to something less, say, offensive. What exactly is the problem with acknowledging that not everyone believes what you do? --[[User:Eatsilk|Eatsilk]] 19:42, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

: Why do some feel the urge to censor references to Christ? If a date is based on the birth of Christ, then the basis for that date should be expressed in terms of Christ. Give credit where it is due, even if you don't agree.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:57, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
::im pretty sure that it's not censorship, they just don't want it to be a reference to christ, and christianity didn't make the Gregorian calender (i know that the pope endorsed it, but countries decided to use it on their own). and if we used a calander that had something about Muhammad in its dating system, im pretty sure that you wouldn't use the same dating names.-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 00:50, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

== Wikipedia's bias regarding this term ==

This term is not used consistently on Wikipedia and liberals have seemed to make sure it's used in articles where it will generate the most scandal: e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus Jesus]. (Indeed, the clumsy and unencyclopedic "BC/BCE" and "AD/CE" are used there.) Look at other articles about historic places and persons and you will rarely find "BCE/CE" used: e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato Plato], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates Socrates], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutankhamun Tutankhamun], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persia Persia], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire the Roman Empire], etc. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:40, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

: Good point, but [[CE]] is used many thousands, and perhaps even millions, of times on Wikipedia. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Common_Era].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:57, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

::So why then do the major articles I cited still use only the AD/BC designation? (That's a rhetorical question.) Wikipedia has no policy whatsoever about the use of AD/BC and CE/BCE and they've left it up to the users - users who are overwhelmingly liberal. It's too bad that it's extremely difficult to tell which articles were first changed to replace AD/BC or include CE/BCE. If someone did find out, I wouldn't be surprised if the article about Jesus was one of the first ones to be changed. In any case, I did a search on the top online encyclopedias other than Wikipedia and none of them use CE/BCE in any way. Not a one. To me, all this just shows the liberal bias that exists on Wikipedia. The CE/BCE designation is not in use in any major encyclopedias. It's only in use by godless intellectuals who like to think they're avoiding paying lip service to Jesus Christ by using it even though it uses the same "starting point" as AD/BC: the birth of Jesus. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 17:08, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
::And this matters because...? [[User:ProserpinaFC|ProserpinaFC]]

== more common ==

"Christian Era has a longer history of usage and appears in more web pages today."

The latter is easily contradicted by a simple Google search. The former is unsupported by any evidence. [[User:John Brown|John Brown]] 00:15, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
:No it's not. BC/AD are more common than what you refer to, and instead of depending on Google, I suggest you hit the books at your local library. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:35, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

== The word "erase" ==

Two of the more egregious sentences on this page, of which there are many, are the following:

*The term "Common Era" is an attempt to '''erase''' the historical basis for the primary calendar dating system in the Western world.

The idea that the use of different dating nomenclature is an attempt to somehow rewrite history is absurd. The concept of inter-faith dialogue has been discussed here at length, and I will not discuss it any further. Moving along:

*Numerous texts, '''particularly schoolbooks''', have replaced "B.C./A.D." with "Common Era" symbols over the past decade.

This claim is completely uncited. As an academic, I find it insulting. --[[User:Telephuse|Telephuse]] 20:45, 18 November 2007 (EST)

== British date format becoming more common in America! ==

If you think the fall of AD is a problem, that's only part of the story on dates. In my sister's world history book this morning, published in Boston, it shows every date written in the British style! (the day before the month and no comma before the year.) Will September 11 become the 11 September attacks? I'm sure this problem may emerge in the future! A suggest as an amendment to the AD/CE commandment is to make sure all dates have the month before the day as well. It's creeping into many American websites as well!
:The format you indicated (i.e. 11 September 2001) is also refered to as the military date format, and is used by the United States armed forces. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:27, 1 December 2007 (EST)

It's also MLA format now and so is used in English classes as well. Personally I like the change, as moving from the smallest entity to the largest makes more sense. [[User:Rockthecasbah|Rockthecasbah]] 20:28, 14 April 2008 (EDT) (And it's the format that Conservapedia uses, as I noticed after posting with my four tildes.)

== ISO 8601 ==

This mentions ISO standard # 8601 as if it is contrary to "BCE" dating, but ISO 8601 it actually does not make any way for BC dates, it only starts at year "0000" which actually is 1 BC. In the software, one sees sometimes years -YYYY, but this is confusing because year "-100" is actually 101 BC, etcetera. ISO is anyway a globalist body, maybe thats why they dont give any way to represent Bible dates.

Étienne Léger

: Yeah, I just checked ISO 8601 on the ISO website (http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=40874, access provided by my institute). ISO does not recognize CE/BCE, but it also does not recognize BC/AD. It mentions nothing about eras. I think this statement should be struck from the article, lest it divulge inaccurate information about the scope of ISO 8601 (which really just talks about visual parsing and formatting of date and time information). I'm sure there's an ISO relevant to this, but 8601 isn't it. --[[User:Countryforchrist|Countryforchrist]] 18:04, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
:: Update: I checked on the ISO's standards for BC/AD vs. BCE/CE. The ISO does not handle the issue of eras in dating. Maybe go with the [[APA]] standard or the [[MLA]] standard (though admittedly I don't know what those are)?

re: the Rabbi letter. What exactly has a response by some arbitrary Rabbi got to do with proving or disproving whether it derives from Judaism? What else shall we ask his opinion on? It makes the article somewhat of a shambles tbh. --[[User:Luke1978|Luke1978]] 13:28, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

== Merrium websters ==

I doubt this helps, and I certainly agree that the use of CE and BCE is intentional whitewashing of historical basis. But, this is what the dictionary says (Merrium Webster's 11th)
<pre>
Main Entry:Common Era
Function:noun
Date:1846

: CHRISTIAN ERA

Main Entry:Christian era
Function:noun
Date:1657

: the period dating from the birth of Christ

Main Entry:CE
Function:abbreviation

1 chemical engineer
2 civil engineer
3 Christian Era — often punctuated; Common Era; often punctuated
4 Corps of Engineers

</pre>

Censorship

2008-09-16T16:10:25Z

QuickFixer: Don't undermine the project!

'''Censorship''' is the suppression of statements or information for ideological reasons. Current examples include:

*the banning of [[prayer]] in the classroom<ref>See, e.g., [[classroom prayer]].</ref>
*the rejection of [[pro-life]] advertisements<ref>See, e.g., "[[Canadian]] City Backpedals on Decision to Censor [[Pro-life]] Bus-shelter Ads." [http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jun/08060506.html]</ref>
*the destruction of [[conservative]] newspapers on college campuses.<ref>http://www.thebulletin.us/site/index.cfm?newsid=19383118&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=8</ref>
*the banning of mention of [[intelligent design]] in school.<ref>See, e.g., [[Expelled:No Intelligence Allowed]].</ref>

Censorship can also take the form of ostracizing students for expressing [[pro-life]] or other [[conservative]] views.<ref>See, e.g., [[liberals and friendship]].</ref> Censorship is sometimes based on a misuse of [[copyright]], as in the unsuccessful attempt to censor the movie [[Expelled:No Intelligence Allowed]] about [[intelligent design]].<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7432860.stm</ref>

Political censorship involves a government preventing information from reaching its citizens. Perhaps the most well-known contemporary example of this is China's censorship of the [[Google]] search engine, known as the "Golden Shield Project", which prevents Google from displaying search results of some human rights websites, websites promoting Tibetan independence, references to the 1989 Tianamen Square protests, and others. A famous example in fiction is George Orwell's novel ''[[Nineteen Eighty-Four]]'', in which the main character works as a civil servant in the department responsible for altering or destroying historical information which the government wishes to keep secret. The rationale behind political censorship is that the political party in power can protect itself from revolution if the public is kept uninformed.

The term '''censorship''' derives from ''censor'', the title of the Roman official who conducted the census and supervised public morality.

==The First Amendment and censorship in the U. S.==
In the United States, the [[First Amendment]] states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Broadly speaking, the First Amendment is designed to prevent the government from exercising censorship. However, the government sometimes censors political and religious speech anyway.

More specifically, the government should not exercise "prior restraint." That is, a citizen should not need advance permission from the government in order to publish something, unless it threatens [[national security]]. This does not mean that publication may not have consequences: a citizen can be sued for publishing [[libel]], or incarcerated for disclosing military secrets, but the consequences typically occur ''after'' publication, not before.

Censorship is sometimes applied to prohibit obscenity that goes against common standards of public [[morality]]; under US law the first amendment does not protect material considered legally obscene. The definition of obscenity has and continues to vary, with the current Supreme Court definition being the [[Miller test]]. In practical terms, this allows harmful material such as pornography to be criminalised without violating the first ammendment.

Cencorship may also be directed at religious ideas, as in the Saudi Arabia prohibition on preaching Christianity, liberal restrictions on public expressions of religion or the Roman Catholic Church's now-recinced ''Index Librorum Prohibitorum''.

Certain language and images that may have been censored in the past are typically common fare in the American media today. On the other hand, while nudity, for example, may be acceptable on mainstream French television, that is much less likely to be accepted in American television and even less acceptable in conservative Muslim countries.

== Quotes ==
*''"All censorships exist to prevent anyone from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions. All progress is initiated by challenging current conceptions, and executed by supplanting existing institutions. Consequently the first condition of progress is the removal of censorship.'' '''[[George Bernard Shaw]]<ref>"The Author's Apology, preface to "Mrs. Warren's Profession".</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

==See also==
*[[Fairness Doctrine]]

[[Category:Law]]
[[Category:Politics]]

Richard Lewontin

2008-09-16T16:06:16Z

QuickFixer: /* Quotes */ New York Times Book Reviews

'''Richard Charles Lewontin''' (born March 29, 1929) is an [[American]] [[evolution|evolutionary biologist]], geneticist and social commentator. Lewontin admitted to placing blind faith in [[materialism]], while ignoring supernatural phenomena.

==Quotes==
*"The primary problem is not to provide the public with the knowledge of how far it is to the nearest star and what genes are made of. . . . Rather, the problem is to get them to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth."<ref> [http://www.origins.org/articles/johnson_unraveling.html The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism] - Phillip E. Johnson</ref>

*"We take the side of science ''in spite'' of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, ''in spite'' of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, ''in spite'' of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." <ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/admission.asp Amazing admission]</ref><ref>Richard Lewontin [http://www.drjbloom.com/Public%20files/Lewontin_Review.htm Billions and Billions of Demons] January 9, 1997 New York Times Book Reviews</ref>
== References==
{{reflist|2}}

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

[[category:biologists]]

Judaism

2008-09-16T16:02:13Z

QuickFixer: /* Sabbath */ gramma, and making statement less universal

[[Image:StarofDavid.gif|right|thumb|The Star of David, a symbol of Judaism]]
'''Judaism''' was the first [[monotheistic religion]], dating back to around 2000 BC. Like Christianity and Islam, Judaism is an [[Abrahamic faith]], tracing its origins to [[Abraham]]. Judaism was the first of the Abrahamic faiths. The core of the Judaism as it exists today took shape from a later time period when [[Moses]] led the Hebrews from Egypt and climbed Sinai, bringing back the [[Ten Commandments]].

The five books of Moses (the [[Torah]]) are generally considered to be the core of the Jewish Scripture, and are supplemented by the works of the prophets and other writings which Christians call the [[Old Testament]]. The [[Talmud]] is considered of Jews to contain traditions dating back to Moses himself, yet the Talmud also contains discussion by rabbis involving extensive disagreement and lively discussion, over interpretation of these traditions. The Talmud is not part of the [[Bible]] and the degree to which the Talmud itself is considered to be inspired varies across Judaism, with the [[Orthodox Judaism|Orthodox]] generally giving it the most weight.

[[Jesus]] was one of many Jewish teachers who disagreed with the Jewish authorities during his lifetime. He founded a new school of thought, which flourished even after his death and eventually became [[Christianity]]. Christians consider him to be the [[Messiah]] and even consider him to be the [[Son of God]]. Jews on the other hand, do not believe Jesus is either the messiah nor God's son. Other than those agreements amongst Jews concerning Jesus, Jewish views of Jesus vary greatly.
==Sabbath==
[[Image:Menora exb HSTR7337.jpg|right|thumb|Yarmulke and Menorah]]
Many Jews observe a weekly day of rest (the [[Sabbath]]) that begins shortly before sundown on Friday and ends after sunset on Saturday. During this time no work may be done, business transactions are forbidden, light switches are not to be turned on or off. Jews celebrate the Sabbath by lighting candles before the Sabbath, singing songs, going to synagogue, called shul, by some, and learning.

==Denominations==
There are different branches of Judaism. From the most literal to the most interpretive in their practice:
*Ultra-orthodox
*[[Orthodox Judaism|Orthodox]]
*Conservative
*Reconstructionist
*[[Reform Judaism|Reform]]

== Ethnicities ==

*[[Sephardi]] Jews.
*[[Mizrahi (sometimes spelled Mizrachi)|Mizrahi]] Jews.
*[[Ashkenazi]] Jews.

===The Diaspora===

"Diaspora" (Greek meaning "seeded throughout") is the term used to refer to the various dispersions of the Jews throughout the world through the eras of history. Its Hebrew linguistic forerunner is "Galut" meaning the "uncovering", betraying the understanding that being exiled from the Land of Israel is an exposing of Israel to vulnerability and danger. Some commonly known "Galuyot" (plural for Galut) are:

* the forced exile and assimilation among other peoples of the Northern Tribes of Israel by the Assyrians in 721, 722. Modern israel has recognized among the ingathering of this exile (Kibbuts Galuyot) the ''Bnei Menashe'' (Sons of Manessaeh) of northern [[India]]. These members of the "Lost Tribe" are now allowed to freely immigrate to Israel under the Law of Return. see [[Religion in India]]

* the ''Falashas'' of [[Ethiopia]], among whom, like the Bnei Menashe, Jewish practices such as circumcision at 8 days and the keeping of Passover are maintained by those eligible for citizenship under the Israeli Law of Return. The are racially native African in appearance. They believe themselves to have become Jewish from the days of Solomon and the Queen of Ethiopia. That was the basis for the Ethiopian emperor Haile Selase (Holy Trinity) taking the title "Lion of the Tribe of Judah"

* The Galut of Babylon, the so called "''Iraqis''" exiled by the Babylonians at the time of their conquest of Judah and Jerusalem (c. 538 B.C.) This Galut developed a rival to Palestinian Jewry of the first centuries and provided the second corpus of religous literature to the developing Talmud. This was in the common language of Babyon at the time - Aramaic. This corpus came to be called the Gemara ("completion"). The [[Gemara]] dates from about 200 A.D.to 500 A.D. The Gemara and the earlier Palestinian Hebrew corpus, the Mishna, dating from 200 B.C. to 200 A.D. comprise the Talmud, which regulated most of Jewish internal life, until the western European "emancipation" and assimilation of the Jews - starting in the 18th and 19th centuries. The Talmud is still regulatory for Orthodox Jews.

*The Galut of the Jews by the Roman [[Titus]] after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 A.D. They were triumphantly displayed in Rome and dispersed in the lands along the Rhine Valley known in the Hebrew tongue as Ashkenaz - which is known now as Germany. There they learned the language of the land which developed into Modern German. The Jews called their language, the early stage of German, Yiddish. From the Rhine, many of the "''Ashkenazis''" moved (were moved) to Eastern Europe, many fleeing from there, to America, to Israel, to Latin America, etc. learning new languages, but also speaking their old language, not Hebrew, but Yiddish. This, with the common religion, enabled the fostering of unity and brotherhood.

*the 1492 A.D. exile from [[Spain]], where the Jews had previously settled in the time of the [[Moors]] and some attaining to high positions and appointments as physicians, prime ministers, and poets under the Islamic conquest. This was the Golden Age of Jewry in Spain. At their expulsion ("gerush") from Spain they settled mainly around the Mediterraenian basin - North Africa, Greece, Turkey, and also many going to Holland and from there to the American Colonies. The first synagogue in America was created due to this dispersion. These Jews soon were speaking the language of the their host countries - Arabic, Turkish etc. but also speaking the language of Old Spain. "Spain" in Hebrew is Sefarad, so the language is Sephardic and the dispersion is of the ''Sephardim'' (sometimes spelled Sepharadim).

*the Yemenites (''Temanim''). Yemen means "right (direction)" in Semitic languages. When facing the temple from the east, the "right" points south. Therefore, "Teiman" also means "south". This dispersion is the southerly dispersion to what is now Yemen, gaining momentum during the Himyaritic Kindom in Yemen which had adopted Judaism. With the founding of the Modern State of Israel, most Yemenite Jews have immigrated to Israel and speak Arabic as well as Hebrew.

The term "''Mizrachi''" means "easterner" and it covers a number of eastern dispersions as opposed to the Ashkenazi who were westerners - from Europe. Coming into Israel during Ottomon Turk rule (1517-1917), many immigrating Jewish families who were not European were given the name Mizrahi by the Turkish immigration authorities as they were all "lumped together" as Easterners.

The Return of the Jews to Israel is seen as a fulfillment of the Scriptures and is called Kibbutz Galuyot, the ingathering of the Exiles. Here are some of the scriptures that both tell about the ingathering of the exiles and which have provided a major influence for the some of the dispersions to return to the Land of Israel:

" I will bring your offspring from the east, and gather you from the west, To the north I will say 'Give them up', and to the south, 'Do not hold them'. Bring back my sons from far away, my daughters from the end of the earth. Isaiah 43: 5,6

"Those whom Adonai has redeemed return, they come to Zion shouting for joy. everlasting joy in their faces, joy and gladness go with them, sorrow and lament are ended." Isaiah 51:11

"He who has scattered Israel, gathers him, He guards them as a shepherd guards his flock...they shall come back from the enemy country, There is hope for your descendants" Jeremiah 31: 10,16

"The Lord says this: 'I am going to take the sons of Israel from the nations, where they have gone. I shall gather them together from everywhere and bring them home to their own soil. I shall make them into one nation and into My own land and on the mountains of Israel.'" . Exekiel 37:21,22

==Main Holidays==
:''Main article: [[Jewish holidays]]''

*'''[[Pesach]]'''--celebrating the liberation from Egyptian slavery. Observant Jews hold a special festive meal, called a ''Seder,'' on the eve of Passover and do not eat leavened bread for the duration of the festival.

*'''Shavuot'''-- Pentecost or Feast of Weeks. Traditionally celebrates God's giving the Ten Commandments at Mt. Sinai.

*'''[[Rosh Hashanah]]'''--New Years. Marks the creation of the world.

*'''[[Yom Kippur]]'''--the Day of Atonement. Observant Jews consume no food or drink for the entire day.

*'''Sukkot''' --Tabernacles or Feast of Booths. Observant Jews eat and sleep in temporary shelters shaded by cut vegetation.

*'''Shemini Atzeret and Simchat Torah'''--The day after Sukkot is a separate holiday, known as the "Eighth Day Feast." It also marks the completion of the cycle of reading the Torah in synagogues. The end of Deuteronomy is read, followed by the first chapter of Genesis.

*'''[[Chanukah]]''' (there are several English spellings)--celebrates the re-dedication of the Temple after the revolt against the Greeks recorded in the Talmud and other texts. Jews light candles each night for eight nights, adding one candle each night.

*'''[[Purim]]'''--celebrates the thwarting of a plot to kill all Jews it is recorded in the Book of Esther, which is read aloud in its entirety in the synagogue.

*'''Tisha B'Av'''--also known as the Ninth of Av, 9th of Av, is a fast day that mourns the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.

==Calendar==
The Jewish calendar combines lunar and solar features. During Temple times, months began when the new moon was sighted in Jerusalem. An extra month was added when needed to keep the Pesach festival in the spring. Today a complex algorithm, over a thousand years old, is used to determine when months begin. As a result, the dates of the Jewish holidays in the civil calendar vary from year to year.

== Jewish Scripture ==

Jewish Scripture consists of 24 books, broken down into three sections:

*'''[[Torah]]'''--The Five Books of [[Moses]]: [[Genesis]] (Bereshit), [[Exodus]] (Shemot), [[Leviticus]] (Vayikra), [[Numbers]] (Bamidbar) and [[Deuteronomy]] (Devarim).

*'''Nevi'im''' --The Prophets: Joshua (Yehoshua), Judges (Shoftim), Samuel (Shmuel), Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the 12 minor prophets

*'''Ketuvim'''---The Writings: [[Psalms]], Proverbs, Job), Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, [[Esther (Biblical book)|Esther]], [[Daniel (Biblical book)|Daniel]], Ezra, Chronicles.

The Torah is divided into portions that are read during synagogue services over the course of the liturgical year. Jews refer to all 24 scrolls as the ''Tanakh,'' an acronym of the three sections. The Old Testament is the Tanakh, except with some different naming and a different ordering than the Jewish version. Some Jews find the term Old Testament to be offensive, as its meaning can be interpreted to mean the convenant of God with the Jews has been superceded and no longer applies.

==Post Biblical Jewish Development and Literature==

The Jewish [[canon]] of Scripture was defined at the Jamnia (Yavneh) on the Mediterraenean coast of Israel at 90A.D., about two decades after the destruction of the Second Jewish Temple in Jerusalem by the Romans. Jews now also lived in great numbers outside of the Land of Israel, particularly in Mesopotamia (the Land between the Rivers of the Euphrates and the Tigris), and in Alexandria, Egypt. Mesopotamian Jewry, with its large core from the exile to Babylon continually added to, was mainly Aramaic speaking while Egyptian Jewry was Greek speaking. Aramaic Jewry began the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into [[Aramaic]], this came to be known as the [[Peshitta]] ("simple" or common). This development was accelerated particularly when the queen of [[Adiabene]], Helena (Shlomzion HaMalka, converted with others to Judaism. The Old Testament Peshitta (there is also the New Testament Peshitta as believers in Jesus translated the Greek New Testament into Aramaic) contains influence from the Jewish literature known as the [[Targum]]. Queen Helena was buried in Jerusalem around 70 A.D.

The Aexandrian Jews also translated, even earlier, the Torah into their language, Greek. Later books were added to the Septagint by anonymous translators. This is known as the Septuagint (translated by 70 or 72 Jewish scholars). The Septuagint was used by Greek speaking Jews and was naturally turned to by the Greek speaking believers in Jesus. Later Jewish scholars retranslated the Bible into Greek, as the Septuagint was seen as having issues in translations of words, these translations were done by Symmachus, Aquilas, and Theodotios, all converts to Judaism. Around the same time of this process, the Rabbinical School at Jamnia (Yavneh) under Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai, decided that what was canonical for Judaism was only those books which had already been accepted as Scripture and were found in the Hebrew language. This eliminated most of the Apocrypha which was found mostly in Greek and Latin (but the book of Ecclesiasticus - "Ben Sirach" - has now been found in Hebrew and considered canonical by the Dead Sea community of Jews) as well as elevating the ''Hebrew'' Scriptures over just the Scriptures of Israel no matter in which language. Eventually over time, not only did the Septuagint drop out of Jewish usage, but so did the other Greek translations.
They were replaced by various translations of the Bible into Aramaic, one of the best known of these was the translation by Onkelos, a convert to Judaism, although Jewish scholars still used the Hebrew translation of the Bible, the laity preferred the Aramaic translations because Hebrew became out of use expect for Jewish scholars.
===="Jamnia" and Protestantism====

Though the connection of Jamnia and Protestantism is little known, it is a real one and one that exerted much influence on the developing Protestant Church and its outlook. The Hebrew canon of Scripture with its emphasis on Hebrew language originals sactioned at Jamnia, which would exclude the Jewish but Greek language books we now know as Intertestamental or Apocryphal, would be the basis of a continuing textual study and ammendation according to the passing on of readings and comments by succeeding Jewish authorities, scholars, and rabbis. This work would be carried on through the fifth century, the time of the Masoretes - the "tradition (of Scripture) bearers". The receiving and handing on of how Scripture texts were to be read and sung, and what they meant.

When the Renaissance took hold in Europe, great interest was shown in the rediscovering both of the Greek classics, entailing the renewed study of Greek for this purpose, and the study of Hebrew language. Here now was the possiblity for many scholars, and the emerging Protestant ones among them, to study the Hebrew Scriptures directly in the original language instead of the necessity of working through the Greek (Septuagint) and Latin (Vulgate) translations. But the Hebrew source resorted to by these scholars was the Masoretic text - following the School of Jamnia - without the Apocrypha. From then on, the heritage and perspective of the Protestant Reformation churches was that the Bible excluded the Apocrypha, though some of the churches would use the Apocrypha as "secondary" readings.

===The Talmud===

In Israel, there arose a literature, mainly in the common Hebrew of the day. It is known as the Mishna ("secondary"). This was primarily the recordings of discussions of Biblical laws with view to application to the present life and experience of Jews in Israel and in the diaspora. Changing conditions required more current applications. The Mishna developed over four centuries (200 B.C. to 200 A.D.) and is divided into 6 orders, numerous tractates, and smaller units (mishnayot). Most of the Mishna is comprised of "''Halakha''"- that is, legal discussions, decisions, having, in many cases, enforcable applications either by the Jewish community directly or by the Roman or otherwise authorities. The non legal aspects of the Mishna - the anecdotes, stories, remembrances of the rabbinic lives, etc. are called ''Aggadah'' ("the telling").

The Palestinian Hebrew Mishna, having spread to Mesopotamia, came to be regulatory to the Babylonian Jews, and, as the Mishna had become a "commentary" on the Hebrew Bible, so the Babylonian Jews developed a commentary on the Mishna itself. This was called the Gemara ("completion") and is in their own language, Aramaic. The formation of the Gemara took from 200 A.D. to 500 A.D. The whole Talmud then was a work of 700 years. The Mishna and the Gemara together is called the Talmud ("the Learning"). The Talmud then became regulatory until modern times for Jewish life elsewhere with but a few unmainstream groups not accepting it.

The process of G-d sanctioned and ordained commentary (the Talmud) on the Scriptures is a legacy of the one movement that survived the first century Roman detruction of the temple and Jewish authority in Israel. The Saduccees disappeared as did the Essenes and the Herodians. But not so the Pharisees. The Pharisees believed that with the written Torah given to Moses on Sinai, there was also an Oral Torah given to him, by which the written was to be interpreted and applied. This Oral Torah was transmitted to others - Joshua, then the seventy, the prophets, and then to certain pairs (Zugot) finally finding its exression through the discussions and decisions embodied in the Talmudic literature. Having a "portable" law and, so to speak, a "constituion" in the Talmud, Jews then were able to survive as Jews when they no longer had a land to live in and define them.

==Dietary laws==
[[Orthodox Jew]]s follow a strict and complex set of rules governing what they may eat and drink. Permissible foods are called ''[[kosher]].'' Per Biblical commandments, only animals that chew their cud and have cloven hooves may be eaten and they must be properly slaughtered. Fish must have fins and scales. Dairy products cannot be mixed with meat from animals or birds. Vegetables, must be checked for insects, as insects are considered "treyf", meaning not kosher. Additional rules apply during [[Pesach]], which is the most commonly practiced holiday amongst Jews.

==Life cycle==
Jewish boys are circumcised eight days after birth. They become adults for religious purposes when they turn 13, and event marked by a ceremony called a [[Bar Mitzvah]]. Similar ceremonies for girls, called [[Bat Mitzvah]], were introduced in in the 20th century.

[[Jewish law]] only recognizes marriages between Jews. [[Divorce]] is permitted, but there are exacting rules that must be followed for the divorce to be valid, including the husband presenting a bill of divorce (''Get'') to his wife.

Jewish law requires bodies to be buried promptly, preferably no later than the day after death. [[Cremation]] is not permitted. There are prescribed stages of [[mourning]] for the first year after the death of a close relative (parent, sibling, spouse of child). The anniversary of such a death is observed with gifts to [[charity]] and the recitation of a prayer, ''[[Kaddish]],'' praising God's name.

== See also ==

* [[Bible]]
* [[Israel]]
* [[Israel Tourism]]
* [[Synagogue]]
* [[Orthodox Judaism]]
* [[Jewish Republican]]
* [[Passover Seder]]
* [[Hebrew]]
* [[Aramaic]]
* [[Aramaic Church]]
* [[Had Gadya]]
* [[Kaddish]]
* [[Midrash]]
* [[Targum]]

== External links ==

* [http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/jewish/jewishsbook.html Internet Jewish History Sourcebook]
* [http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/ Jewish Virtual Library]
* [http://www.jewfaq.org/index.htm Judaism 101] Tracey R Rich.
* [http://www.jewishstudies.virtualave.net/ Academic Jewish Studies Internet Directory]
* [http://www.AskMoses.com AskMoses.com for questions about Judaism]
* [http://www.Chabad.org Chabad's Website]
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/jews/ What Liberals Say - Category: Jews], [[Accuracy In Media]]
* [http://www.aish.com Aish.com/]
* [http://www.beingjewish.com/ BeingJewish.com]
* [http://jewishanswers.com/ JewishAnswers.com]
* [http://torah.org/ Torah.org]
* [http://simpletoremember.com SimpleToRemember.com]
* [http://njop.org National Jewish Outreach Program (outreaches to assimilated Jews)]
* [http://ArtScroll.com ArtScroll.com]
* [http://Shamash.org Shamash.org]
* [http://shemayisrael.com/ ShemaYisrael.com]
* [http://jewishworldreview.com/ JewishWorldReview.com]

[[Category:Judaism|*]]

Talk:Al Franken

2008-09-16T15:59:22Z

QuickFixer: /* The Jewish seat. */

==Layout==
Right now everything is in one long paragraph, if anyone wants to make it look more appealing, I have no problem with that, I'll probably do it my self when I have more time [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 18:39, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

==Quote==

I don't want to insert a fact tag, because those are ugly and usually not needed. But we really need a citation on that quote about being glad the homosexual was killed.... If this is posted with no backup and it's not true, it crosses the line. This would be pure libel [http://internet-law.lawyers.com/Libel-Online.html] and could get this site in serious trouble. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 17:48, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
:Sources added, libel avoided. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:25, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
::Sorry to seem a stickler... but I wouldn't slam the door on that yet... I mean, the first two are simply opinions columns (with the first linking to the second) as for the third. It's obviously genuine, but after reading through the article, it seems very poorly written. on top of that. This is a quote from 1976 (if it was even said.) I don't see why a 40 year old quote is relevant today. Many people change attitudes through experience. In 1976, Homosexuality was still conseridered a mental disorder in some circles. This seems much like drug charges that are often leveled at people... who cares? people change [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 18:34, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Not really a stickler; you just wanted accuracy. The first source may be an opinion column, but having that source come directly from a gay blog carries some weight in it; the other two lead to the actual source of the quote, which is Harvard University's newspaper...and Harvard has always been a bastion of liberal toleration and love, hasn't it? Whether or not it's relevent today is immaterial; the point is that Franken had actually said such a despicable remark. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:39, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
::::(rolls eyes)Please...reading the original source article, Franken is ''clearly'' being sarcastic, expressing mock-anger that the Hasty Pudding people rejected the skit he wrote.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 18:57, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::I acutally agree with Ross. As for your earlier points. I don't think having it come from a gay blog gives it any more weight than not.... But that's another point. As for the other point, I disagree.. If we're going to trolling through everybody's past to find any type of bad thing they said and then assume with no context that this makes them a bad person.... well then by all means, go ahead... Besides, in terms of homsexuality, this site has said a lot worse than whatever Franken did or didn't say... I think the term "despicable remark" is a little out of place. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 19:02, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::In short, he gets a pass because he's a liberal, right? Not on this site. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 07:12, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Not suggesting he get a pass. Suggesting that it be made clearer that his statement was a (poor) attempt at humor.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 09:16, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
(unindent) It has nothing to with liberal or conservative.... But this site is demanding when it comes to quoting [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:TomMoore#Alleged_quotations certain people] I find it strange that we're so open when it comes to others.... I would argue that the liberal bias (in this case negative) is in my opponent. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 18:14, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

==Books and credibility==

Is this the guy who wrote "Lies and the lying liars" or whatever it's called? I heard he tried to discredit someone with a charge of plagiarism, which '''he plagiarized''' from another source! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]

== Citations ==
There should be a citation for radical. If There's a reason to put it in the article, then, there should be a citation. [[User:LiberalSmack|LiberalSmack]] 11:12, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:You can't cite being a radical. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:24, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

==Changes==

I made a serveral major changes to the article, and I decided it would be easier to lay them out here point by point.
*Whatever your personal opinion about Franken, there is a fine line between character assassination and opinion reporting. Accusing someone of "masquerading as a 'satirist' who deliberately [[smears]] and [[defames]] people he disagrees with ... " with your ref being a site that exists only to attack Franken if hardly acceptable.
*The line "Franken's rudeness, vulgarity, and his tendency to make outrageously offensive comments." is completely out of place in an encyclopedia. Is this article meant to be an opinion piece? if so, by all means lets keep it in.
*"even in a state such as Minnesota known for electing wrestling stars as governors" Really? An Ad Hominem attack against an entire state? How about we add that California is a state that likes to elect has been B Movie actors? Not to mention, past governors have nothing to do with article.
*Regardless of whether or not you agree with the subtitle of the book, it's still part of the title. Personal feelings are immaterial. If his book was subtitled "Why all Conservatives should be shot." it's still part of the title and needs to be listed as such.
*We have no idea of seeign into a person's mind and decided what they believe or what they simply charge. In the book, Franken makes it clear that he feels everything he's writing is true, and we cannot extrapolate the facts to make decisions.
On a final note, the second proof of his hatred should be removed or better sourced. As it is now, the ref simply tells a story with no page numbers or proof whatsoever. I would just take it out now, but I'm sure my changes would be reverted. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 12:26, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

:Franken's own work has shown a history of smearing and defaming; he doesn't try hard to cover it up as he has convinced himself he needs to be a counter-balance to the right. The title of his book on Rush Limbaugh would certainly qualify as rude, for instance - as well as being horribly insulting and politically incorrect to about 50 million Americans.
:Arnold had a history of positive political contributions, especially in the area of fitness. And Arnold never left office to make a large check being a guest referee for Wrestlemania while he was employed as a governor. The people of Minnesota took Ventura's victory with all of the respect it was due such as doing brisk sales with the 'My governor can beat up your governor' T-shirts. It is what it is. Politics in Minnesota stand out on their own merits.
:Franken has gone out of his way to push the envelope. Using the language from the Fox network in the title of his book. Calling his show O'Franken. And that's hardly all. We go by the fruits. How many people will tell you they have hatred? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:35, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::Well, considering the fan magazine article that is [[Ann Coulter]] on this site... I was under the mistaken impression that we gave a damn about honest reporting.... So you know what? screw it.... this site is doomed to fail if good hard work from editors is simply reverted, with a go screw message left on the talk pages.... Have fun with your blog. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 13:12, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
:::I have not been actively involved in the Ann Coulter article, but if you're saying we need to shield the truth about Franken or water it down to sound nice because you don't like the way Ann Coulter is written, then no, that's not the way it works. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:59, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::::I said nothing or the sort. I simply bring up the Ann Coulter article because it sounds like it's written by a 13 year old with a crush. I have no problem with including ciritisms against Al Franken... but this is beyond the line... It goes right along with the "He a liberal so we don't like him" party-line of this site. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 16:04, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
==No Response==
It's been several days, and I've received no response to my postings. Can I please have the common curtesy of a reply. None of my original points has been addressed, and the current version of the article still remains. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 23:43, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

:[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Al_Franken&diff=435324&oldid=434391] [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:38, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
::Your repsonse is a simple link to a week old response? Wow, just wow. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 13:17, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
:::You appeared to have missed it. So are you ever going to provide constructive information to this site, oh 'conservative doctor'? How about detailing medical procedures, various maladies, and details on medical instruments? I look forward to seeing your results. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:27, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Excuse me sir.... I have given you no reason to cast such doubt on my personal history, nor have I ever patronized you in such a matter. If you cannot conduct yourself in a civilized, decent mannor, I would ask that you not address me at all. As for my contributions to this site, and this page in particular, I find it quite obvious that you know this is pure garbage and simply choose to let it stand for ideaological reasons (aka, Franken is Liberal, so we defame and slander his name) and I will simply let it be. May I also ask you sir, what your chosen field of study is and what profession you work within? [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 12:34, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::Of course you have given reason. If I claimed I was a devout Orthodox Jew, but I didn't show that I even understood any of the terminology and I was upset because the Hamas article didn't portray a kind picture of Hamas, then I would be lying as well. You had ample opportunity to show you could do more than talk. You failed. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:47, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::Learning, as I ''am'' a devout Orthodox Jew, let me assure you the [[Hamas]] paints '''too kind''' an image of them. '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 06:56, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

== wrestling stars ==

I meant a source for the state ''being known'' for electing Ventura. I think the line is irrelevant OR. Seems like "Minnesotaphobia"... [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 02:10, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

:It was big news for an extended period of time when it occurred my friend, and it was a position that the people of Minnesota themselves promoted with brisk sales of 'My governor can beat up your governor' T-shirts. When it comes to politics, Minnesota can do some odd things. Nevertheless, if you really want to remove you can do so, but realize there is validity to the statement. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:43, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

==The edits stay==
What I included was factually accurate; removing them because they were later considered to be just another Franken "joke" is not going to be allowed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:40, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:Karajou, your attitude is not making this page any better... you simply revert anything you want to and then protect the page to prevent further editing. As for the Helen Thomas thing, I'm holding a copy of the book in my hands right now... he mentions this, saying in a footnote "The Helen Thomas think is a joke. In a number of right-wing blogs, this was cited as exhibit A in proving that my book was full of lies." Whether or not you like Franken or don't (and you obviously don't) It was intended as a joke. If you want to mention that his style of mixing fact with humor makes it difficult to tell the two apart, that's fine. But to continue repeating the blatant untruth that he lied about it just makes the entire sight look silly. '''[[user:JDavidson|JDavidson]]'''[[User_talk:JDavidson|'''Leave a message ::BEEP::''']] 14:21, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
::My attitude? And your's doesn't count? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:31, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::The Helen Thomas thing was corrected by Franken in the paperback edition, after the hardcover edition was mentioned and found out to be a lie by Skorski. You are the one who cannot handle the truth of the matter, and so far your attitude proves it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:33, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Occam's razor. The story from Franken is that the item was intended as a joke, but was misunderstood and corrected as such. Your explanation requires a vast Franken and publisher conspiracy, in which he lied about something that could easily be checked by even the most novice of investigators and even publicly disputed by the subject. Then, when he was outed, he invented the coverup of a joke.... Which situation seems more plausible? '''[[user:JDavidson|JDavidson]]'''[[User_talk:JDavidson|'''Leave a message ::BEEP::''']] 16:45, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::You are aware of Hillary Clinton dodging sniper fire are you not? Perhaps that was also a joke? Occam's razor is a very poor instrument when it comes against human behavior. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 22:15, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for clearing up the issue by locking out any changes to the article! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 19:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:This is the talk page, why not propose and justify changes you want to see? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:21, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
::It seems JDavidson tried to propose and justify changes. He was blocked. Also, Karajou makes it fairly clear about changes, "removing them because they were later considered to be just another Franken "joke" is not going to be allowed." Not much room for discussion there, it seems. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 19:25, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Karajou's edits were sourced. What changes do you want to make? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:28, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
::::That in the paperback copy, Al Franken footnotes the Helen Thomas story stating, "The Helen Thomas think is a joke. In a number of right-wing blogs, this was cited as exhibit A in proving that my book was full of lies."--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 19:30, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::So... you want the article to say that after his deceit was exposed he claimed it was a joke? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:32, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::No, I disagree that it was a deceit. When I read the book, I saw it as a joke---knowing that Al Franken is a satirist and a comedian.
:::::And here's another change, according to Karajou's source on the unemployment numbers (the Department of Labor statistics), 5.0% was not the lowest in decades (according to the 2005 interview). As Franken would point out, looking [http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm here] shows lower unemployment (sub 5%) every year from 1997 to 2001. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 19:34, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::I suggest you wait for Karajou to deal with this. He will no doubt see your arguments and take them into consideration. Though you seem to be arguing against sourced material. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:41, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
(Unindent) I seem to be arguing against sourced material? Interesting perspective. Karajou posts a page from a book that says Franken is lying about unemployment numbers. Provides link to the actual numbers. The numbers show that Franken was correct. I guess Karajou may have a "source" but doesn't necessarily mean it's correct...especially when the "source's" source says otherwise. But I guess if it's in a book it must be true.--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 20:17, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:Do we do OR here? I can't remember. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 20:18, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:: I can't remember either...mostly because I don't know what you're talking about. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 20:20, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

As I've said, the edits stay. You can add the cavet about Franken admitting the joke about Thomas, etc, but the fact remains that Franken is a proven liar; his lies and mistatements have been well-sourced, and they will be posted here. And no, JDavidson, it's not because I dislike Franken...it's because nobody in their right mind should ever put such a man like Franken in the United States Senate, and I'm going to do my little duty to ensure Minnesota's voting public is informed about it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:35, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

==This page==

this page currently reads like an Anti-Franken essay. I see numerous problems with it, but after looking through the history, I'm reluctant to step in and change anything, as it's rather obvious what happens to those that do. Is there anyway one of the sysops can at least tone down the blatant hatred. [[User:NateE|NateE]] 14:10, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:You certainly want to put down your concerns in the talk page first and what wording you would wish to use to address them, including any sources that you may wish to use. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:36, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
::Seeing as what just happened [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Lies_and_the_Lying_Liars_Who_Tell_Them&diff=517498&oldid=517356 here,] I have no intention of wading any deeper into this issue. Neutral, well sourced information is simply reverted without explanation and your interaction with the now banned DrCB [[Talk:Al Franken#Changes|here]] shows that you're pretty resolute in your postition. Therefore, in the interest of saving energy, I withdraw myself from this and all other Franken related pages. [[User:NateE|NateE]] 11:10, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Wow, more insinuations from a concern troll. [[User:QuickFixer|QuickFixer]] 11:54, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

== The Jewish seat. ==

I just came across this on the internet.

Should it be pointed out in the article that Al Franken is running for the Senate seat that is dedicated to those who are Jewish since about 1984, in a state where less than 1% of the population is Jewish?

 2008: Al Frankin (D) v. Norm Coleman (R)
 2002: Norm Coleman (R) v. Paul Wellstone (D)
 1996: Rudy Boschwitz (R) v. Paul Wellstone (D)
 1990: Paul Wellstone (D) v. Rudy Boschwitz (R)

Maybe not, since it's not officially dedicated as far as I can tell. [[User:QuickFixer|QuickFixer]] 11:59, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Al Franken

2008-09-16T15:59:01Z

QuickFixer: /* The Jewish seat. */ new section

==Layout==
Right now everything is in one long paragraph, if anyone wants to make it look more appealing, I have no problem with that, I'll probably do it my self when I have more time [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 18:39, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

==Quote==

I don't want to insert a fact tag, because those are ugly and usually not needed. But we really need a citation on that quote about being glad the homosexual was killed.... If this is posted with no backup and it's not true, it crosses the line. This would be pure libel [http://internet-law.lawyers.com/Libel-Online.html] and could get this site in serious trouble. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 17:48, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
:Sources added, libel avoided. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:25, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
::Sorry to seem a stickler... but I wouldn't slam the door on that yet... I mean, the first two are simply opinions columns (with the first linking to the second) as for the third. It's obviously genuine, but after reading through the article, it seems very poorly written. on top of that. This is a quote from 1976 (if it was even said.) I don't see why a 40 year old quote is relevant today. Many people change attitudes through experience. In 1976, Homosexuality was still conseridered a mental disorder in some circles. This seems much like drug charges that are often leveled at people... who cares? people change [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 18:34, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Not really a stickler; you just wanted accuracy. The first source may be an opinion column, but having that source come directly from a gay blog carries some weight in it; the other two lead to the actual source of the quote, which is Harvard University's newspaper...and Harvard has always been a bastion of liberal toleration and love, hasn't it? Whether or not it's relevent today is immaterial; the point is that Franken had actually said such a despicable remark. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:39, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
::::(rolls eyes)Please...reading the original source article, Franken is ''clearly'' being sarcastic, expressing mock-anger that the Hasty Pudding people rejected the skit he wrote.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 18:57, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::I acutally agree with Ross. As for your earlier points. I don't think having it come from a gay blog gives it any more weight than not.... But that's another point. As for the other point, I disagree.. If we're going to trolling through everybody's past to find any type of bad thing they said and then assume with no context that this makes them a bad person.... well then by all means, go ahead... Besides, in terms of homsexuality, this site has said a lot worse than whatever Franken did or didn't say... I think the term "despicable remark" is a little out of place. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 19:02, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::In short, he gets a pass because he's a liberal, right? Not on this site. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 07:12, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Not suggesting he get a pass. Suggesting that it be made clearer that his statement was a (poor) attempt at humor.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 09:16, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
(unindent) It has nothing to with liberal or conservative.... But this site is demanding when it comes to quoting [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:TomMoore#Alleged_quotations certain people] I find it strange that we're so open when it comes to others.... I would argue that the liberal bias (in this case negative) is in my opponent. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 18:14, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

==Books and credibility==

Is this the guy who wrote "Lies and the lying liars" or whatever it's called? I heard he tried to discredit someone with a charge of plagiarism, which '''he plagiarized''' from another source! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]

== Citations ==
There should be a citation for radical. If There's a reason to put it in the article, then, there should be a citation. [[User:LiberalSmack|LiberalSmack]] 11:12, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:You can't cite being a radical. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:24, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

==Changes==

I made a serveral major changes to the article, and I decided it would be easier to lay them out here point by point.
*Whatever your personal opinion about Franken, there is a fine line between character assassination and opinion reporting. Accusing someone of "masquerading as a 'satirist' who deliberately [[smears]] and [[defames]] people he disagrees with ... " with your ref being a site that exists only to attack Franken if hardly acceptable.
*The line "Franken's rudeness, vulgarity, and his tendency to make outrageously offensive comments." is completely out of place in an encyclopedia. Is this article meant to be an opinion piece? if so, by all means lets keep it in.
*"even in a state such as Minnesota known for electing wrestling stars as governors" Really? An Ad Hominem attack against an entire state? How about we add that California is a state that likes to elect has been B Movie actors? Not to mention, past governors have nothing to do with article.
*Regardless of whether or not you agree with the subtitle of the book, it's still part of the title. Personal feelings are immaterial. If his book was subtitled "Why all Conservatives should be shot." it's still part of the title and needs to be listed as such.
*We have no idea of seeign into a person's mind and decided what they believe or what they simply charge. In the book, Franken makes it clear that he feels everything he's writing is true, and we cannot extrapolate the facts to make decisions.
On a final note, the second proof of his hatred should be removed or better sourced. As it is now, the ref simply tells a story with no page numbers or proof whatsoever. I would just take it out now, but I'm sure my changes would be reverted. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 12:26, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

:Franken's own work has shown a history of smearing and defaming; he doesn't try hard to cover it up as he has convinced himself he needs to be a counter-balance to the right. The title of his book on Rush Limbaugh would certainly qualify as rude, for instance - as well as being horribly insulting and politically incorrect to about 50 million Americans.
:Arnold had a history of positive political contributions, especially in the area of fitness. And Arnold never left office to make a large check being a guest referee for Wrestlemania while he was employed as a governor. The people of Minnesota took Ventura's victory with all of the respect it was due such as doing brisk sales with the 'My governor can beat up your governor' T-shirts. It is what it is. Politics in Minnesota stand out on their own merits.
:Franken has gone out of his way to push the envelope. Using the language from the Fox network in the title of his book. Calling his show O'Franken. And that's hardly all. We go by the fruits. How many people will tell you they have hatred? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:35, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::Well, considering the fan magazine article that is [[Ann Coulter]] on this site... I was under the mistaken impression that we gave a damn about honest reporting.... So you know what? screw it.... this site is doomed to fail if good hard work from editors is simply reverted, with a go screw message left on the talk pages.... Have fun with your blog. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 13:12, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
:::I have not been actively involved in the Ann Coulter article, but if you're saying we need to shield the truth about Franken or water it down to sound nice because you don't like the way Ann Coulter is written, then no, that's not the way it works. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:59, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::::I said nothing or the sort. I simply bring up the Ann Coulter article because it sounds like it's written by a 13 year old with a crush. I have no problem with including ciritisms against Al Franken... but this is beyond the line... It goes right along with the "He a liberal so we don't like him" party-line of this site. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 16:04, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
==No Response==
It's been several days, and I've received no response to my postings. Can I please have the common curtesy of a reply. None of my original points has been addressed, and the current version of the article still remains. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 23:43, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

:[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Al_Franken&diff=435324&oldid=434391] [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:38, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
::Your repsonse is a simple link to a week old response? Wow, just wow. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 13:17, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
:::You appeared to have missed it. So are you ever going to provide constructive information to this site, oh 'conservative doctor'? How about detailing medical procedures, various maladies, and details on medical instruments? I look forward to seeing your results. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:27, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Excuse me sir.... I have given you no reason to cast such doubt on my personal history, nor have I ever patronized you in such a matter. If you cannot conduct yourself in a civilized, decent mannor, I would ask that you not address me at all. As for my contributions to this site, and this page in particular, I find it quite obvious that you know this is pure garbage and simply choose to let it stand for ideaological reasons (aka, Franken is Liberal, so we defame and slander his name) and I will simply let it be. May I also ask you sir, what your chosen field of study is and what profession you work within? [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 12:34, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::Of course you have given reason. If I claimed I was a devout Orthodox Jew, but I didn't show that I even understood any of the terminology and I was upset because the Hamas article didn't portray a kind picture of Hamas, then I would be lying as well. You had ample opportunity to show you could do more than talk. You failed. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:47, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::Learning, as I ''am'' a devout Orthodox Jew, let me assure you the [[Hamas]] paints '''too kind''' an image of them. '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 06:56, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

== wrestling stars ==

I meant a source for the state ''being known'' for electing Ventura. I think the line is irrelevant OR. Seems like "Minnesotaphobia"... [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 02:10, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

:It was big news for an extended period of time when it occurred my friend, and it was a position that the people of Minnesota themselves promoted with brisk sales of 'My governor can beat up your governor' T-shirts. When it comes to politics, Minnesota can do some odd things. Nevertheless, if you really want to remove you can do so, but realize there is validity to the statement. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:43, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

==The edits stay==
What I included was factually accurate; removing them because they were later considered to be just another Franken "joke" is not going to be allowed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:40, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:Karajou, your attitude is not making this page any better... you simply revert anything you want to and then protect the page to prevent further editing. As for the Helen Thomas thing, I'm holding a copy of the book in my hands right now... he mentions this, saying in a footnote "The Helen Thomas think is a joke. In a number of right-wing blogs, this was cited as exhibit A in proving that my book was full of lies." Whether or not you like Franken or don't (and you obviously don't) It was intended as a joke. If you want to mention that his style of mixing fact with humor makes it difficult to tell the two apart, that's fine. But to continue repeating the blatant untruth that he lied about it just makes the entire sight look silly. '''[[user:JDavidson|JDavidson]]'''[[User_talk:JDavidson|'''Leave a message ::BEEP::''']] 14:21, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
::My attitude? And your's doesn't count? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:31, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::The Helen Thomas thing was corrected by Franken in the paperback edition, after the hardcover edition was mentioned and found out to be a lie by Skorski. You are the one who cannot handle the truth of the matter, and so far your attitude proves it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:33, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Occam's razor. The story from Franken is that the item was intended as a joke, but was misunderstood and corrected as such. Your explanation requires a vast Franken and publisher conspiracy, in which he lied about something that could easily be checked by even the most novice of investigators and even publicly disputed by the subject. Then, when he was outed, he invented the coverup of a joke.... Which situation seems more plausible? '''[[user:JDavidson|JDavidson]]'''[[User_talk:JDavidson|'''Leave a message ::BEEP::''']] 16:45, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::You are aware of Hillary Clinton dodging sniper fire are you not? Perhaps that was also a joke? Occam's razor is a very poor instrument when it comes against human behavior. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 22:15, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for clearing up the issue by locking out any changes to the article! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 19:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:This is the talk page, why not propose and justify changes you want to see? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:21, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
::It seems JDavidson tried to propose and justify changes. He was blocked. Also, Karajou makes it fairly clear about changes, "removing them because they were later considered to be just another Franken "joke" is not going to be allowed." Not much room for discussion there, it seems. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 19:25, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Karajou's edits were sourced. What changes do you want to make? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:28, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
::::That in the paperback copy, Al Franken footnotes the Helen Thomas story stating, "The Helen Thomas think is a joke. In a number of right-wing blogs, this was cited as exhibit A in proving that my book was full of lies."--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 19:30, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::So... you want the article to say that after his deceit was exposed he claimed it was a joke? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:32, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::No, I disagree that it was a deceit. When I read the book, I saw it as a joke---knowing that Al Franken is a satirist and a comedian.
:::::And here's another change, according to Karajou's source on the unemployment numbers (the Department of Labor statistics), 5.0% was not the lowest in decades (according to the 2005 interview). As Franken would point out, looking [http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm here] shows lower unemployment (sub 5%) every year from 1997 to 2001. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 19:34, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::I suggest you wait for Karajou to deal with this. He will no doubt see your arguments and take them into consideration. Though you seem to be arguing against sourced material. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:41, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
(Unindent) I seem to be arguing against sourced material? Interesting perspective. Karajou posts a page from a book that says Franken is lying about unemployment numbers. Provides link to the actual numbers. The numbers show that Franken was correct. I guess Karajou may have a "source" but doesn't necessarily mean it's correct...especially when the "source's" source says otherwise. But I guess if it's in a book it must be true.--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 20:17, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:Do we do OR here? I can't remember. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 20:18, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:: I can't remember either...mostly because I don't know what you're talking about. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 20:20, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

As I've said, the edits stay. You can add the cavet about Franken admitting the joke about Thomas, etc, but the fact remains that Franken is a proven liar; his lies and mistatements have been well-sourced, and they will be posted here. And no, JDavidson, it's not because I dislike Franken...it's because nobody in their right mind should ever put such a man like Franken in the United States Senate, and I'm going to do my little duty to ensure Minnesota's voting public is informed about it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:35, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

==This page==

this page currently reads like an Anti-Franken essay. I see numerous problems with it, but after looking through the history, I'm reluctant to step in and change anything, as it's rather obvious what happens to those that do. Is there anyway one of the sysops can at least tone down the blatant hatred. [[User:NateE|NateE]] 14:10, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:You certainly want to put down your concerns in the talk page first and what wording you would wish to use to address them, including any sources that you may wish to use. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:36, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
::Seeing as what just happened [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Lies_and_the_Lying_Liars_Who_Tell_Them&diff=517498&oldid=517356 here,] I have no intention of wading any deeper into this issue. Neutral, well sourced information is simply reverted without explanation and your interaction with the now banned DrCB [[Talk:Al Franken#Changes|here]] shows that you're pretty resolute in your postition. Therefore, in the interest of saving energy, I withdraw myself from this and all other Franken related pages. [[User:NateE|NateE]] 11:10, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Wow, more insinuations from a concern troll. [[User:QuickFixer|QuickFixer]] 11:54, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

== The Jewish seat. ==

I just came across this on the internet.

Should it be pointed out in the article that Al Franken is running for the Senate seat that is dedicated to those who are Jewish since about 1984, in a state where less than 1% of the population is Jewish?

2008: Al Frankin (D) v. Norm Coleman (R)
2002: Norm Coleman (R) v. Paul Wellstone (D)
1996: Rudy Boschwitz (R) v. Paul Wellstone (D)
1990: Paul Wellstone (D) v. Rudy Boschwitz (R)

Maybe not, since it's not officially dedicated as far as I can tell. [[User:QuickFixer|QuickFixer]] 11:59, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Al Franken

2008-09-16T15:54:04Z

QuickFixer: /* This page */ Recommend banning concern troll

Talk:Bush Doctrine

2008-09-16T15:50:51Z

QuickFixer: Please don't poison the well with snide remarks against other unnamed admins.

==Completely Untrue==
The concept known as the "Bush Doctrine" did not become popular just a few days ago with Charles Gibson's interview of Palin. It was first coined in 2002 in a NY Times article found here http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DE3DE123CF930A25757C0A9649C8B63. Granted the Bush Doctrine is not as well defined as say the Truman Doctrine, but the term has certainly been in use for years. I would edit the page directly, but I would most likely fall victim to a banning.--[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 23:42, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
:You're correct AmesdrasK. Please edit the article and make it factual. Remember, cite your sources. If you do this, you need not fear becoming a block victim. Thanks. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:47, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
::Will do (cannot do it right now due to time pressures, but I will later tonight). Thanks for the assurance against a block, unfortunately, I see more and more ideological blocking everyday. Good to see that some sysops abide by their own rules! --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 07:06, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Please don't poison the well with snide remarks against other unnamed admins. [[User:QuickFixer|QuickFixer]] 11:50, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Bush Doctrine

2008-09-16T15:49:30Z

QuickFixer: preemptive war

The '''Bush Doctrine''' is an invented term coined by liberals, usually to falsely ascribe the the concept of [[preventive war]] to [[George W. Bush]].

==Charlie Gibson and Sara Palin==
The left-wing term became popular in the mainstream after [[Sarah Palin]] was asked by Charlie Gibson, "Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine." Governor Palin responded, "In what respect, Charlie?" Charlie Gibson declined to elaborate, and instead answered, "well, what do you interpret it to be?"

Sarah Palin went on to enumerate how she agreed with Bush's attempts to combat Islamic extremists and terrorism, while admitting that some mistakes had been made.

Charlie Gibson then smugly elaborated what he meant by the Bush Doctrine.

{{cquote|The Bush Doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense. We have the right to a preemptive strike against any country that we think is going to attack us.}}

The leftist leaning media portrayed the Palin/Gibson exchange as evidence that Sarah Palin is not competent on national security and foreign policy, neglecting to address Charlie Gibson's confusion of preventive war and [[preemptive war]], as well as the unlikelihood that Sarah Palin would be familiar with a term popular at salon.com.
==Early mentions of the Bush Doctrine==
In 2002, Steven R. Weisman asserted in a New York Times op./ed. piece defined the Bush Doctrine as that which holds ''those who harbor terrorists are accountable for terrorism''.<ref>[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DE3DE123CF930A25757C0A9649C8B63 Editorial Observer; President Bush and the Middle East Axis of Ambiguity]</ref>

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

Bush Doctrine

2008-09-16T15:49:08Z

QuickFixer: g, ref

The '''Bush Doctrine''' is an invented term coined by liberals, usually to falsely ascribe the the concept of [[preventive war]] to [[George W. Bush]].

==Charlie Gibson and Sara Palin==
The left-wing term became popular in the mainstream after [[Sarah Palin]] was asked by Charlie Gibson, "Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine." Governor Palin responded, "In what respect, Charlie?" Charlie Gibson declined to elaborate, and instead answered, "well, what do you interpret it to be?"

Sarah Palin went on to enumerate how she agreed with Bush's attempts to combat Islamic extremists and terrorism, while admitting that some mistakes had been made.

Charlie Gibson then smugly elaborated what he meant by the Bush Doctrine.

{{cquote|The Bush Doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense. We have the right to a preemptive strike against any country that we think is going to attack us.}}

The leftist leaning media portrayed the Palin/Gibson exchange as evidence that Sarah Palin is not competent on national security and foreign policy, neglecting to address Charlie Gibson's confusion of preventive war and [[premptive war]], as well as the unlikelihood that Sarah Palin would be familiar with a term popular at salon.com.
==Early mentions of the Bush Doctrine==
In 2002, Steven R. Weisman asserted in a New York Times op./ed. piece defined the Bush Doctrine as that which holds ''those who harbor terrorists are accountable for terrorism''.<ref>[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DE3DE123CF930A25757C0A9649C8B63 Editorial Observer; President Bush and the Middle East Axis of Ambiguity]</ref>

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

Bush Doctrine

2008-09-16T03:46:36Z

QuickFixer: Early mentions of the Bush Doctrin

The '''Bush Doctrine''' is an invented term coined by liberals, usually to falsely ascribe the the concept of [[preventive war]] to [[George W. Bush]].

==Charlie Gibson and Sara Palin==
The left-wing term became popular in the mainstream after [[Sarah Palin]] was asked by Charlie Gibson, "Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine." Governor Palin responded, "In what respect, Charlie?" Charlie Gibson declined to elaborate, and instead answered, "well, what do you interpret it to be?"

Sarah Palin went on to enumerate how she agreed with Bush's attempts to combat Islamic extremists and terrorism, while admitting that some mistakes had been made.

Charlie Gibson then smugly elaborated what he meant by the Bush Doctrine.

{{cquote|The Bush Doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense. We have the right to a preemptive strike against any country that we think is going to attack us.}}

The leftist leaning media portrayed the Palin/Gibson exchange as evidence that Sarah Palin is not competent on national security and foreign policy, neglecting to address Charlie Gibson's confusion of preventive war and [[premptive war]], as well as the unlikelihood that Sarah Palin would be familiar with a term popular at salon.com.
==Early mentions of the Bush Doctrine==
In 2002, Steven R. Weisman asserted in a New York Times op./ed. piece that the Bush Doctrine holds ''those who harbor terrorists accountable for terrorism''.[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DE3DE123CF930A25757C0A9649C8B63 Editorial Observer; President Bush and the Middle East Axis of Ambiguity]

Bush Doctrine

2008-09-16T03:43:31Z

QuickFixer: clarification (popular with who?)

The '''Bush Doctrine''' is an invented term coined by liberals, usually to falsely ascribe the the concept of [[preventive war]] to [[George W. Bush]].

==Charlie Gibson and Sara Palin==
The left-wing term became popular in the mainstream after [[Sarah Palin]] was asked by Charlie Gibson, "Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine." Governor Palin responded, "In what respect, Charlie?" Charlie Gibson declined to elaborate, and instead answered, "well, what do you interpret it to be?"

Sarah Palin went on to enumerate how she agreed with Bush's attempts to combat Islamic extremists and terrorism, while admitting that some mistakes had been made.

Charlie Gibson then smugly elaborated what he meant by the Bush Doctrine.

{{cquote|The Bush Doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense. We have the right to a preemptive strike against any country that we think is going to attack us.}}

The leftist leaning media portrayed the Palin/Gibson exchange as evidence that Sarah Palin is not competent on national security and foreign policy, neglecting to address Charlie Gibson's confusion of preventive war and [[premptive war]], as well as the unlikelihood that Sarah Palin would be familiar with a term popular at salon.com.

Bush Doctrine

2008-09-16T03:42:19Z

QuickFixer: preventive war

The '''Bush Doctrine''' is an invented term coined by liberals, usually to falsely ascribe the the concept of [[preventive war]] to [[George W. Bush]].

==Charlie Gibson and Sara Palin==
The left-wing term became popular after [[Sarah Palin]] was asked by Charlie Gibson, "Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine." Governor Palin responded, "In what respect, Charlie?" Charlie Gibson declined to elaborate, and instead answered, "well, what do you interpret it to be?"

Sarah Palin went on to enumerate how she agreed with Bush's attempts to combat Islamic extremists and terrorism, while admitting that some mistakes had been made.

Charlie Gibson then smugly elaborated what he meant by the Bush Doctrine.

{{cquote|The Bush Doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense. We have the right to a preemptive strike against any country that we think is going to attack us.}}

The leftist leaning media portrayed the Palin/Gibson exchange as evidence that Sarah Palin is not competent on national security and foreign policy, neglecting to address Charlie Gibson's confusion of preventive war and [[premptive war]], as well as the unlikelihood that Sarah Palin would be familiar with a term popular at salon.com.

Bush Doctrine

2008-09-16T03:41:45Z

QuickFixer: preventive

The '''Bush Doctrine''' is an invented term coined by liberals, usually to falsely ascribe the the concept of [[preventative war]] to [[George W. Bush]].

==Charlie Gibson and Sara Palin==
The left-wing term became popular after [[Sarah Palin]] was asked by Charlie Gibson, "Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine." Governor Palin responded, "In what respect, Charlie?" Charlie Gibson declined to elaborate, and instead answered, "well, what do you interpret it to be?"

Sarah Palin went on to enumerate how she agreed with Bush's attempts to combat Islamic extremists and terrorism, while admitting that some mistakes had been made.

Charlie Gibson then smugly elaborated what he meant by the Bush Doctrine.

{{cquote|The Bush Doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense. We have the right to a preemptive strike against any country that we think is going to attack us.}}

The leftist leaning media portrayed the Palin/Gibson exchange as evidence that Sarah Palin is not competent on national security and foreign policy, neglecting to address Charlie Gibson's confusion of preventive war and [[premptive war]], as well as the unlikelihood that Sarah Palin would be familiar with a term popular at salon.com.

Preventive war

2008-09-16T03:40:47Z

QuickFixer: Preventive war

'''Preventive war''' is waged to counter a real or simulated perception of attack, invasion, or offensive, that is not imminent and not an immediate threat.

Preventive war is less likely than [[preemptive war]] to be in accordance with [[Just War Theory|''jus ad bellum'']].

Bush Doctrine

2008-09-16T03:36:02Z

QuickFixer: wikilink

The '''Bush Doctrine''' is an invented term coined by liberals, usually to describe the concept of preventative war.

==Charlie Gibson and Sara Palin==
The left-wing term became popular after [[Sarah Palin]] was asked by Charlie Gibson, "Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine." Governor Palin responded, "In what respect, Charlie?" Charlie Gibson declined to elaborate, and instead answered, "well, what do you interpret it to be?"

Sarah Palin went on to enumerate how she agreed with Bush's attempts to combat Islamic extremists and terrorism, while admitting that some mistakes had been made.

Charlie Gibson then smugly elaborated what he meant by the Bush Doctrine.

{{cquote|The Bush Doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense. We have the right to a preemptive strike against any country that we think is going to attack us.}}

The leftist leaning media portrayed the Palin/Gibson exchange as evidence that Sarah Palin is not competent on national security and foreign policy, neglecting to address Charlie Gibson's confusion of preventive war and [[premptive war]], as well as the unlikelihood that Sarah Palin would be familiar with a term popular at salon.com.

Preemptive war

2008-09-16T03:35:17Z

QuickFixer: Preemptive war

'''Preemptive war''' is waged to counter a real or perceived imminent attack, invasion, or offensive.

Sara Palin

2008-09-16T03:28:23Z

QuickFixer: redirect to Sarah Palin

#REDIRECT [[Sarah Palin]]

Bush Doctrine

2008-09-16T03:28:05Z

QuickFixer: Liberals coined term Bush Doctrine, refused to define it, etc...

The '''Bush Doctrine''' is an invented term coined by liberals, usually to describe the concept of preventative war.

==Charlie Gibson and Sara Palin==
The left-wing term became popular after [[Sarah Palin]] was asked by Charlie Gibson, "Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine." Governor Palin responded, "In what respect, Charlie?" Charlie Gibson declined to elaborate, and instead answered, "well, what do you interpret it to be?"

Sarah Palin went on to enumerate how she agreed with Bush's attempts to combat Islamic extremists and terrorism, while admitting that some mistakes had been made.

Charlie Gibson then smugly elaborated what he meant by the Bush Doctrine.

{{cquote|The Bush Doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense. We have the right to a preemptive strike against any country that we think is going to attack us.}}

The leftist leaning media portrayed the Palin/Gibson exchange as evidence that Sarah Palin is not competent on national security and foreign policy, neglecting to address Charlie Gibson's confusion of preventive war and premptive war, as well as the unlikelihood that Sarah Palin would be familiar with a term popular at salon.com.

Darwin Day

2008-09-16T03:11:43Z

QuickFixer: Darwin day fake holiday

'''Darwin day''' is an imitation holiday of Marxists, atheists, and heathens, celebrated on Darwin's birthday, February 12.

Because [[Abraham Lincoln]] was also born on February 12, the holiday has had a tough time gaining traction in the United States.
===See also ===
*[http://www.darwinday.org/ DarwinDay.org]

John Locke

2008-09-16T03:05:57Z

QuickFixer: Removing uncited and subtle jab that was inserted Tabras along with blank slate theory.

[[Image:Jdfu6r7.JPG|right|thumb|John Locke]]
'''John Locke''' (1632-1704) was the leading political [[philosopher]] during the [[Enlightenment]], whose ideas helped the [[American]] colonists form a new [[government]]. Locke described society as a contract between individuals called the "social contract", and held that the formation of collectives by individuals was the only way to ensure economic prosperity (see his ''Second Treatise on Government'').

Locke's view helped lay the foundation for the constitutional government that we use in the United States. Locke had built on the prior work of fellow Englishmen [[Francis Bacon]] and [[Thomas Hobbes]].

Locke is also famous for his theory of the "blank slate", which he is said to have first conceived while spending many hours of fruitless effort on a math problem as a boy.

== See also ==

*[[Jean Jacques Rousseau]]
*[[Nationalism]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Locke, John}}

[[category:philosophers]]