Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2010-07-16T18:25:36Z

ReligiousRight:

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

[[Conservative]] terms are being generated at a faster rate, and with much higher quality, than [[liberal]] terms are. This implies an inevitable conservative triumph over liberalism.

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

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Century
!# New Conservative Terms
!Most Prolific Periods
|-
|1600s
|20
|period following publication of [[KJV]]
|-
|1700s
|39
|[[Great Awakening|Great Awaken.]], [[American Revolution|Am. Revol.]], [[Constitutional Convention|Const. Conv.]]
|-
|1800s
|79
|1820s - political transition and conflict
|-
|1900s
|157
|1940s - [[World War II|WWII]] and postwar transition
|-
|2000s
|13 (preliminary)
|
|-
|}

==Conservative words and terms==

{{clear}}
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!New Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|[[accountability]]
|1794
|
|-
|[[action-at-a-distance]]
|1693
|[[Newton]]'s acceptance of this concept -- which became fundamental to [[electrostatics]] and [[quantum mechanics]] and has a basis in Christianity<ref>''See, e.g.'', [[Jesus]]'s cure of the centurion's slave.</ref> -- was central to the development of his theory of gravity.<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton-philosophy/#ActDis</ref> Einstein criticized this concept as "spooky".
|-
|aerobics
|1967
|invented by the Christian Dr. Kenneth H. Cooper<ref>http://www.christianadvice.net/famous_christians.htm</ref> to describe his self-help, revolutionary program to improve health, he entitled his ground-breaking book in 1968 ''Aerobics''.
|-
|alarmism
|1867
|needless warnings, as in the politically motivated claims of [[global warming]]
|-
|alcoholism
|1860
|excessive or addictive drinking of alcohol
|-
|algorithm
|1894
|an efficient and consistent step-by-step methodology for achieving a goal, the opposite of [[liberal style]]
|-
|altruism
|1853
|selfless assistance of others; this also occurs in the animal kingdom, and is a [[counterexample to evolution]]
|-
|ambulance chaser
|1896
|a lawyer who searches for victims to persuade them to sue for his profit
|-
|[[American dream]]
|1911<ref>1911 is the date given by the "OED", which refers to the Oxford English Dictionary. The Merriam-Webster dictionary gives a date of 1931.</ref>
|the idea that one’s work should be rewarding.
|-
|[[anti-Christian]]
|1900s
|thirty-three million sites turn up in a Google search, yet the Merriam-Webster dictionary doesn't recognize this important term
|-
|anticompetitive
|1952
|interfering with open competition and the enormous benefits that flow from it
|-
|antilife
|1929
|critical term describing a tendency to oppose life and lifesaving care
|-
|apple pie
|1780
|honesty, simplicity, wholesomeness. Relating to, or characterized by traditionally American values. <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apple%20pie Merriam-webster- Apple pie]</ref>
|-
|assimilate
|1880s<ref>estimate only; this originated sometime in the late 1880s.</ref>
|the desired absorption of immigrant groups into the culture and mores of the resident population
|-
|attention span
|1934
|correlated with intelligence, the attention span is how long someone can concentrate on something. It is rapidly shortening; the Lincoln-Douglas debates 150 years ago lasted for hours, but none do today.<ref>http://www.help4teachers.com/ras.htm</ref> The average length of sentences in speech is another indication of attention span, and it has been shortening significantly.
|-
|[[bailout]]
|1951
|wasting taxpayer money to rescue, temporarily, a failing company
|-
|bedrock
|1840-1850
|an American term for unbroken solid rock underneath fragments or soil, which adopted the figurative meaning of strong values: "bedrock principles"<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bedrock</ref>
|-
|beltway mentality
|1986
|popularized by [[Paul Weyrich]] though possibly first used by then-Governor [[John Sununu]] ("captives of yourselves"), it refers to a governing style that sees only as far as the highway that surrounds its capital, especially the one around D.C.
|-
|biased
|1649
|
|-
|Big Brother
|1949
|government constantly watching its citizens; [[George Orwell]] first coined this term in his classic, ''[[1984]]''
|
|-
|Blame America Crowd<ref>Or "Blame-America-First Crowd"</ref>
|1984
|Michael Barone quoted [[Jeane Kirkpatrick]] as saying that the "San Francisco Democrats" (site of the Democratic National Convention in 1984) "always blame America first."<ref>http://www.creators.com/opinion/michael-barone/the-blame-america-first-crowd.html</ref>
|-
|blank check
|1884
|irresponsibly giving someone unlimited spending authority or power, as in "a Con Con would be a blank check to destroy the nation"
|-
|[[Blue Dog Democrat]]
|1995
|a person who adheres to conservative principles within the Democratic party, once called a Boll Weevil; as of 2009 there are 45-50 Blue Dog Democrats in the [[House of Representatives]], which is enough to form a majority with [[Republicans]]
|-
|boondoggle
|1935
|"popularized during the [[New Deal]] as a contemptuous word for make-work projects for the unemployed." <ref>http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=boondoggle&searchmode=none</ref> The term gained popularity in [[Canada]] following a corruption scandal tied to the [[Liberal]] government in 2000.
|-
|bootstrap
|1913
|unaided effort, personal merit, hard work
|-
|bork
|1988
|coined by William Safire to refer to how Democrats savage a conservative nominee, such as their defeat of Supreme Court nominee [[Robert H. Bork]].
|-
|born-again
|1961
|it takes an open mind and heart
|-
|brainstorm
|1894
|a burst of productive thought
|-
|brainwashing
|1950
|derived from the Chinese term "xǐnǎo" soon after the [[communist]] takeover of China, "brainwashing" means forced abandonment of [[faith]] in favor of regimented [[atheism]]. In a more general sense, it refers to the manipulation and control of the human mind through torture and propaganda techniques.
|-
|brinkmanship
|1956
|the art of displaying a willingness to use military force in order to obtain a just resolution to a conflict between nations
|-
|[[bureaucracy]]
|1818
|
|-
|busywork
|1910
|meaningless activity under the pretense of accomplishing something
|-
|can-do
|1903 <ref> according to the Oxford English Dictionary. [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/can-do Miram-webster] gives the date of 1945 </ref>
|Phrase coined in a short story by [[Rudyard Kipling]] that has come to refer to an attitude that espouses individual ability and responsibility and not reliance on [[entitlements]]
|-
|[[capitalism]]
|1850-1855
|creating jobs and wealth based on a private invention, ownership and investments rather than state-controlled resources
|-
|catharsis
|1775
|facilitating forgiveness and spiritual renewal by expression, as in writing or teaching or confession
|-
|caucus
|1763
|citizens or representatives gathering to meet and reach political decisions as a group while harnessing aspects of the [[best of the public]]; a favorite term of President John Adams, who wrote the Massachusetts Constitution and played a role in developing the [[Declaration of Independence]]
|-
|chaperone
|1720
|care and well-being of youths overseen by adults
|-
|citizen's arrest
|1941
|private enforcement of the law without the need of a taxpayer-funded police officer
|-
|claptrap
|1799
|pretentious, verbose, and often liberal nonsense; example usage: "the professor wasted the rest of the class on his liberal claptrap"
|-
|closed shop
|1904
|a business that requires membership in a union as a condition of working there; 22 conservative states prohibit this
|-
|[[Coase theorem|Coasean]]
|1980s
|an efficient result or bargain based on market forces without the distortions caused by [[transaction costs]]
|-
|Columbian
|1757
|relating to Christopher Columbus ''or the United States''
|-
|Cold War
|1947
|recognition that communist nations were at war with American freedom even in the absence of actual military conflict
|-
|[[comparative advantage]]
|1815<ref>http://www-personal.umich.edu/~alandear/glossary/orig.html</ref>
|developed by the classical economist [[David Ricardo]], this reflects the insight that each country should "do what it does best" in deciding which goods to produce
|-
|competitive
|1829
|
|-
|Con Con
|1980s
|popularized by [[Phyllis Schlafly]] to highlight the deception and risks inherent in proposed national constitutional conventions
|-
|conservation of charge
|1949
|overall charge does not change in an isolated system; it is neither created nor destroyed; the concept was first suggested by [[Benjamin Franklin]] but the date of origin for this term is surprisingly recent
|-
|[[conservative]]
|1831
|
|-
|[[conservative field]]
|1870s?
|a type of physical force over a region such that items moving throughout the region can store energy ''without loss'', as in the planetary system and electrical products<ref>The mathematical definition of a conservative field -- which arises in [[multivariable calculus]] -- is that a scalar potential exists for the function and, alternatively, it is [[irrotational]].</ref>
|-
|constant
|1832
|(noun) something unchanging in value
|-
|constitutionality
|1787
|its date of origin is the year of the [[Constitutional Convention]] that proposed the [[U.S. Constitution]]
|-
|copacetic
|1890s<ref>Merriam-Webster officially lists its date of origin as 1919 and its source as unknown, but that is well after when Robinson says he developed it.</ref>
|Bill “Bojangles” Robinson, tap dancer extraordinaire, claimed the invention of this word; it was first popularized by African Americans
|-
|copyright
|1735
|extending private property to protect expressive works
|-
|correlate
|1742
|(verb) to show that one thing relates to another, such as [[atheism]] or [[homosexuality]] and selfishness or lack of charity; [[liberal]]s falsely rely on anecdotes to deny the general relationship
|-
|[[countability (Mathematics)|countability]]
|1874
|[[Georg Cantor]], loathed by the leading contemporary [[mathematicians]], developed this in proving that the real numbers are ''uncountable''
|-
|counterexample
|1957
|an example that is contrary to the proposition. A common point in logical, reasoned debate.
|-
|crackpot
|1884
|crazy talk, lunacy, a person on the fringe of reality
|-
|[[creation science]]
|1970s
|a term coined by the anti-[[evolution|evolutionist]] [[Henry Morris]].<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/28/AR2006022801716.html</ref>
|-
|cross-examination
|1824
|the most effective tool against [[liberal]] [[deceit]], better than even the requirement of an oath
|-
|crystal clear
|1815
|liberals are the opposite
|-
|[[culture war]]
|1991
|widespread use after the book ''Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America'' by James Davison Hunter
|-
|cyberbullying
|2000s
|a type of obnoxious and hurtful liberal behavior on the internet
|-
|[[deadweight loss]]
|1930s<ref>Confirmation of the first use is desired.</ref>
|the loss in overall wealth and efficiency imposed by monopolies and taxation, due to the loss in extra value that someone would have received beyond what he would have paid for a good at a free market price
|-
|death tax
|1989
|interestingly, the term was coined by Canadians opposed to the high estate tax on their assets held in the United States; Frank Luntz is credited with later popularizing this term in the United States.<ref>''See'' Dr. Frank Luntz, ''Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear''</ref>
|-
|decentralization
|1846
|the dispersion of power, as in a shift from national to local control
|-
|decrypt
|1935
|military code-breaking, which played an instrumental role in World War II in deciphering enemy codes that many felt were unbreakable; illustrates the "can do" approach of conservatism in a patriotic way
|-
|deflation
|1891
|an increase in the value of savings
|-
|defund
|1948
|refers especially to termination of government funding of a wasteful or hurtful program
|-
|deliberative assembly
|1774<ref>''Introduction to Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised'' (19th Ed. 2000), xxv.</ref>
|used by Edmund Burke in describing the British parliament during a speech to voters in Bristol; he meant a body of persons meeting to discuss and decide common action under parliamentary law
|-
|demagogue
|1648
|
|-
|[[deregulation]]
|1963
|Reagan won in 1980 by campaigning on this.
|-
|design by committee
|before 1958
|pejorative term directed against collective production by a group
|-
|despotism
|1727
|a ruler with unlimited powers
|-
|[[deterrence]]
|1861
|
|-
|devalue
|1918
|describing an unwelcome attitude or act, as in "devaluing human life"
|-
|devotee
|1645
|ardent follower, supporter, or loyalty to. 56 years separates devotee and devoted
|-
|disinformation
|1950s
|false information spread (and sometimes manufactured) by groups with a strong political agenda
|-
|division of labor
|1776
|increasing productivity through specialization of labor, as in a husband working in manufacturing while his wife cares for children
|-
|domino effect
|1966
|how the fall of one nation to communism can result in its harmful spread to neighboring nations
|-
|double standard
|1894
|applying harsher criticism against one group, such as churchgoers or conservatives, than against another group, such as atheists or liberals; recognition of a double standard by the [[Prodigal Son]] led him to repent and convert
|-
|doublethink
|1949
|a term first coined by [[George Orwell]] in his dystopian novel ''[[1984]]''; it means simultaneously holding contradictory beliefs, which is a characteristic of [[status worship]]
|-
|doubting Thomas
|1883
|someone who believes only what he can see and touch, and doubts all else
|-
|dumb down
|1933
|
|-
|Eagle Scout
|1913
|the highest rank in the [[Boy Scouts]], the term also means "a straight-arrow and self-reliant man."<ref>Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (1994).</ref>
|-
|editorialize
|1856
|"to introduce opinion into the reporting of facts"<ref>Merriam-Webster (1994).</ref>
|-
|[[efficiency]]
|1633
|ultimately from the Latin ''efficientem'', meaning ''"working out, or accomplishing"''<ref>[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=efficient Online Etymological Dictionary]</ref>
|-
|egotism
|1714
|the root of atheism, as explained by Paul in Romans 1:21-22; the root of depression and anxiety also
|-
|[[elementary proof]]
|1865
|a mathematical proof based on the minimum assumptions associated with real analysis; term probably does not predate [[complex analysis]] and its first use may have been the English mathematician James Joseph Sylvester's paper, "On an elementary proof and generalisation of Sir Isaac Newton's hitherto undenionstrated rule for the discovery of imaginary roots."<ref>http://www.archive.org/stream/circular129johnuoft/circular129johnuoft_djvu.txt</ref>
|-
|[[elitism]]
|1950
|
|-
|[[entitlement]]
|1944
|
|-
|entrepreneur
|1852
|
|-
|[[ethnic voting]]
|1900s
|widely recognized and even advocated by some,<ref>http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/5/2/3/4/p152345_index.html</ref> yet the dictionary doesn't yet recognize it
|-
|Eurosceptic
|1970s
|someone who opposes joining the super-socialist [[European Union]]; some prefer the term "Eurorealist" to express this opposition, and sometimes "Eurosceptic" is used to criticize opponents of the EU
|-
|exceptional
|1787
|same year of origin as the [[U.S. Constitution]]!
|-
|exculpatory
|1781
|often used in the phrase "exculpatory evidence," it took nearly 50 years to develop this term after origination of the legal term suggesting guilt: "incriminate"
|-
|faith healing
|1885
|
|-
|[[falsifiability]]
|1934
|first emphasized by Karl Popper in 1934, this helps define science: if a proposition is false, then it can be shown to be false. If not, then the proposition is not scientific.
|-
|[[family values]]
|1916
|widespread use after a speech by Vice President [[Dan Quayle]], 1992
|-
|father figure
|1934
|someone who fulfills the essential role of a father
|-
|[[federalism]]
|1789
|the unique system of dual sovereigns, state and federal (national), established by the [[U.S. Constitution]]
|-
|feedback
|1920
|an all-important element of accountability and improvement, and a key consideration in good engineering design
|-
|[[fellow traveller]]
|1925
|may have existed earlier, but popularized in 1924 by Leon Trotsky. Describes a sympathizer of a cause but who does not formally belong to the cause, such as a [[communist]] sympathizer who is not part of the communist party. The term was invented by the communists in its original, non-negative sense, but the conservatives were the first to use it as a pejorative term.
|-
|[[Flip flop (politics)|flip-flop]]
|1976
|''verb'', meaning to change political position, typically due to [[liberal]] pressure. First used by the Republican S.I. Hayakawa campaign to describe California Democratic incumbent U.S. Senator John Tunney, whom Hayakawa defeated in an upset.
|-
|force-feed
|1901
|what liberals do to students in [[public schools]] today in training them to be [[atheist]]ic socialists
|-
|forward-looking
|1800
|planning for the future rather than dwelling on the past
|-
|[[free enterprise]]
|1820
|
|-
|free market
|1907
|
|-
|free world
|1949
|areas of the world free of communism
|-
|galvanize
|1802
|as in, "the liberal proposals ''galvanized'' the grassroots in opposition"
|-
|gang up
|1925
|group pressure
|-
|gateway drug
|1982
|abuse of alcohol/marijuana eventually leads to harder drugs cocaine/heroin
|-
|gerrymandering
|1812
|coined by a newspaper editor to criticize the manipulation of the lines of a new district into a salamander shape<ref>http://www.allbusiness.com/information/publishing-industries/251259-1.html</ref> that favored election of a liberal politician
|-
|globalism
|1997
|MW states it was first used in 1943<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/globalism</ref> and the OED gives a date of 1965 for the exact term 'globalism'<ref>http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50095613/50095613se2?single=1&query_type=word&queryword=globalism&first=1&max_to_show=10&hilite=50095613se2</ref> the term "globalization" was first used in the mid-1980s in a different, complimentary sense.
|-
|godsend
|1820
|
|-
|go-getter
|1921
|
|-
|gold standard
|1831
|the highest standard; in currency, when money could be exchanged for a fixed amount of gold
|-
|Good Samaritan
|1640
|how genuine charity is the best approach
|-
|goon
|1926
|a dim-witted thug, espec. one who intimidates on behalf of a union
|-
|[[grade inflation]]
|1975
|the tendency by Liberal educationalists and public schools to increase marks, irrespective of merit or actual achievement.
|-
|[[grassroots]]
|1901
|
|-
|Great Awakening
|1730-1740
|Christian spiritualism recurs periodically. See [[Essay:The Coming Fifth Great Awakening in America]].
|-
|Gresham's law
|1858
|the tendency in a free market for bad money (which loses its value) to drive out (be used more often in transactions) than good money (which retains its value), because people want to horde the good money while getting rid of the bad money; a similar effect can be seen when profanity drives out intelligent discussion
|-
|groupthink
|1952
|a style of thought consisting of conformity to a manufactured consensus and self-deception; coined by William H. Whyte in 1952.
|-
|hallmark
|1721
|purity, authentic, official seal, distinguishing feature
|-
|hardworking
|1774
|
|-
|harmless error
|1861
|an insignificant violation of a duty or procedural rule; first used in ''Western Ins. Co. v. The Goody Friends'', 29 F. Cas. 764 (S.D. Ohio 1861) (referring to a duty)
|-
|hatchet job
|1944
|still looking for the context of its first use; today it means an article, typically by a liberal, that misleadingly smears someone, typically a conservative
|-
|Hawthorne effect
|1962
|the increase in achievement resulting merely from being observed; this was demonstrated by experiment at the Hawthorne Works of Western Electric in Cicero, Illinois
|-
|heckler's veto
|1965
|coined by University of Chicago Law Professor Harvey Kalven, Jr., a strong supporter of free speech in politics, this term has been used in [[Supreme Court]] decisions by Justices [[Sam Alito]],<ref>''See'' ''Pleasant Grove City v. Summum'', 129 S. Ct. 1125 (2009); ''see also'' ''Child Evangelism Fellowship of N.J., Inc. v. Stafford Twp. Sch. Dist.'', 386 F.3d 514 (3rd Cir. 2004).</ref> [[Antonin Scalia]], and [[Clarence Thomas]].<ref>''Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch.'', 533 U.S. 98 (2001)</ref>
|-
|Hobson's choice
|1649<ref>this term has the entertaining history of originating with an English liveryman who required customers to "choose" the horse closest to the door.</ref>
|an ostensible choice that disguises a lack of freedom, because each alternative is completely unacceptable. This term is invoked to criticize an illusory freedom of choice. This term has been used in 48 cases by Supreme Court Justices, more often by conservatives than by liberals.
|-
|honor system
|1903
|an approach to discipline that emphasizes and encourages trust, honesty and personal responsibility rather than constant supervision
|-
|[[homeschool]]
|1980<ref>the OED assigns a date of origin of 1850 to "homeschool".</ref>
|
|-
|[[homosexual agenda]]
|1989
|used to promote the agenda in the book ''After the Ball'', but then used to criticize the movement by Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] in his dissent in''Lawrence v. Texas'' (2003)''
|-
|human rights
|1766
|rights of all peoples, such as to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as set forth in the [[Declaration of Independence]]
|-
|hypothesis
|1656
|a suggestion, typically scientific in nature, which must be tested and proven before asserted as truth
|-
|hysteria
|1801
|From the Latin ''hystericus'', from Greek ''hystera '' meaning ''"womb"''<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hysteria Meriam Webster Dictionary]</ref> (an old notion that hysteria was caused by the [[womb]]).
|-
|identity politics
|1988
|exploiting politics for racial, ethnic, gender equality.
|-
|illiteracy
|1660
|liberals seek to produce illiterate voters who lack independence, and many graduates of the [[public schools]] are illiterate today
|-
|incidental inequality
|2009
|inequalities that result as side effects of an objectively just system
|-
|incoherent
|1626
|the term often applies to liberal [[double standard]]s
|-
|incompleteness
|1931
|a system of logic or mathematics that includes propositions that are impossible to prove or disprove; term coined as a result of [[Kurt Godel]]'s work in 1931
|-
|incrementalism
|1966
|imposing bad political or social change slowly
|-
|independence
|1640
|free will
|-
|individualism
|1827
|values, rights and duties arise from the individual
|-
|inflationary
|1920
|policies causing inflation of the monetary supply
|-
|informed consent
|1967
|consent to surgery is meaningful only if informed, a requirement that should apply to abortion
|-
|initiative
|1793
|self-starting first step toward improvement
|-
|insightful
|1907
|what conservatism is about: gaining insights into the truth, and bettering individuals and society with them
|-
|intangible
|1914
|something valuable that cannot be seen or touched, such as goodwill
|-
|intellectual property
|1845
|"we [should] protect intellectual property, the labors of the mind, productions and interests as much a man's own, and as much the fruit of his honest industry, as the wheat he cultivates, or the flocks he rears." ''Davoll v. Brown'', 7 F. Cas. 197 (Cir. Ct. Mass. 1845) (Woodbury, federal judge).
|-
|interventionism
|1923
|"governmental interference in economic affairs at home or in political affairs of another country"<ref>Merriam-Webster (1994).</ref>
|-
|invisible hand
|1776
|coined by Adam Smith in the ''Wealth of Nations'' and widely used today.
|-
|[[invisible hand of marriage]]
|2008
|discovered on Conservapedia, it is the unseen force of productivity that results from marriage (only between a man and woman).
|-
|Iron curtain
|1945
|coined by Winston Churchill in a speech in Missouri just after World War II, to describe the communist's figurative wall against freedom
|-
|ivory tower
|1910
|a description of the pampered culture of liberal [[professor values|professors]], and how far out of touch with the truth it is
|-
|John Hancock
|1903
|a personal signature, especially in a bold style that stands up for principles as John Hancock did with his signing the Declaration of Independence
|-
|[[judicial activism]]
|1947
|first coined in an article in ''Fortune'' magazine by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.,<ref>http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/278089</ref> and repeatedly used in U.S. Supreme Court opinions since 1967,<ref>''United States v. Wade'',
388 U.S. 218 (1967).</ref> yet as of 2009 [[Merriam-Webster]] dictionary still fails to recognize this widely used term.
|-
|judicial prejudice
|2009
|the bias of a judge in favor of a political correct identity group intended to rig outcome equality in favor of that group based on subjective bias rather than objective justice.
|-
|judicial restraint
|1942
|"Assuming that this court has power to act, it does not necessarily follow that it should act. ... In a number of situations, and in a number of cases, it has been held that courts should voluntarily refrain from using or asserting power. Where the use or assertion of power might be destructive of a well defined purpose of law or of a declared public policy such voluntarily imposed '''judicial restraint''' may be commendable."<ref>Osage Tribe of Indians v. Ickes, 45 F. Supp. 179, 184-85 (D.D.C. 1942) (emphasis added).</ref>
|-
|judicial supremacist
|2004
|one who advocates that the courts should be supreme over the other branches of government for certain legal issues; first coined in a book by [[Phyllis Schlafly]]; first used by the judiciary by the Michigan Supreme Court in ''Paige v. City of Sterling Heights'', 476 Mich. 495 (2006).<ref>A similar yet different concept, "judicial supremacy," was coined by [[conservative]] Supreme Court Justice [[Robert H. Jackson]] as the title of his book,'' The Struggle for Judicial Supremacy: A Study of a Crisis in American Political Power'' (New York: Knopf, 1941).</ref>
|-
|[[judicial taking]]
|1982
|the deprivation of private property due to a court decision; this concept was introduced by conservative Justice [[Potter Stewart]] in 1967, and the term was used for the first time independently by the Michigan and Hawaii Supreme Courts in the same month (!) in December 1982, and then used often in law review articles and Circuit Court decisions in the 2000s, and then four Justices of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] endorsed the principle in a decision in 2010, with two others accepting the possibility.
|-
|[[junk science]]
|1962<ref>http://rated.com/dir/Society/Issues/Environment/Opposing_Views/Junk_Science</ref>
|the corruption of the scientific method to advance other, often political, goals
|-
|jury nullification
|1948
|the power of a jury to overrule the law and acquit an ostensibly guilty defendant; the power was established in the colonies in 1735 in the trial of [[John Peter Zenger]], but this term was first used in state court by Pfeuffer v. Haas, 55 S.W.2d 111 (Tex. Civ. App. 1932) and in federal court by ''Skidmore v. Baltimore & O. R. Co.'', 167 F.2d 54 (2nd Cir. 1948)
|-
|kiss of death
|1943
|from Judas's betrayal of Jesus with a kiss, Mark 14:44-4
|-
|kowtow
|1826
|obsequious, unthinking obedience to someone or something, used especially in the context of dictatorships and liberal belief systems
|-
|Kremlinology
|1958
|the study of the otherwise indecipherable behavior of the government of the [[communist]] [[Soviet Union]]. Refers to the Kremlin, the traditional seat of Russian government (Soviet or not).
|-
|labor camp
|1900
|forced work prison
|-
|laissez-faire
|1825
|opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond what is minimally necessary
|-
|lame duck
|1761
|one falling being in achievement, especially a public official whose power is limited because his term in office is set to expire without possibility of reelection.
|-
|lamestream media
|2009
|coined by Bernie Goldberg to describe the clueless [[Mainstream media]] that repeat superficial, discredited liberal claptrap
|-
|landslide
|1838
|In the political sense, an overwhelming election victory. A clear, democratic expression of popular will.
|-
|leadership
|1821
|an ability and willingness to lead, often by example
|-
|leftism
|1920
|principles and doctrine of leftists
|-
|leverage
|1830
|
|-
|life vest
|1939
|a pro-life invention
|-
|local
|1824<ref>This date refers to its first usage as a ''noun'', which is an estimate of its adoption as a concept.</ref>
|common usage: "all politics is local"
|-
|locomotive
|1829
|a great engine of economic growth during the [[Industrial Revolution]]
|-
|lone wolf
|1909
|a person who prefers to work, act, or live alone. <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lone%20wolf Lone wolf, Merriam-Webster]</ref> synonymous with self-sufficiency
|-
|loose cannon
|1973
|an undisciplined person or program that dangerously lacks forethought; used in mid-November 1976 to describe $11 billion in unspent appropriations by the Ford Administration: "'That money,' says Arnold Packer, a senior Senate Budget Committee economist who is helping Carter draw up his shadow budget, 'is like a loose cannon rolling around the deck' because a sudden reappearance of the funds could be inflationary." (''BusinessWeek'')
|-
|lunatic fringe
|1913
|coined by U.S. President [[Theodore Roosevelt]] to describe members of eccentric, radical or extremist groups<ref> http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=lunatic</ref>
|-
|man-hater
|1970s<ref>This was during the epic struggle -- and defeat -- of the so-called [[Equal Rights Amendment]].</ref>
|William Safire wrote in the ''New York Times'' in 1983, "Misandry, from the Greek misandros for 'hating men,' is in the 1961 Merriam-Webster New International Dictionary, and the Oxford Dictionary Supplement traces it to 1946. The word is pronounced as 'Ms. Andry,' but I wonder why we need the Greek word for it. What's wrong with good, old-fashioned man-hater?"<ref>Sunday, Oct. 30, 1983, Section 6, Page 12, Column 3.</ref>
|-
|make-work
|1923
|inefficient or useless activity that has the false appearance of being productive; a favorite endeavor of liberals
|-
|manifest destiny
|1845
|Providential design over future events, which originated in the context of expanding the United States to the Pacific Ocean
|-
|materialism
|1748
|the view of life that physical matter is all that exists; as an "ism", the term criticizes such view
|-
|melting pot
|1912
|requires "social and cultural assimilation" for successful immigration<ref>Merriam-Webster dictionary (1994)</ref>
|-
|[[meritocracy]]
|1958
|
|-
|[[microeconomics]]
|1947
|the study of the economics of the individual person or business
|-
|mindset
|1926
|close-minded point-of-view, typically in adherence to a liberal falsehood and often to the exclusion of Christ
|-
|missile defense
|1980s
|popularized by President Ronald Reagan as part of [[SDI]]
|-
|missionary
|1625
|someone sent on a mission, typically a religious mission
|-
|mobocracy
|1754
|rule by a mob, as at Wikipedia
|-
|monogamy
|1612
|this has the same date of origin as "productive", and that may not be a coincidence!
|-
|motivation
|1873
|can you believe the word did not exist before 1873?!
|-
|muckety–muck
|1912
|a pejorative term for an arrogant person who holds a title or position considered to be important by others
|-
|Murphy's Law
|1958
|if something can go wrong, then it will go wrong: this was a conservative insight by an engineer Edward Murphy
|-
|muscle car
|1967
|placing a powerful engine in a classic two-door car for highly efficient performance; also celebrate masculine style against erosion by feminism
|-
|myopic
|1752
|originally a term in optometry, 1990's used to describe liberals' lack of foresight
|-
|nanny state
|1978
|"Under the New Economic Policy, [the new French Prime Minister Raymond] Barre has made it clear that industrial lame ducks can no longer count on the generosity of Nanny i.e. the state - for bailing out."<ref>Leo Ryan, "Economy Shored up: France's new surge of liberalism," The Globe and Mail (Canada) (Aug. 1, 1978)</ref> Note how two powerful new conservative terms led to a third here!
|-
|negativism
|1824
|mental attitude that tends that is skeptical about almost everything, except one's own views
|-
|newspeak
|1949
|political or media expressions using circumlocution and euphemisms to disguise or distract from the truth; first coined by [[George Orwell]] in ''[[1984]]''
|-
|non-justiciable
|1922<ref>Used by the state attorneys for West Virginia (including Philip Steptoe, founder of Steptoe & Johnson) in ''Pennsylvania v. West Virginia'', 262 U.S. 553 (1923): "It is not the 'subject of judicial cognizance,' Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 15; Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U.S 1, 15; Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U.S. 208, 233, or 'susceptible of judicial solution.' Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U.S. 1, 18, 22; Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U.S. 208, 233, 234."</ref>
|a difficult issue that the courts should not attempt to resolve, often because it is too political in nature
|-
|non-locality
|1920s
|[[action at a distance]] at the atomic level; even though proven, it is still opposed by those who believe in [[relativity]] and still not recognized by Merriam-Webster
|-
|Old Glory
|1862
|the ''United States of America'' flag, Stars & Stripes
|-
|one-size-fits-all
|1996<ref>Was there an earlier conservative use? Frank Zappa's album cover in the 1970s does not count!</ref>
|Lee Wishing, director of communications for conservative [[Grove City College]], in criticism of how the government administers student loans: "Unfortunately, with government programs, it's one size fits all."<ref>http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/1996/dec96/er-dec96.html</ref> The 2008 Republican platform states, "We reject a one-size-fits-all approach and support parental options, including home schooling, and local innovations such as schools or classes for boys only or for girls only and alternative and innovative school schedules."<ref>http://platform.gop.com/2008Platform.pdf</ref>
|-
|open-minded
|1828
|see [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness]]
|-
|[[opportunity cost]]
|1911
|
|-
|optimism
|1759
|
|-
|originalism
|1985
|taken from original intent, The belief that the United States Constitution should be interpreted in the way the authors originally intended it
|-
|Orwellian
|1960s
|terminology or style that advances the power of big government but is hurtful or nonsensical<ref>http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=604</ref>
|-
|ostensibly
|1765
|having an outward appearance that may not reflect the underlying truth; good potential use is Luke 3:23 in describing Jesus as the son of Joseph
|-
|parenting
|1958
|children raising
|-
|Parkinson's Law
|1955
|how bureaucracies expand regardless of the productivity, and how inefficient work expands to fill the time available for its completion
|-
|[[patent troll]]
|2001
|a company that obtains or buys up patents for the sole purpose of asserting infringement claims, and without any intention of actually manufacturing the invention; the term was first coined by Peter Detkin, in-house counsel to Intel
|-
|patriotism
|1726
|
|-
|Pavlovian
|1926
|a conditioned, automatic and unthinking response to a signal; it has been used twice by [[conservative]] Supreme Court Justices. "It is well established that this Court does not, or at least should not, respond in Pavlovian fashion to confessions of error by the [[Solicitor General]]." ''De Marco v. United States'', 415 U.S. 449, 451 (1974) ([[Rehnquist]], J., dissenting); "'[[Incorporation doctrine|Incorporation]]' has become so Pavlovian that my Brother BLACK barely mentions the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] in the course of an 11-page opinion dealing with the procedural rule the State of [[Florida]] has adopted for cases tried in Florida courts under Florida's criminal laws." '' Williams v. Fla.'', 399 U.S. 78, 144 (1970) ([[Potter Stewart|Stewart]], J., dissenting and concurring).
|-
|perpetual war
|1947
|Coined by historian Charles A. Beard,<ref>Charles A. Beard is best known for interpreting the Constitution as being primarily motivated by economic interests.</ref> it has been used most recently by [[Ann Coulter]]
|-
|[[personhood]] <ref>[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/personhood Personhood] Dictionary.com</ref>
|1955
|Inherent rights guaranteed to all human beings from the beginning of their biological development, including the pre-born, partially born. Also, the state or fact of being a person.
|-
|Philadelphia
|1682
|coined by [[William Penn]] and meaning "city of brotherly love," the concept captures the "[[best of the public]]" approach
|-
|[[phonics]]
|1684
|conservatives have long championed phonics to promote literacy, Bible-reading, and informed voters; liberals take the opposite position
|-
|phony
|1900<ref>This surprisingly recent origin appears to be derived from a British confidence game.</ref>
|needed to address [[liberal deceit]]
|-
|political machine
|1905
|a pejorative term for local and typically Democratic power structures that prevent outsiders from winning elections; first used by George Washington Plunkitt to criticize the Tammany Hall machine for which he served
|-
|[[politically correct]]
|1983
|This term originated among radicals at the [[University of Wisconsin-Madison]] to enforce radical orthodoxy, but immediately flipped in usage to become a term of mockery of radicals.<ref>For an early different usage of the word, see 1793 J. WILSON in U.S. Rep. (U.S. Supreme Court) 2 (1798) 462 Sentiments and expressions of this inaccurate kind prevail in our..language... ‘The United States’, instead of the ‘People of the United States’, is the toast given. This is not politically correct.</ref> The term may have come from Chairman Mao in 1936.
|-
|politicize
|1846
|seeking political gain at the expense of truth or quality<ref>The Merriam-Webster definition (1994 ed.) is incomplete and unclear: "to give a political tone or character to"</ref>
|-
|potential
|1817<ref>Usage here refers to "promise", not "possibility".</ref>
|
|-
|privatize
|1940
|to return a business or enterprise from state to private control; to de-nationalize.
|-
|proactive
|1933
|
|-
|productive
|1612
|
|-
|productivity
|1810
|the gap of about 200 years between the creation of "productive" and "productivity" is astounding
|-
|[[pro-life]]
|1960
|
|-
|property right
|1853
|
|-
|provocateur
|1919
|someone who spends more time causing unproductive conflicts rather than advancing knowledge, accomplishing legitimate goals, or helping anyone
|-
|quantify
|1840
|
|-
|race card
|1995<ref>This is the date of its widespread familiarity.</ref>
|"Playing the race card" consists of relying on racial emotions or charges of racism in order to overcome the truth and logic in politics, legal proceedings, or otherwise; this term became familiar in the criticism of the defense and acquittal of O.J. Simpson for the murder of his ex-wife and her friend.
|-
|rapture
|1629
|spiritual ecstasy[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=rapture]
|-
|[[recidivism]]
|1886
|the tendency for people lacking in [[faith]] and determination to revert to prior patterns of harmful behavior, such as repeat criminal offenders
|-
|recuse
|1949
|self-removal by a decision-maker (especially a judge) because of possible bias with respect to the pending issue
|-
|red tape
|1736
|excessive bureaucracy and procedural complexity which frustrate meaningful activity and progress
|-
|[[relativism]]
|1865
|the view that ethical truths are not absolute, but depend on the person or group that holds them
|-
|[[responsibility]]
|1737
|1787 HAMILTON Federalist No. 63 II. 193 Responsibility in order to be reasonable must be limited to objects within the power of the responsible party.
|-
|reverse discrimination
|1969
|the use of quotas or affirmative action to use race or gender to discriminate against a better qualified person
|-
|revisionism
|1903<ref>The first use of this term, now obscure, refers to a Marxist movement that preferred evolutionary rather than revolutionary change.</ref>
|distortions of history to promote liberal bias
|-
|riot act
|1715<ref>Its colloquial use, as in "read them the riot act," began in 1819.</ref>
|the Riot Act was a law passed in England in 1715 to authorize officials to disperse riots
|-
|scapegoating
|1943
|a term criticizing how people, particularly liberals, deflect accountability and blame from themselves to others; inspired by Leviticus 16:8.
|-
|salutary neglect
|1775
|coined by the [[conservative]] [[Edmund Burke]] in his 1775 speech to the British [[House of Commons]] entitled "On Moving His Resolutions for Conciliation with the Colonies"<ref>http://www.archive.org/stream/burkesspeechonco00burkuoft/burkesspeechonco00burkuoft_djvu.txt</ref>
|-
|school choice
|1980
|popularized by Milton Friedman in his book, ''Free to Choose''
|-
|[[scientific fascism]]
|2009
|a coordinated effort by a group of scientists to enforce a certain point of view upon others.
|-
|Segway
|2001
|Dean Kamen's trademark spelling of "segue" for use of Yankee Ingenuity to improve efficiency, to refer to a form of battery-powered transportation.
|-
|[[self-defense]]
|1651
|
|-
|self-destruct
|1968
|often the tragic result of liberal falsehoods
|-
|[[Discipline|self-discipline]]
|1838
|
|-
|self-reliant
|1848
|
|-
|separation of powers
|1748
|the fundamental insight underlying the [[U.S. Constitution]]
|-
|skullduggery
|1867
|underhanded or unscrupulous behavior
|-
|slippery slope
|1900s
|term has been widely used for decades to expose the fallacy of "it doesn't hurt to try"
|-
|smoke and mirrors
|1979
|something intended to disguise or draw attention away from an often embarrassing or unpleasant issue. <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/smoke%20and%20mirrors Smoke and Mirrors, Merriam-Webster]</ref> Widely used during the 1990s to describe [[Bill Clinton]]'s political strategy.
|-
|smoking gun
|1974
|a law-and-order term, "smoking gun" was first used as figurative term in a reported judicial decision in ''Rodgers v. United States Steel Corp.'', 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12775 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 20, 1975), and many literal uses of the term in court decisions before that!
|-
|[[socialist]]
|1827
|someone who advocates government control over the economy, and particularly state control of the means of production
|-
|social justice rhetoric
|2009
|Language and rhetorical ploys equating equality of outcome with justice.
|-
|spend-and-tax
|2009<ref>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/02/morning-bell-the-obama-tax-and-spend-economy-is-here/</ref>
|a variation on "tax-and-spend" (see below), "spend-and-tax" consists of spending the money first and then trying to justify raising taxes based on the deficit created by the spending
|-
|stalking horse
|1788
|a candidate or issue that serves to increase the chances that ''another'' will win, as in "antifederalists attempted to win elections by using 'the stalking horse of amendments.'"<ref>''Centinel'', 1788 (quoted in ''The Federalist party in Massachusetts to the year 1800'', By Anson Ely Morse).</ref>
|-
|[[statism]]
|1919
|advocates for centralized government and government ownership
|-
|straightforward
|1806
|
|-
|straw man
|1896
|an imaginary argument or example set up for the purpose of easily knocking down, while distracting from valid arguments
|-
|Stupaked
|2010
|hurt by someone who reassured everyone he would do the right thing, but then switched at the last minute to do the opposite (refers especially to [[abortion betrayal]]s)<ref>Columnist Kathleen Parker is credited with first coining this term.</ref>
|-
|supply-side
|1976
|the economic theory that reducing taxes expands economic activity by encouraging greater earnings and investments; proven successful during the Reagan Administration in the 1980s
|-
|takeover
|1917
|as in the takeover of government by the communist revolution in that year
|-
|tax-and-spend
|1937
|not yet recognized by Merriam-Webster, it is included in dictionary.com and it means the liberal policy of raising taxes and increasing government spending
|-
|taxpayer
|1816
|the word highlights who is really paying for things
|-
|[[term limits]]
|1861
|can you believe this is not in the dictionary yet? Merriam-Webster omits it, but dictionary.com has it<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/term+limit</ref>
|-
|terrorism
|1795
|this was during the French Revolution
|-
|[[textualism]]
|1952
|first used by Justice [[Robert Jackson]] in his influential concurrence in ''[[Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer]]'', 343 U.S. 579 (1952), it now describes the legal philosophy of Justice [[Antonin Scalia]]
|-
|top-notch
|1900
|the highest quality, which requires respect for merit to recognize
|-
|[[totalitarianism]]
|1926
|term which identifies the similarities of fascist and communist regimes and ideologies and urges resistance
|-
|tour de force
|1802
|a feat of skill
|-
|trademark
|1838
|extends the concept of private property to the marks used by business
|-
|traditionalist
|1856
|"adherence to the doctrines or practices of a tradition...the beliefs of those opposed to modernism, liberalism, or radicalism"<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/traditionalist</ref>
|-
|[[transaction cost]]
|1961
|Economist [[Ronald Coase]] won a [[Nobel Prize]] for this.
|-
|[[transistor]]
|1948
|named by John R. Pierce and developed at the [[conservative]] [[Bell Labs]], this invention epitomized Yankee ingenuity; Pierce was a critic of claims of [[artificial intelligence]] and was the future developer of [[Telstar]], a precursor to the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]]
|-
|tree huggers
|1970s
|still not recognized by the dictionary, this term criticizes extreme environmentalists, but they proudly use the term also to describe what they literally do
|-
|trivia
|1920
|insignificant detail, which can sometimes obscure what is important and distract people from the Bible; liberal [[Wikipedia]] is filled with trivial junk
|-
|Trojan horse
|1837
|describes a type of liberal [[deceit]]: subversion from within
|-
|trust but verify
|1980s
|popularized by President Ronald Reagan as the approach to use towards communist [[deceit]]
|-
|ugly duckling
|1883
|an unpromising appearance but often with great unseen potential
|-
|ultra vires
|1793
|beyond the authority, especially of a government or corporate official
|-
|underdog
|1887
|[[David]] v. [[Goliath]], [[Cinderella]], [[best of the public]], etc.
|-
|underemployed
|1908
|having less than full-time or suitable employment
|-
|vandalism
|1798
|malicious destruction of someone else's property
|-
|veracity
|1623
|devotion to truthfulness
|-
|vet
|1904<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2199254/?from=rss</ref>
|a verb meaning to screen for flaws
|-
|[[victimization]]
|1840
|
|-
|volunteer
|1618
|someone who freely offers to help
|-
|wannabe
|1981
|a word that criticizes liberal [[status worship]]
|-
|War on Terror
|2001
|no listing at Merriam-Webster February 2, 2009 Obama ends use of the conservative lexicon. <ref>[http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=17455 Obama administration drops 'war on terror' phrase] Pew Forum, February 2, 2009</ref>
|-
|waterloo
|1816
|a final defeat or setback, coined merely one year after the [[English]] defeated [[Napoleon]] at the [[Battle of Waterloo]]; there has never been a "waterloo" for [[Christianity]] or [[conservatism]]
|-
|wildcatter
|1883
|a pro-energy term that describes someone who drills for oil in fields not known to have oil
|-
|word poverty
|2001<ref>http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/summer2001/lang_gap_moats.html</ref>
|popularized by President [[George W. Bush]]
|-
|work (physical sense)
|1826
|a physical measure<ref>force times distance</ref> of effort used to increase energy
|-
|work ethic
|1951
|a habit of working as a moral good
|-
|worldview
|1858
|a comprehensive way of looking at life and the world; sometimes used to criticize a liberal's irrational belief system
|-
|yellow journalism
|1898
|the practice, started by newspaper publishers Joseph Pulitzer and his rival William Randolph Hearst, of sensationalizing and biasing newspaper headlines and articles in order to influence public opinion
|-
|}

__TOC__ 

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

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

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Not Yet Recognized Terms
!Suggestions
!Comments
|-
|pre-9/11 thinking
|9/10 mindset
|terror is jurisdiction of the courts
|-
|anti-family
|tradition opposer, familiopathic
|
|-
|causing harm by spreading falsehoods
|deceit
|e.g., denying or concealing disease and infertility caused by promiscuity
|-
|cradle to grave <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/spanish/from%20cradle%20to%20grave cradle to grave- no entry found] Merriam-Websters</ref>
|sanctity of life, conception to natural death
|pro-life stance, also can mean socialist entitlement programs
|-
|cut and run
|surrender advocates
|when the going gets tough, run away from the problem
|-
|[[deliberate ignorance]]
|mind-locked, self-centered pride obscuring the truth
|the term exists; the dictionary does not yet include it
|-
|denial that [[Hell]] exists
|Hell-denier? Antinfernal? (Should be "antihadessic" so as not to mix Hellenate and Latinate roots)
|
|-
|[[abstinence denial|denier of the effectiveness of abstinence]]
|abstinence-denier?
|
|-
|drive-by media
|partisan slander
|liberal mainstream media assault on the GOP or conservative principles, deceitful attacks for opposing viewpoints
|-
|easily amused by [[deceit]]
|dolophile
|from Greek/Latin root ''dolo-'' meaning guile, deceit, deception [http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/664]
|-
|family-friendly
|wholesome
|describes TV programming, websites, social events that are not offensive
|-
|Hatred of one's country, refusal to recognize the good elements of it, or unreasonably critical of it
|misopatria, misopatrist
|From Greek ''misein'', to hate, and Latin ''patria'', nation or homeland
|-
|heavenly body
|celestial body
|natural objects visible in the sky
|-
|hellbound
|
|recognized by over 1.3 million sites in a Google search and no substitute term is available, yet dictionaries refuse to recognize it
|-
|Hoax and Chains
|[[Keynesian economics]]
|a phonetic play on the rhetoric slogan of Hope and Change. Hope replaced by unemployment and Change represents obsessive tax burdens.
|-
|hoax plant
|fake townhall, kkk teaparty
|a term to describe a deceitful method of placing an operative that appears to be part of a group in order to push an agenda or to make a competing agenda look ridiculous.
|-
|[[Hollywood values]]
|West Coast Hedonism
|Over 800,000 results on Google, not yet recognized by Merriam-Webster
|-
|[[Illegal Alien|illegal alien]]
|
|widely used in court decisions and political discourse for years, Merriam-Webster still does not recognize it is as a term.
|-
|infotainment
|tabloid news, dramacast
|mainstream media presents drama fluff stories as news, e.g. 20/20 - Datelin
|-
|[[limited government]]
|we the people democracy
|first testament to this was the [[U.S. Constitution]], defining [[Reagan]]s presidency, can't be found in Merriam-Websters. <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/limited%20government Limited government - Not found] Merriam-Webster's</ref>
|-
|[[limousine liberal]]
|hypocrite
|rich promoting causes which they themselves don't adhere to
|-
|merit pay
|performance bonus
|Doing your job better with perks as a reward. The typical liberal union teacher avoids merit pay at all costs, self before students.
|-
|[[militant gays]]
|intimidating homosexual
|
|-
|modern idolatry
|"media idolatry"; "money idolatry"; "celebrity idolatry"
|idolatry conjures images of golden calves, and a modern version is needed
|-
|moral fabric
|domestic tranquility
|ethics and virtues united for the common good of all
|-
|morally bankrupt
|[[atheism]], self-void
|ethically and spiritually challenged souls
|-
|opposite of [[global warming]]
|regional warming
|the North pole shrinks as the South pole increases
|-
|opposite of [[materialism]]
|spiritualism and idealism have been its philosophical opposites, historically
|[[dualism]] has been suggested, but it is not the ''opposite'' of [[materialism]]; "spiritualism" is not a common term and is the "opposite" of materialism
|-
|[[peer pressure]]
|used in titles to professional journal articles as early as 1994
|can you believe that isn't recognized by Merriam-Webster?
|-
|proven wrong, a refusal to admit it
|mulism; heel-digger?
|cf. mulish. This refusal is what promoted the [[Parable of the Good Samaritan]].
|-
|religious right
|Christian conservatives
|religion in America almost exclusively a conservative institution, no religious left term in existence.
|-
|reward failure
|TARP
|too big to fail, bailout bankrupt, mismanagement subsidized
|-
|rewrite history <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/rewrite%20history rewrite history not found, Merriam-Websters]</ref>
|[[deceit]], mislead
|Commonly used term describing liberal deceit to hide, defraud others about factual history.
|-
|rogue states
|rogue nations
|nations defying international law, only rogue is listed in Merriman-Websters
|-
|runaway jury
|The term has existed for decades, but Merriam-Webster has not recognized it yet.
|
|-
|Rule of Law
|
|
|-
|[[schlockumentary]]
|propaganda film
|documentary films based on falsehoods and half-truths
|-
|[[Second generation atheist|second-generation atheist]]
|cradle atheist
|
|-
|selective outrage
|partisan hypocrisy, bipolar
|to be against something to further a cause and reject, stay silent, ignore or discount something similar.
|-
|smear merchant
|serial slander
|to constantly hurl degrading or false accusations against others
|-
|strict constructionism
|
|an important term for over 200 years to describe adherence to the text of the Constitution, Merriam-Webster still does not recognize it.
|-
|[[Conservative| Traditional Values]]
| principles of Conservatism
|much the same as family values but incorporating all aspects society; family, religion, self-sufficiency, the truth, hard work. Only listed in Merriam-Websters to describe what Nilihism is against.
|-
|true emergency
|life support
|meaning a high probability of serious injury or death to an individual or property. Emergency has been watered down, e.g. to be locked out of one's car.
|-
|Unaffected by, or impervious to, the media
|mediaproof
|cf. bulletproof. ''Once John became aware of the extent of [[liberal deceit]], he set about mediaproofing his mind''.
|-
|}

== New Liberal Terms ==

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

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!New Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|[[agnosticism|agnostic]]
|1860
|someone who claims to not know whether [[God]] exists but still lives like an [[atheist]]
|-
|[[atheism|atheist]]
|1571
|useful and often deceptive alternative name for an anti-Christian
|-
|[[Big Bang theory|big bang]]
|1948
|term invented by the leading [[British]] physicist Sir [[Fred Hoyle]] to ''mock'' this suggestion of how the universe was formed, but later accepted as a serious term rather than mockery;<ref>Compare this migration with that of "politically correct," which started out as a serious term but then adopted a sense of mockery</ref> it's liberal because it trivializes the beauty and the [[faith]] of the moment
|-
|bilingual education
|1972
|a euphemism describing a costly and hurtful program that hinders the learning of English by foreign-born children in American [[public school]]s, which hurts their future opportunities
|-
|[[carbon footprint]]
|1999<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/carbon%20footprint</ref>
|this term indicates an individual human's effect on the environment by production of carbon dioxide
|-
|chairperson
|1971
|even Alice Sturgis, the leading parliamentarian of the 20th century, rejected this cumbersome form of political correctness.
|-
|check-off
|1911
|automatic deduction of union dues by the employer from the employee's paycheck, so he has no choice
|-
|[[class warfare]]
|
|first entered the political lexicon primarily as an attack by liberals against conservatives. <ref>[http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030115.html The art of "class warfare"], Ben Fritz, Spinsanity.org, January 15, 2003</ref>
|-
|[[communism]]
|1840
|
|-
|compassionate-care clinics
|2008
|a term describe pot-shops that dispense medical marijuana <ref>[http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/11/magazines/fortune/medical_marijuana_legalizing.fortune/?postversion=2009091116 How marijuana became legal, CNN, September 11, 2009]</ref>
|-
|compassion fatigue
|1968
|liberals, driven by materialistic self-interest, are likely to suffer from this.
|-
|[[condescension]]
|1647
|treating another person as though they are inferior
|-
|[[creationism]]
|1880
|like most "isms", creationism is a derogatory term coined preferred most by opponents of it.
|-
|[[Dark Ages]]
|1730
|a term coined in the so-called [[enlightenment]] to disparage the period between the fall of the [[Roman Empire]] and c.1000, when the Christian faith, and its learning and culture, spread across Europe.
|-
|[[Dead white males|dead white males]]
|
|a disparaging term used of significant figures from previous generations by those who wish to undermine [[Cultural Literacy|cultural literacy]]
|-
|deconstruction
|1973
|a style of interpretation of texts that looks beyond the plain meaning of the text in order to infer or accuse the writers of social bias
|-
|diva
|1883
|modern use to describe female Hollywood/media personalities
|-
|[[Détente|detente]]
|1970s
|a euphemism referring to pacifist policy re. the Soviet Union
|-
|distributive justice
|
|a term used to redefine socialist abridgment of rights as "just"
|-
|[[enlightenment]]
|1669
|
|-
|[[Environmentalist|environmentalism]]
|1922
|a mixture of [[pseudoscience]] and neo-[[paganism]] used to justify the imposition of [[socialist]]ic controls.
|-
|[[exclusionary rule]]
|1964
|an invented rule that requires censoring and withholding from the jury certain incriminating evidence about a criminal defendant, simply based on how the evidence was obtained.
|-
|[[family planning]]
|1939
|planning intended to determine the number and spacing of one's children through birth control <ref>[http://mw1.m-w.com/dictionary/family%20planning Family Planning, Merriam-Webster]</ref>
|-
|freethinker
|1692
|the euphemism "free" hides the hostility towards faith, which is not free
|-
|[[fundamentalism]]
|1922
|"a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching"<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fundamentalism</ref> From a series of pamphlets called "The Fundamentals" which outlined the movement. Perjorative usage started when the liberal [[Harry Emerson Fosdick]] began using the term in a straw man attack against [[Conservative Christianity]].
|-
|[[feminism]]
|1895
|notionally, "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes"; in reality, the attempt to destroy traditional family, societal and religious values by erasing or undermining natural gender differences.
|-
|[[gay rights]]
|1969
|the movement for civil rights for homosexuals
|-
|glass ceiling
|1984
|the notion that an invisible barrier prevents women and ethnic minorities from reaching high office; an excuse for [[feminist]]s and others to demand [[affirmative action]]
|-
|[[global warming]]
|1969
|the baseless [[environmentalist]] mantra that the earth's temperature is rising, and that human intervention is the cause.
|-
|[[goth]]
|?
|"a style of rock music, noted especially for somber or ethereal tones and lugubrious lyrics", or someone who performs or listens to this style of music.<ref>Dictionary.com, ''goth'' [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/goth]</ref> Goths often "dress in black with heavy jewelry".<ref>Dictionary.com, ''goth rock'' [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/goth%20rock]</ref> The term is taken from the name of "a Germanic people who invaded the Roman Empire in the early centuries of the Christian era".<ref>Dictionary.com, ''goth'' [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/goth]</ref>
|-
|gun control
|1969
|a euphemism for restricting the right to keep and bear arms
|-
|[[homophobia]]
|1969
|used by Liberals to describe a failure to subscribe 100% to the [[homosexual agenda]].
|-
|[[humanism]]
|1808 <ref>http://newhumanist.org.uk/1740</ref>
|
|-
|[[imperialism]]
|1851
|a clever term later used by liberals to interfere with Christian missionaries and stopping anti-Christian tyranny
|-
|[[isolationism]]
|1922
|a pejorative term that is critical of American politicians putting America first in priorities
|-
|Keynesianism
|1946
|advocacy of 'tax and spend' policies as elaborated by the economist [[John Maynard Keynes]]; a [[euphemism]] for back-door [[Socialism]].
|-
|[[Living Constitution]]
|2000
|a continually evolving Constitution (first used by presidential candidate Al Gore, title of a 1936 book by Howard McBain)
|-
|main squeeze
|1968
|one's romantic partner, typically in an unmarried relationship
|-
|McCarthyism
|1950
|originally, investigations by Sen. Joe McCarthy of Communists working in sensitive USA government jobs. Later, it more broadly refers to holding radical leftists accountable for their beliefs and loyalties.
|-
|[[metrosexual]]
|1994
|fashion and glamour man
|-
|moderate
|late 1900s
|the original term dates from the French Revolution, but its meaning today is a euphemism for someone who favors abortion and/or supports censorship of Christianity in some ways.
|-
|[[moving the goalposts]]
|late 1980s
|a sports analogy designed to avoid answering a logical follow-up question; this is a favorite term of evolutionists to avoid addressing obvious deficiencies in their theory
|-
|nationalize
|1800
|a euphemism for the government taking over ownership and control of a large company or entire industry, as in socialism
|-
|natural selection
|1857
|a misleading and euphemistic term for the theory that genetic advantages and conflict dictate survival
|-
|[[Nihilism]]
|1817
|a rejection of the values system, independently anarchist from society norms.
|-
|[[population control]]
|1968
|the issue of population dates back to Confucius. Liberals promoted the term after the book The Population Bomb by Paul R. Ehrlich
|-
|[[pro-choice]]
|1975
|a euphemism for insisting on taxpayer-funded [[abortion]]; people who claim to be pro-choice typically oppose ''informed'' choice, which makes the "choice" meaningless
|-
|[[progressivism]]
|1892
|the progressive movement was not entirely liberal; it was started by a Republican and shared some goals with conservatives, and still does
|-
|[[psychoanalysis]]
|1906
|contributed to de-spiritualization of human beings
|-
|public option
|2009
|obfuscate rewording of government control
|-
|[[quote mining]]
|non-existent
|a term used by [[evolutionists]] to describe taking quotes out of context in order to damage the position of the quoted party.
|-
|reproductive health
|1994 <ref>defined by the United Nations (UN) in 1994 at the Cairo International Conference</ref>
|abortion supporters jargon for rights/justice for pregnant women, no rights/justice for the child.
|-
|[[Sexual Discrimination|sexism]]
|1968
|That which is practiced by those who do not give total support to [[feminism]].
|-
|shovel-ready <ref>[http://skylineviews.typepad.com/skyline_views/2009/04/is-it-time-to-add-shovelready-to-the-dictionary.html Is it time to add shovel-ready to the dictionary? Skyline Views, April 24, 2009]</ref>
|2008
|jobs and people ready to work if funded
|-
|situation ethics
|1955
|a euphemism for denying fixed ethical standards
|-
|stimulus packages
|2009
|used by government(s) to be perceived as taking unprecedented measures to stimulate aggregate economic demand; during a crisis on economic growth and private jobs, liberal government entities are known to deceptively take advantage of its subject in the form of "stimulus packages," as an opportunity to pursue policies that further social and environmental agendas.<ref>[http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/12/62/42555546.pdf For a stronger, cleaner, ''fairer'' world economy], ''Organisation For Economic Co-Operation and Development'' (OECD), 2010.</ref>
|-
|strict liability
|1869
|court-imposed liability even when there is no evidence of any fault by the defendant
|-
|sustainability
|1727
|[[environmentalism|environmentalist]] buzzword
|-
|Swift-Boating
|2004
|allegations of unfair campaign tactics.
|-
|transforming society
|2008
|Obama, Rahm and Axelrod use this term. It dates to [[Saul Alinsky]] and Chicago politics. <ref>[http://marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930# Mark Levin Show, July 7, 2009]</ref>
|-
|transnationalist
|2006
|popularized by Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh in a 2006 law review article: "The transnationalists view domestic courts as having a critical role to play in domesticating international law into U.S. law ...."<ref>Penn State Law Review (2006).</ref>
|-
|undocumented immigrant
|2000
|a [[politically correct]] replacement for illegal alien.
|-
|unfair
|1700
|
|-
|union shop
|1904
|
|-
|[[Unitarian]]
|1687
|
|-
|will to power
|1907
|[[Nietzsche]]'s concept of the drive of a superman to perfect himself by exercising creative power; it didn't catch on
|-
|woman's rights
|1833
|women equal to men; the defining movement to justify aborting babies in the 20th century
|-
|}

== Rate of Generation of Liberal Terms ==

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

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Century
!# New Liberal Terms
|-
|1600s
|4
|-
|1700s
|2
|-
|1800s
|11
|-
|1900s
|31 (9 in the 1960s)
|-
|2000s
|5
|-
|}

== Terms Difficult to Classify ==

These new terms are difficult to classify:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|[[affirmative action|affirmative action]]
|1961
|first used in [http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal6/eo10925.htm JFK's Executive Order 10925] in 1961 and subsequently promoted by [[LBJ]].
|-
|[[American exceptionalism]]
|1980<ref>An estimate; it originated no later than 1983.</ref>
|coined by sociologist Daniel Bell, its meaning today is unclear; it is used to urge exporting American-style elections to the rest of the world as urged especially by [[neoconservatives]].
|-
|Americanism
|1781
|Originally, a phrase unique to American English, later, loyalty to America and its principles
|-
|bipartisan
|1909
|emphasized by liberals when they are in the minority in power, but ignored by liberals when they are the majority in power
|-
|colonist
|1701
|settlers of a new country
|-
|compartmentalize
|1925
|compartmentalizing the Bible away from knowledge and education leads to ignorance and despair
|-
|eclectic
|1683
|taking the best from among different styles or ideas; compare [[best of the public]]
|-
|evangelism
|1620-30
|"isms" are usually pejorative, though this acquired a positive meaning over time, and perhaps from the outset
|-
|genetics
|1905
|perhaps this should be on the conservative list?
|-
|inane
|1662
|refers to comments, often made by liberals, that are utterly devoid of substance
|-
|junk legislation
|1980s
|used initially by liberals to complain about the lack of meaningful legislation
|-
|missionary
|1635-1645
|conservative?
|-
|multitasking
|1966
|performing multiple tasks all at once
|-
|polar coordinates
|1694
|Newton may have used it earlier
|-
|republican
|1685
|
|-
|scrooge
|1843
|the main character in Charles Dickens' ''A Christmas Carol''; the story is based on materialism and is often used as a substitute for the Biblical account, but charity is a conservative value
|-
|smoke and mirrors
|1982
|describes the use of deceit, particularly in politics; probably a conservative term, but will await more etymology about it
|-
|soapbox
|1907
|now used pejoratively, but probably not initially when it was a way for the public to participate
|-
|states' rights
|1790
|liberals often invoke this too; Democrats were its biggest champions in the 1800s (in connection with slavery), and even today on issues like legalizing drugs and same-sex marriage
|-
|technocrat
|1932
|technical expert
|-
|telecommute
|1974<ref>The first use of this term was in the British magazine ''The Economist''.</ref>
|a combination of a Greek root ("tele", which means "far off") and a Latin root ("commutare", which means "to exchange")
|-
|tomfoolery
|1812
|playful or foolish behavior
|-
|traditionalism
|1856
|"beliefs of those opposed to [[modernism]], [[liberalism]], or [[radicalism]]"
|-
|[[twilight zone]]
|1949
|the realm of imagination that seems impossible but is difficult to disprove, and which challenges ordinary views of reality; also the terminator between night and day on a planetary body
|-
|}

== Downgraded Conservative Terms ==

These conservative terms are less significant:

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

== Sources ==

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

== See also ==

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

{{Conservatism}}
{{Conservapedia}}

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

Talk:Letter to Douglas Moo

2010-06-30T00:30:50Z

ReligiousRight:

'Professor Moo' sounds like a silly name, perhaps fittingly. We should provide a link to the [[Conservative Bible]], just in case he doesn't believe us. Also, is his reponse (or lack thereof) going to be made public? --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 21:20, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
: Never mind, I just saw the link. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 21:25, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

::Sure, I'll publish his response (or lack thereof). I'll add mention of that so he'll know.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:31, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

I would recommend against sending this letter. I fail to see how it could result in anything but ridicule. [[User:BobF|BobF]] 21:30, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

: Christianity wouldn't exist if fear of ridicule were a concern.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:31, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
::Very well, but I think you should ackowledge that there is a difference between translating the Bible from its original languages and translating it from an archaic form of English, which is what was done here. [[User:BobF|BobF]] 21:33, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
:::I would recommend against making rude comments like that, BobF. I fail to see how it could result in anything but annoying the community. I, for one, am quite interested to see Dr. Moo stutter his way through some pathetic rebuttal attempt. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 21:33, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
::::I'm just stating the facts. The CBP was a tranlsation of the KJV, was it not? Nothing wrong with that, but it really isn't comparable to translating from Greek or Aramaic. [[User:BobF|BobF]] 21:36, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
:::::Yeah, I personally don't see how this could "result in ridicule." It's someone (speaking for a group of people, Conservapedia) voicing his concerns regarding a Biblical translation. Let's see what Professor Moo has to say. -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 21:38, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
::::::Actually, BOB, most of us used the Greek in our translations. You're clearly here just to argue. So, bye! [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 21:38, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
:::::::Well, then I suggest that the tone of the letter be a bit less insulting. No harm in taking the high road. [[User:BobF|BobF]] 21:39, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
::::::::What exactly is insulting? I just read through the letter twice, and it seems to be a clear, non-aggressive statement of facts. -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 21:42, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
:::::::::Taking the high road doesn't appear to be something you know much about. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 21:40, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
::::::::::BobF, Moo is going make a translation that will be read potentially by millions. It's important to know if he is going use his translation to only further his political agenda. As for ridicule, Moo already ridiculed the [[Conservative Bible]]. This is our rebuttal to his outrageous [[Liberal| liberal]] mockery. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 21:43, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

Question: Why is only Moo being emailed? Looking at [http://www.biblica.com/bible/cbt/index.php the Committee homepage] while Moo is the Chairman there are other professors participating in the "translation". How do we know that they won't try to insert liberal or pro-abortion bias into the "translation" as well? Perhaps we should send a letter to them as well, or at the very least cc this to them. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 21:58, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

: Presumably the Chairman is authorized to speak for the Committee. Also, he's the one who criticized us.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:41, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
:: Good point. Fair enough. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 22:46, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
:::Is it right to say that the Conservapedia translation has been "wrapped up"? I thought it was just a first draft that had been completed, with a provisional translation of each verse. I'm sure there are improvements that can and should be made before the project is considered completely finished. For example, I've just made an improvement to the Galatians translation, where the importance of Titus' being Greek was missed.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:18, 7 June 2010 (EDT)

:::::Good point. I'll replace "wrapped up" with a more accurate phrase about our project, which certainly does remain open to improvements.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:30, 7 June 2010 (EDT)

I see nothing wrong with this letter. However, I'm not exactly sure what you hope to accomplish by sending it. Do you want to see the draft on which they are working? Do you just want him to answer the questions that you pose? Do you want him to allow you and the members of Conservapedia to revise the new translation and make suggestions as necessary? Perhaps if you make specific requests, Douglas Moo's response will be more to your satisfaction. I would make suggestions to improve the letter, but I need to know what it is that you hope to accomplish. Any clarifications would be helpful and I'm sure Professor Moo would appreciate it too! [[User:PaulRy|PaulRy]] 22:28, 7 June 2010 (EDT)

: Please see below as a rebuttal of your comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:32, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

==Interview with Moo==

Moo stated in [http://www.dashhouse.com/2009/09/interview-with-douglas-moo-on-the-2011-niv/ an interview]:

: [Biblica and Zondervan] are intent on deflecting any possible claim that the 2011 NIV was a secretive project.... And we are also seeking input from anyone who wants to make a suggestion about how the 2011 NIV might be improved over the latest published version of the work of CBT, the TNIV.

Zondervan president also said that they want the process to be as “transparent as possible”. Perhaps we should remind Moo of this. Also, he stated that gender-inclusive language is “back on the table”. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 21:55, 7 June 2010 (EDT)

: Your point is superb. I will incorporate this into the draft letter in an appropriate way, and welcome any edits you may suggest on the letter itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:29, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

==Delivery?==

When are you planning to send this letter? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 21:13, 9 June 2010 (EDT)

: I suppose early next week, after we've had a chance to improve it. I need to insert the quote discussed in the section just above this one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:48, 9 June 2010 (EDT)

:: Is this letter ready to go yet? --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 19:12, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

::: Did you improve it with your good quote of Moo himself?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:34, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

:::: Ah, I said I was going to do that, but perhaps you can do so first. I want to do some edits to the [[Federalist Papers]] now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:35, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

::::: Alright. I can't it now, but I'll work on it later. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 19:47, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

Any decisions made yet as to when this is going to be sent? --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 20:30, 29 June 2010 (EDT)

Entropy

2010-06-24T00:24:26Z

ReligiousRight: /* Statistical mechanics definition 2 */

Entropy is a measure of disorder or information content in a system, first postulated by [[Lazare Carnot]] in 1803.

The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy will always increase over time within a [[closed system]], defining a closed system as one in which neither matter nor energy may enter or leave.

Entropy is undeniable and yet creates perhaps insurmountable difficulties for many modern theories of physics. For example, it renders time asymmetric, resulting in an [[arrow of time]] that is difficult to reconcile with the [[theory of relativity]]. Entropy casts doubt on whether physical laws or the speed of light are invariant and perpetual.

==Definitions==
===Thermodynamic definition===
In classical [[thermodynamics]], if a small amount of energy dQ is supplied to a system from a reservoir held at temperature T, the change in entropy is given by

<math>
dS=\frac{dQ}{T}
</math>

For a measurable change between two states i and f this expression integrates to

<math>
\Delta S=\int_{i}^{f}\frac{dQ}{T}
</math>

===Statistical mechanics definition 1===
If a system can be arranged in W different ways, the entropy is

<math> S= k_B \log W </math>

where <math>k_B</math> is Boltzmann's constant.

===Statistical mechanics definition 2===
Label the different states a thermodynamic system can be in by <math>i=1,2,3\ldots N</math>. If the probability of finding the system in state i is <math>p_i</math>, then the entropy is

<math>
S=-k_B \sum_{i=1}^N p_i \log p_i
</math>

where <math>k_B</math> is the Bolzmann constant. This definition is closely related to ideas in [[information theory]], where the definition of information content is very similar to the definition of entropy.

===Entropy in information Theory===
For a [[discrete]] [[random variable]], entropy is defined as

<math>
H(X)=-\sum_{x\in \mathcal{X}} P(X=x)\log_2 \left(P(X=x)\right)
</math>

For a [[continuous]] [[random variable]], the analogous description for entropy, which in this case represents the number of bits necessary to quantize a signal to a desired accuracy, is given by

<math>
h(X)=-\int_{x\in \mathcal{X}} f_X (x) \log_2 \left(f_X (x)\right)
</math>

==See also==

* [[history of entropy|History of the development of entropy]]

==References==
<references/>
[[category:physics]]

Same-sex marriage

2010-06-24T00:21:57Z

ReligiousRight: /* See also */

'''Same-sex "marriage"''' is a proposed redefinition or variation on the traditional concept of [[marriage]], granting [[same-sex union]]s the same legal status as heterosexual marriage. Like [[polygamy]], it replaces the pattern of "one man, one woman" which is considered a divine mandate by most modern religious people. The proposal is outrageously unacceptable to most adherents of [[Christianity]], [[Judaism]] and [[Islam]] because it uses the force of law to justify what scripture has clearly labelled a sin: i.e., [[homosexual]] relations. [[Hate speech]] rules and laws are already in place which restrict criticism of same-sex unions (see also [[hate crime]]).

Campaigns advocating same-sex marriage are at the forefront of the [[gay rights movement]]'s attempt to normalize the rights of [[homosexual]]s with those of heterosexuals, overturning centuries of established tradition whereby homosexuals were required to keep their sinful acts hidden, protecting society from their immorality. Some opponents of efforts to normalize same-sex marriage claim its purpose is to destroy the [[family]] as an institution, merely to secure a legal basis for [[sexual freedom]]. According to some opponents of same-sex marriage, the primary purpose of marriage is to bring joy to society as much as to safeguard the development of happy families, and it is not for individual glory. They believe that unrelated people living together make each other miserable and harm society. Among the many reasons homosexuals might advocate same-sex marriage are the ability to make emergent healthcare decisions for a loved one in the absence of a durable power of attorney or living will, the alteration of the laws of intestate succession to include gay partners, and equal tax treatment as heterosexual married couples.

[[United States]] [[law]] defines "marriage" as "one man, one woman" for purposes of the federal [[Defense of Marriage Act]], which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if permitted under state law, and permits a state to disregard a same-sex marriage entered into in another state. An interesting consequence of the federal definition of "marriage" is that it specifically rules out [[polygamy]]. 

__TOC__
==Morality==
Social [[conservatives]] regard same-sex marriage as immoral, and argue that use of the word "[[marriage]]" is a misnomer, because the [[Form of Solemnization of Matrimony|marriage services]] of Christian denominations define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Some social liberals will try to use this debate as a excuse to take the socially-conservative view of marriage out of the law. In some Christian marriage ceremonies,the wedding will begin with a statement along the lines of: "Dearly beloved: We have come together in the presence of God to witness and bless the joining together of this man and this woman in Holy Matrimony." <ref>''The Book of Common Prayer,'' Episcopal Church, The Church Hymnal Corporation and the Seabury Press, 1979: "The Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage," p. 423</ref> a definition which was also written into United States federal law in 1996.<ref>[http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode01/usc_sec_01_00000007----000-.html US Code - Title 1, section 7]</ref>

Dr. [[James Dobson]]'s [[Focus on the Family]] organization prefers the phrase ''same-sex "marriage,"'' with quotation marks around the word "marriage," to call attention to his belief that marriage—civil as well as religious—is intrinsically a union between a man and a woman, and that that same-sex unions are "counterfeits."<ref>[http://www.family.org/socialissues/A000000464.cfm Same-Sex 'Marriage' and Civil Unions], ''Focus on the Family's'' website</ref>

Use of the term "same-sex marriage" was unheard of a few decades ago; however, these unions are now among a number of issues advocated by [[liberal]] activists.

Some advocates of same-sex marriage view marriage as a purely civil matter, which in the history of the United States is a position taken particularly strongly by Puritan colonists, who viewed the interjection of religion into the franchise of marriage as scandalous to Christ's Church.

== Background ==
In the United States, marriage is primarily governed by each individual state and marriage laws differ from state to state. Several states allow [[civil union]]s between two people of the same sex, and five, [[Massachusetts]], [[Connecticut]], [[Vermont]], [[New Hampshire]], and [[Iowa]], currently issue same-sex marriage licenses. These marriage licenses are not recognized by the Federal government.

In 1996 Congress recognized the likelihood that [[liberal]] activists would soon seek changes to the laws in some states that pertain to homosexuals. It considered the possibility of test cases reaching the Supreme Court, and of the court conceivably ruling that a state—even though it prohibits same-sex marriage itself—must honor same-sex marriages performed in another state pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution. The Defense of Marriage act, which was passed and signed by President Clinton, prevents this possibility, and also prevents the Federal Government from recognizing marriage as anything other than a union between a man and a woman. Its Constitutionality has not yet been tested under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Equal Protection Clause of the 5th Amendment, or the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment.

In 1999 a Vermont court ruled that under its constitution, it was not required to allow same-sex marriage but was required to make provisions to grant same-sex couples legal rights identical to those provided by marriage. Vermont responded by creating "civil unions," which are legally distinct from marriages but convey the same rights. In 2009, the Vermont legislature overrode the governor's veto to pass a bill allowing same-sex marriage.

In 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that under Massachusetts' constitution, same-sex couples could not be denied Massachusetts marriage licenses, making Massachusetts the first state to issue same-sex marriage licenses. As of April 2009, same-sex marriage was legal in four states, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, and Iowa. <ref>''Vermont Legislature Makes Same-Sex Marriage Legal'' [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/us/08vermont.html?_r=1&hp]</ref><ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081010/ap_on_re_us/connecticut_same_sex_marriage Conn. high court rules gay couples can marry]</ref>

Beginning in 2008, the states of [[Washington]], and [[Oregon]] also provide for same-sex unions. [[Hawaii]] provides certain benefits to same sex couples. <ref>[http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/connecticut/ny-bc-ct--civilunions-optio0531may31,0,341613.story?coll=ny-region-apconnecticut Newsday]</ref> The State of New Hampshire issued civil unions until the summer of 2009, when it passed a bill approving same-sex marriage <ref>"New Hampshire Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage" [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/us/04marriage.html]</ref> The state will begin issuing same-sex marriage licenses in January, 2010.

In the fall of 2009, a same-sex marriage bill was introduced to the [[D.C.|Washington, DC]] city council by At-Large Council Member David Catania (who is openly gay.) After two days of testimony involving nearly 250 witnesses <ref>''D.C. Council hears from both sides in gay marriage debate'' [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/D_C_-Council-hears-from-both-sides-in-gay-marriage-debate-8442433-66188647.html]</ref>, the council voted to approve the bill, 11-2. If signed by the Mayor, which he has pledged to do, the bill will then go to Congress for a mandatory [[DC Home Rule|30-day review period]]. While opponents of the bill have vowed to fight it in Congress<ref>"DC Council Approves Same-Sex Marriage" [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/15/AR2009121500945.html]</ref> it is expected to pass, and will become law in 2010.

Same-sex marriages were legal for a brief period in the state of [[California]], but the people of that state voted to repeal the law in the fall of 2008<ref>"California Votes for Prop 8"[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122586056759900673.html]</ref>, through a ballot initiative known as [[Proposition 8]]. The legislature of [[Maine]] approved a same-sex marriage bill in May of 2009 <ref>"Lawmakers approve same-sex marriage in N.H., Maine" [http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/06/maine.same.sex.marriage/index.html]</ref> but opponents lobbied to have the bill put up to a popular vote, and it was defeated by the voters in the fall of 2009.<ref>"Maine rejects same-sex marriage law" [http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/04/maine.same.sex/index.html]</ref>

Same-sex marriage is legal in seven countries: [[South Africa]], [[Spain]], [[Canada]], the [[Netherlands]], [[Belgium]], [[Norway]] and [[Sweden]]. Other countries, such as [[France]], [[Germany]], and the [[United Kingdom]], recognize [[civil unions]] and [[domestic partnership]]s.<ref>[http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-03/05/content_311998.htm Countries worldwide address gay marriage]</ref>

Some opponents of same-sex marriage believe that the religious ceremony of marriage is governed by each denomination and is unaffected by laws passed by civil authority. Same-sex marriage is forbidden in Orthodox Judaism, Catholicism, and most mainstream Protestant denominations. In Massachusetts, however, about 6% of all marriages are same-sex marriages, so this does not appear to be a problem. <ref>[http://www.massequality.org/news/news_story.php?id=273]</ref><ref>http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fnchs%2Fdata%2Fnvss%2Fmarriage90_04.pdf&images=yes</ref>

Public attitude toward same-sex marriage parallels attitude toward homosexuality. In general, it is opposed by social conservatives and outside of this group, support is split down the middle leaning to opposition.<ref>[http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Relationships/same_sex_marriage_poll_040121.html Same Sex Marriage Poll from ABC News]</ref>

== Issues ==
[[Image:Cycle.gif|thumbnail|200px|right|A recent study by the [[Canada|Canadian]] government states that "violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with [[heterosexual]] couples".<ref>http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/85-570-XIE/2006001/findings/risk.htm Aforementioned Canadian Study.</ref>]]
[[James Dobson]] cites Stanley Kurtz to argue that the motivation of those advocating same-sex marriage is not to secure the benefits of marriage for gay couples, but to destroy the institution of marriage itself:
:...most gays and lesbians do not want to marry each other. That would entangle them in all sorts of legal constraints. Who needs a lifetime commitment to one person? The intention here is to destroy marriage altogether. With marriage as we know it gone, everyone would enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage (custody rights, tax-free inheritance, joint ownership of property, health care and spousal citizenship, etc.,) without limiting the number of partners or their gender. Nor would "couples" be bound to each other in the eyes of the law. This is clearly where the movement is headed.<ref>Stanley Kurtz, "Beyond Marriage," The Weekly Standard, August 4/August 11, 2003. - cited in [http://www.focusonthefamily.com/docstudy/newsletters/A000000771.cfm Marriage on the Ropes], Dr. James Dobson, retrieved from ''Focus on the Family'', 15 May 2007. </ref>

According to a March, 2007 report, there are 65,000 adopted children in the U.S. being raised by same-sex couples. The same report says 14,100 foster children were being raised by one or more gay or lesbian foster parents.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/25/gay.adoption/index.html Gay adoption: A new take on the American family]</ref>

In Great Britain, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) has expressed its full support to the stand taken by the Catholic Church opposing regulations on gay adoption. The Catholic Church sought to be exempt from the new law. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams of the Church of England, supports the Catholic Church's efforts declaring that the rights of conscience cannot be subject to laws. Catholic leaders have already said that its teachings prevent its agencies placing children with homosexuals and they will have to close if bound by the rules. The MCB, the UK's leading Muslim umbrella group embracing over 400 affiliated organizations, said that while it supported anti-discrimination laws, homosexuality is forbidden in Islam. <ref>[http://www2.irna.com/en/news/view/menu-234/0701266670200554.htm UK Muslim group backs Christian opposition to gay adoption rules London], Islamic republic News Agency, Jan 26, 2007.</ref>

Studies indicate that homosexual couples have higher rates of promiscuity than heterosexual couples.<ref>[http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02 Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples]</ref> Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners.<ref>2004 General Social Survey, Statistics Canada, Canada's National Statistical Agency, July 7, 2005</ref> In addition, studies report that [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence|homosexual couples have significantly higher incidences of violent behavior]].{{fact}} These studies are not surprising given what pathologists have stated regarding the [[Homosexuality and Murders|commonness and brutality of homosexual murders]].{{fact}} The prevalence of violence and emotional abuse in gay domestic partnerships.  One survey found 53% of gays felt if the high incidence of violence against partners in homosexual relationships was known and understood by the heterosexual population, it would hinder the drive for gay rights.

Domestic abuse is divided into two categories, emotional abuse and physical abuse. While gay domestic abuse has not been studied to the extent that heterosexual relationships have, [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence|preliminary studies indicate a much higher level of abuse]].

==See also==
*[[Anti-Defamation League]]
*[[Intimate Partner Violence]]
*[[Gay bowel syndrome]]
*[[Homosexuality and the Bible]]
*[[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]]

==Reference==
{{reflist|2}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.nogaymarriage.com/tenarguments.asp Gay Marriage: Why Would It Affect Me? Ten Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage], NoGayMarriage.com
*[http://www.robgagnon.net/homoPresbyTodayArticle.htm Why “Gay Marriage” Is Wrong, by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.]
[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]

Talk:Worst College Majors

2010-06-23T23:25:56Z

ReligiousRight: /* English Literature */

In deference to JDWPianist, I'll defer to his change of "Music" to "Music Therapy," but "Music" as a college major is pretty useless. Maybe it's OK as a hobby, but not something that someone would profitably pay $100,000 for in terms of a degree except in the most unusual situations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:11, 16 May 2010 (EDT)

Just like to note that Women Studies is not on any of the lists in the sources given for this page. --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 13:28, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

:You're right, and it's not hard to understand why. The [[liberal denial]] is too obvious for words.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:38, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

:Information in our articles should match up with sources used and not have information inserted with no backing. If there is a source that states Women Studies to be the worst college degree then it should of course be outlined in this article. Cause right now it seems to be more of opinion that it is number 1 because the lack of a source. --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 13:47, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::Well perhaps you should start your own project, Irene. However the pendulum for tolerating liberal clap-trap is rapidly swinging against them, and it might not be worth your investment. My suggestion is that you open your mind; the truth will indeed set you free! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:34, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

:::I am unsure as to where you are going with this TK. I am merely pointing out a fault with the article and getting fed back alot of liberal nonsense and wordism. Am i wrong to say the article is not backing up what the sources say? --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 17:18, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

: Hmmm, I would have to agree that Women's Studies didn't seem to have any practical applications in the workforce. So looked at the UC Davis college catalog to see what it had to say ([http://registrar.ucdavis.edu/UCDWebCatalog/PDF/14GenCatProg.pdf pg 385] - Warning, its a huge file!). I guess there are some realistic applications like counseling, medicine, or law. While there are obviously far better majors to prepare a student for these fields, I suppose that its not completely useless (like Star Trek or Surfing Studies!). Anyway, I hope this helps! [[User:JimFullerton|JimFullerton]] 17:23, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

Irene certainly has a point, the material is not sourced. Pointing that out is certainly not liberalism in and of itself. Are we intending to argue that the uselessness of that particular major is self-evident? (I certainly know of no use for it, but then again I really have no idea what they teach you)

Personally I'm not sure how credible a source on the usefulness of any particular college degree could possibly be. Have they actually backed up their analysis with solid research? I doubt it. I'm not sure this entire page is exactly encyclopedic. Perhaps it would be better to move it to the Essay namespace where it may prove a useful resource for students but won't be making the value-judgment (i.e. subjective, un-encyclopedic) about what is or isn't useful. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 17:45, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

: It only took me a minute or two to find many websites describing how bad a major "women's studies" is. I added one. More generally, what's wrong with a little "[[caveat emptor]]" for college majors? People are paying a ton of money plus [[opportunity cost]] on college, and it seems worth spending at least a little effort separating the wheat from the chaff.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:34, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::Well you can say that is a source, but Insider? is just a gossip site on celebrities primarily. How are we determining credibility of sources here on CP? --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 22:48, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

:::Irene, there are dozens of sites stating the obvious. [[Liberal denial]] of obvious truths has no place here. Look in earnest yourself if you sincerely doubt the point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:11, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::::I do not doubt Women Studies being useless. But i thought i raised a valid question, on determining credibility. For even when Conservapedia is right, which it often is, it should still need backing of credible sources to persuade doubters. Gives a much better foundation on Conservapedia's part; rather then excepting any yahoos opinion that is swayed by liberal bias. --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 23:22, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

:::::Putting aside the question of whether or not women's studies should be on the list of worst college majors, I agree with [[User:IreneK|IreneK]] that the source cited is not a credible source. Not only is ''The Insider'' hardly a reliable source, (it appears to be a liberal celebrity gossip site - I hope CP isn't going to start relying on that sort of thing!), the article is not even written by someone on ''The Insider'''s editorial staff. The article would be stronger and more persuasive if a more reliable source was cited. 
:::::For what it's worth, my impression has been that women's studies is often a minor, rather than a major, course of study, as a complement to another field. (In the same way that many people take philosophy courses in college, because they can be quite interesting, but few people major in philosophy, as there is not much of a market for it.) I don't know how accurate this impression is.
:::::Whether a particular course of study is worthwhile or not is somewhat in the eye of the beholder (or rather the person willing to pay for such classes), so any list such as this one is to some extent opinion rather than fact. Nonetheless, the article should at least have a source for whether the number of students pursuing such a major is increasing or decreasing (as mentioned in the current source), or what the job prospects really are, or what a typical starting salary for graduates might be. A quick Google search produced [http://www-afa.adm.ohio-state.edu/u-majors/pdf/womst.pdf this interesting document] from Ohio State, which might be worth looking at with an eye towards putting some of the info in the CP article. ''"After graduation, about half of women’s studies majors attend graduate or professional school, while others find employment in government and nonprofit agencies and organizations, as well as private businesses."'' Alas, it it quite late, so I don't have time to look for additional sources. 
:::::[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:16, 19 May 2010 (EDT)

Dare I say there's a worse major than Women's Studies? "Queer Studies," which grows ever more common, is an entire degree in justifying the homosexual agenda. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 23:45, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
::::Does any American college offer a Men's Studies program or a White Anglo Saxon Protestant Program? :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 02:09, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

:::::A quick Google says [http://www.akamaiuniversity.us/MensStudies.html#2 yes]. I believe many more offer Gender Studies courses, which presumably include both mens' and women's perspectives. Protestant universities would be a good place to look for courses on the experiences of Protestants in the US; similarly Catholic universities offer various courses from a Catholic perspective, and so on. [[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:28, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

I tried to edit this article but they got reverted almost right away. I am new here but have been looking at many articles in the past and editing this article based on the talk page and also the provided sources. In the provided links they do not make mention of atheism and only mention religion. Most people I know that went into religious studies went into it because they had a passion for it and were not looking for money. Should this be changed or even removed? Also the sourced articles read more like opinion pieces including the insider one and the learnfinancialplanning.com article that actually got its information from holytaco.com (which looks to be comedy site). Anyone disagree or should I go ahead and make these changes? [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 15:15, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

: I do disagree. If students are enrolling in religion with good intentions, then all the more reason to alert them to what that field of study has really become.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:58, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

::I agree with john here. And students could just as easily find other ''opinionated'' articles in support for all of these majors.

::I agree with the idea that this isn't an encylopedic entry and should be moved to a debate page. --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 19:38, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

::: But the article is about how much the major makes monetarily which would include religion and many other studies , but to many people they enjoy what they do and wouldn't trade it in. Teaching for example does not pay the best of wages , but that does not stop people for pursuing a degree and having a passion for it and there are many good teachers out there. The same goes for writing, Dance, Philosophy, and even music. There are a lot of different majors in the world and going into someone just to earn money is more of a [[Social Darwinism]] type belief and not a good one at that. [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 21:31, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

:::: The criticisms of these majors goes far beyond their lack of economic value. You protest too much, rather than adding information.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:07, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

:::::

I am more than happy to add or change information to this article but last time I did this I was banned (I did however move star trek to courses since Georgetown does not offer a degree for star trek) and I do agree that some of the degrees and courses have little value in today's world (I do disagree with some of them as well) but the articles sourced and the link for women studies are all based on how much a degree earns and opinionated which is very un-encyclopedic. Now I did find another article related to courses that I think we can add based on the non usefulness of courses like star trek, harry potter, soap opera. Any thought of if the following link should be used?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/07/AR2007100701401_2.html?sid=ST2007100701675

How about also a rewrite of the first part and state the following and remove the information about debt since as you stated this is not about economic value.

The worst college majors are fields of study that leave the student with relatively few job opportunities in the field of study and often a distorted and liberal view of the world.

Then source each field of study and why it gives the person a distorted view of the world and leave them few job opportunities.

For example for Parapsychology link to the either of the following articles.

http://atheism.about.com/od/parapsychology/a/repeatable.htm

http://www.rsd.edu/schools/rhs/mst/reading/005_Why_Parapsychology_is_a_Pseudoscience.pdf

[[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 11:34, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

any reason why the change to star trek was reverted. This is not a degree but instead a course offered by Georgetown. Should this be changed back to put it under courses? [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 12:05, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

:If Star Trek is merely a course, please do move it back to the course section. But you continue to protest too much about the inclusion of women's studies. If you think that major has significant value worth the $200,000 that many spend on college, then please simply say what you think that value is. Would you pay $200,000 for the courses taught in women's studies? If so, why?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:12, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

:: I moved it back to sourced and sourced the link to Georgetown. I actually am not protesting inclusion of woman's studies as you might believe and actually fixed the sourcing of it to two articles that I hope you find as useful. What I am protesting is sourcing. The links provided are opinionated and in some of them un-sourced. For example how is Golf Management not useful? This degree is not based on playing golf but managing a golf course, working at a country club, etc. [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 22:17, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

== Proposal: move to "Essay: Worst College Majors" ==

I think it would be more appropriate as it really fits in with [[Essay|this list]]. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 22:17, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

I would agree with that and think it would work well as as an essay or even under debate [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 22:19, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

== English? ==

I understand that most English professors are liberal, as are most professors in general. Hence [[professor values]]. However, I am a conservative English major, and I know several others who are as well. Although liberal writers are studied, so are powerful conservative and Christian writers like Dostoevsky, Rand, Shakespeare, and Milton. I developed most of my conservative principles through studying literature, and I am not the only one. Liberals do use English as an avenue for indoctrination, but they do the same with Biology, Anthropology, Philosophy, and other subjects. In fact, I find all three of those subjects to be much less open-minded than English. Biology and Anthropology, for example, teach that Evolution is fact, and not-so-subtly promote atheism. I have never had an English class that does this, but any English professor who did so could be reported to the Dean and condemned for such actions. Plus, English focuses mostly on composition, comprehension, and critical thinking, which is why it is a very important major for the Journalism and Publishing industries, and is a common undergraduate degree prior to Law and Business graduate schools. I am not saying English is the best major, but rating it worse than subjects like Comic Book Art and Surfing Studies makes no sense. [[User:Ckirk|Ckirk]] 19:14, 20 June 2010 (EDT)
:Majoring in English leaves virtually no job opportunities to those who take it. [[User:KenJ|KenJ]] 19:24, 20 June 2010 (EDT)
:That's both untrue and irrelevant to my comment. If one wants to go into publishing, for instance, an English degree is generally expected. It is also a good major for professional school opportunities. It is also well-regarded in journalism. I said this, and you seem to have willfully ignored it. Does this mean you think Comic Book Art and Surfing Studies have more job opportunities than English? And, in any case, my removal of English seems to have been reverted on the grounds that the English major is a deceitful liberal institution, which as a conservative English major I am trying to refute. It has many liberals, and some of the professors are biased, but that is true of every single major on many college campuses. I find the English major's inclusion on this list to be a blatant generalization, and I suspect it comes from ignorance as to what an English major at a good university actually entails. [[User:Ckirk|Ckirk]] 7:42, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

== Point ==
The entire premise of this essay is that education is merely all about getting a job. That's a particularly small-minded approach to education - for some, education and expansion of knowledge is an end in and of itself. If women's studies or religion is something you're simply interested in, and have no intention of ever earning a living doing it, it's absurd to call it a "worst college major".

Even if this is the case, the suggestion that 'Film Studies' is a unlikely to get you a job is entirely bogus, given the number of film school grads who go on to work in the industry. Interior Decorating? Countless jobs in the field exist - the entire construction industry needs interior decorators to do the very last part of the project. Comic Book Art - with the total conversion of the blockbuster movie business to simply producing versions of graphic novels, the comic business is booming, and good artists are very well paid indeed. Others you list do indeed have unlikely employability, but in that case, revert to my first point - one may not be studying these with any intention of getting a job. I have taken a collegel-level study in Etruscan pottery, and neither work in the field of archeology nor ever intend to - I just found their beauty entrancing. Perhaps you ought to take a course on 'Balance'? [[User:JanW|JanW]] 07:23, 21 June 2010 (EDT)
:The entire premise of this article was based on news reports and opinions on the subject that have been around for a couple years. Perhaps you should open your own mind a bit more instead of complain about our lack of "balance". [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:22, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

==English Literature==
Why is English Literature on this list? It has a long and venerable history as a degree subject, and studying [[Shakespeare]], [[Milton]], [[John Donne]] and the like gives deep and valuable insights into all kinds of subjects. Indeed, many of the words on the [[Essay:Best New Conservative Terms]] list derive from the great works of English literature. It would be barbarous to drive the study of English literature out of our universities, and categorising it alongside surfing studies is an insult to [[Geoffrey Chaucer]], [[William Caxton]], [[John Bunyan]] and everyone else who helped to pioneer the establishment of English as a cultured tongue admired by people in every country of today's world.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:18, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

:I don't think the classics you cite are the focus of study in "English lit/Literary Criticism" majors anymore, but I have an open mind about this.

:Wasn't the [[Virginia Tech]] mass murderer taking courses in this major?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:37, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

:We do study these authors very extensively. I have taken semester-long classes on both Milton and Shakespeare, two quite conservative, Christian writers. The Milton class is very popular, and the Shakespeare class is specifically required for the major. Also, I see no reason to believe the Virginia Tech shooter’s actions were due to his major. Shouldn’t we be inclined to expect familial and social problems long before we demonize his area of academic study?--[[User:Ckirk|Ckirk]] 14:03, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

::It probably depends on the university or college in question. I'm not saying every literature course is worthwhile, but we shouldn't tar them all with the same brush.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:38, 22 June 2010 (EDT)

:::To Andy: I just wanted to ask, are you, by your statement, implying that there is a correlation between the fact that the Virginia Tech murderer was taking courses in English Literature and the fact that he became a mass murderer? Or was it merely a request for information, not meant to infer anything?
:::If you were actually implying that there might be a correlation between majoring in English AND becoming a murdering psychopath (or, the other way round: that potential murdering psychopaths are more likely to choose English as a major), could you please elaborate and explain your point of view? Thank you! --[[User:MarcoT|MarcoT]] 15:06, 22 June 2010 (EDT)

:::: Garbage in, garbage out. The "murdering psychopath" (your phrase) was indeed an English Lit. major. The failure to see the problem in the killer's work and the reaction of his English Lit. professors afterward struck me as very bizarre.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:05, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

::::: But exactly, how could one have "seen the problem in the killer's work" beforehand? Were there dissertations and projects in which he displayed strange ideas and behavior? And what exactly was the reaction of his English Literature professors afterward? Sorry if I keep asking but I am not very familiar with the details. Anyway, had he been studying Engineering or Information Technology I don't think it would have changed much :) --[[User:MarcoT|MarcoT]] 18:38, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

:::::: Marco, the better approach is to gather the facts first, with an open mind, and only afterward draw the conclusion. Otherwise it's a pointless exercise.

:::::: As discussed here in detail at the time, the killer's work did display "strange ideas and behavior," but English Lit. professors continued to pass him and accept his work. Other details are readily available here. But if you're going to insist that ideas and majors cannot have any effect on behavior, then it won't matter to you what the facts are. Please reconsider with an open mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:10, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

::::::: A person's major clearly affects them and the choices they will make later in life. The Virginia tech shooter chose English lit. and used it to write down his perverse fantasies. Even if someone majoring in English lit. doesn't become a murderer they are wasting money by studying something that won't give them skills valuable in the [[Free market]]. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 19:25, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

== i think evolutionary biology is a major not just a course ==

Additionally a search on www.gradschools.com reveals 148 graduate programs in it. [[User:RebekahH|RebekahH]] 16:12, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

Letter to Douglas Moo

2010-06-23T23:17:24Z

ReligiousRight:

In the tradition of ''Conservapedia'', public suggestions and comments are invited on draft letters of scholarly significance.<ref>See, e.g., [[Letter to PNAS]].</ref> Your edits on this draft letter to Professor Douglas Moo are welcome before it is finalized and sent to him. Once delivered, any reply will be posted here also, as done in our famous dialog with Professor Lenski.<ref>[[Conservapedia:Lenski_dialog]]</ref>

== Draft letter to Professor Moo ==

June __, 2010

Professor Douglas Moo
 Wheaton Graduate School
 Chairman, Committee on Bible Translation

Dear Professor Moo,

I hope this letter finds you well in your capacity as the Chairman of the Committee on Bible Translation, which reportedly oversaw the [[TNIV]] translation and is reportedly producing a new revision of the [[NIV]] translation.

On Sept. 1, 2009, the ''USA Today'' explained that your Committee is working on an "update" of the NIV.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-09-01-bible-translation_N.htm</ref> That was over nine months ago. Has a single word of your new translation been made available for public review? I have not been able to find even one word of your Committee's new version. If unavailable to the public, then why the secrecy? During this same period we completed our translation of the entire New Testament (posting it over a month ago), in a fully public process.<ref>See [[Conservative Bible Project]].</ref> We have also made progress on our Old Testament translation.

I have concern that your Committee might produce a liberal translation that distorts, changes and conceals references to the unborn child in appeasement of the pro-[[abortion]] position. Conservapedia has identified '''''nine instances where the NIV downplays or omits biblical references to the unborn child, and in each of these instances the NIV mistranslation denies or obscures biblical confirmation of pro-life truths'''''. Please feel free to visit the [[Feminist Bible]] entry on Conservapedia if you dispute any of these examples, and I would be happy to post any defense you might have. I'm not optimistic that you can defend the NIV's bias against acknowledging the existence of the unborn child in all the biblical references. (The bias in the subsequent TNIV on gender issues was so great that many prominent ministers completely rejected that translation.)

Perhaps you were or are not responsible for the NIV distortions, but pro-life Christians are not going to accept another ideologically pro-abortion translation of the Bible. Most college professors support abortion, and if you are unwilling to allow public review of your Committee's efforts then such secrecy would heighten my concern. Applying a famous saying to the class of liberal professors, "fool me once, shame on them; fool me twice, shame on me."

You harshly criticized our translation effort, pompously and publicly declaring that "Silly is probably as kind as I could be about it."<ref>http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/10/andy-schlafly%E2%80%99s-conservative-bible-project/</ref> Yet we completed our work in the New Testament over a month ago, all in full public view. '''''Where, pray tell, is yours?'''''

In an interview, you indicated that Biblica was intent "on deflecting any possible claim that the 2011 NIV was a secretive project"<ref>[http://www.dashhouse.com/2009/09/interview-with-douglas-moo-on-the-2011-niv/ Interview with Douglas Moo on the 2011 NIV]</ref>. We at Conservapedia sincerely hope you meant that and were not merely engaging in [[Liberal denial]]. The [[Conservative Bible Project]] is completely open to the public<ref>See [[Best of the public]].</ref>. We would appreciate any updates you have on your project, especially regarding the issues of gender-inclusive and pro-abortion language.

Sincerely,

Andy Schlafly
 Conservapedia

P.S. I will make your reply public on ''Conservapedia'' unless you request otherwise.

cc: Jerry Falwell, Jr., President of Liberty University
 Presbyterian Church of America

== References ==

<references/>

Letter to Douglas Moo

2010-06-18T18:17:50Z

ReligiousRight:

In the tradition of ''Conservapedia'', public suggestions and comments are invited on draft letters of scholarly significance.<ref>See, e.g., [[Letter to PNAS]].</ref> Your edits on this draft letter to Professor Douglas Moo are welcome before it is finalized and sent to him. Once delivered, any reply will be posted here also, as done in our famous dialog with Professor Lenski.<ref>[[Conservapedia:Lenski_dialog]]</ref>

== Draft letter to Professor Moo ==

June __, 2010

Professor Douglas Moo
 Wheaton Graduate School
 Chairman, Committee on Bible Translation

Dear Professor Moo,

I hope this letter finds you well in your capacity as the Chairman of the Committee on Bible Translation, which reportedly oversaw the [[TNIV]] translation and is reportedly producing a new revision of the [[NIV]] translation.

On Sept. 1, 2009, the ''USA Today'' explained that your Committee is working on an "update" of the NIV.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-09-01-bible-translation_N.htm</ref> That was over nine months ago. Has a single word of your new translation been made available for public review? I have not been able to find even one word of your Committee's new version. If unavailable to the public, then why the secrecy? During this same period we completed our translation of the entire New Testament (posting it over a month ago), in a fully public process.<ref>See [[Conservative Bible Project]].</ref> We have also made progress on our Old Testament translation.

I have concern that your Committee might produce a liberal translation that distorts, changes and conceals references to the unborn child in appeasement of the pro-[[abortion]] position. Conservapedia has identified '''''nine instances where the NIV downplays or omits biblical references to the unborn child, and in each of these instances the NIV mistranslation denies or obscures biblical confirmation of pro-life truths'''''. Please feel free to visit the [[Feminist Bible]] entry on Conservapedia if you dispute any of these examples, and I would be happy to post any defense you might have. I'm not optimistic that you can defend the NIV's bias against acknowledging the existence of the unborn child in all the biblical references. (The bias in the subsequent TNIV on gender issues was so great that many prominent ministers completely rejected that translation.)

Perhaps you were or are not responsible for the NIV distortions, but pro-life Christians are not going to accept another ideologically pro-abortion translation of the Bible. Most college professors support abortion, and if you are unwilling to allow public review of your Committee's efforts then such secrecy would heighten my concern. Applying a famous saying to the class of liberal professors, "fool me once, shame on them; fool me twice, shame on me."

You harshly criticized our translation effort, pompously and publicly declaring that "Silly is probably as kind as I could be about it."<ref>http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/10/andy-schlafly%E2%80%99s-conservative-bible-project/</ref> Yet we completed our work in the New Testament over a month ago, all in full public view. '''''Where, pray tell, is yours?'''''

In an interview you said that Biblica was intent "on deflecting any possible claim that the 2011 NIV was a secretive project"<ref>[http://www.dashhouse.com/2009/09/interview-with-douglas-moo-on-the-2011-niv/ Interview with Douglas Moo on the 2011 NIV]</ref>. We at Conservapedia sincerely hope you meant that and were not merely engaging in [[Liberal denial]]. The [[Conservative Bible Project]] was completely open to the public. We would appreciate any updates you have on your project, especially with regards to the issues of gender-inclusive and pro-abortion language.

Sincerely,

Andy Schlafly
 Conservapedia

P.S. I will make your reply public on ''Conservapedia'' unless you request otherwise.

cc: Jerry Falwell, Jr., President of Liberty University
 Presbyterian Church of America

== References ==

<references/>

Talk:Letter to Douglas Moo

2010-06-16T23:47:28Z

ReligiousRight: /* Delivery? */

Quaternion

2010-06-16T23:46:35Z

ReligiousRight:

{{Template:Math-h}}

In [[mathematics]], a '''quaternion''' is a four-dimensional [[object]] important in [[group theory]] and [[geometry]]. As with the complex numbers, the quaternions can be viewed as an extension of the [[real number]] line. Unlike the complex numbers, however, the quaternions are not a [[field]], since multiplication is not commutative. Instead, the quaternions are a [[skew field]].

Quaternions were invented by [[Irish]] [[mathematician]] William Rowan Hamilton in the 1840s. Quaternions have proved useful in describing the mechanics of [[rotation]].

==Operations==
The quaternions obey all the usual arithmetic operations. Quaternions may be [[addition|added]], [[subtraction|subtracted]], [[multiplication|multiplied]], and [[division|divided]]. Addition is [[associative]] and [[commutative]], while multiplication is only associative. Moreover, addition distributes over multiplication and nonzero quaternions have multiplicative inverses, and so the quarternions are termed a skew field.

==Properties==
Quaternions are basically an extension of the complex plane to four dimensions. In addition to an imaginary unit <math>i</math> quaternions also have j and k, which all follow the relation:

<math>i^2 = j^2 = k^2 = ijk = -1</math>.

Hamilton made this discovery while on a walk and wrote it down on the Brougham Bridge.

A quaternion, <math>H</math> can be written as

<math>p= a(1) + bi + cj + dk</math>.

If <math>p= a_1(1) + b_1j + c_1i + d_1k</math> and <math>q = a_2(1) + b_2i + c_2j + d_2k</math> are two quaternions then their sum is <math>p + q = (a_1 + a_2)(1) + (b_1 + b_2)i + (c_1 + c_2 )j + (d_1 + d_2)k</math>. Multiplicaton is more complicated. To find a find a product one makes repeated use of the relations given of i, j and k. It turns out that quanternion multiplication is messy to write. As mentioned above, quanternion multiplication is noncommutative.
==References==

Weisstein, Eric W. "Quaternion." From MathWorld--A Wolfram Web Resource. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Quaternion.html

[[Category:Mathematics]]

Talk:Letter to Douglas Moo

2010-06-16T23:12:35Z

ReligiousRight:

Talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2010-06-14T05:21:14Z

ReligiousRight: /* Engineering */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

I wanted to fix the formatting here, but it has already been locked. So I guess maybe you could do it, Conservative? I was going to change the final sentence from being a single huge link, to only having one word linked, or possibly made a reference.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 20:21, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Thanks but I prefer it be the way it is as the [[CreationWiki]] article is the best article on the internet on the subject in my estimation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:24, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: Is that the reason for the redundant link? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:34, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

==Counter-argument==
RE: The bible prohibits homosexuality because of diseases. One, if God did not want homosexuality, then it seems more probable that the diseases would be the result of His dislike, rather than vice versa. More likely reasons for why God would prohibit homosexuality would be either, one, that He designed men and women to copulate together, therefore to copulate in an unintended way is abhorrent, or two, two men who are homosexual and are not married are two less people who could have contributed to increasing the overall size of the population of the Ancient Hebrews, at a time where their survival was a daily worry, and a large population would have helped many of their problems (that was a run-on sentence, and I do apologize). Either way, it seems unlikely that the ban on homosexuality is because of the diseases associated with it. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 16:58, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

== Examples? ==

Where are the examples of the Christian Bible detailing scientific knowledge? Is the prohibition of homosexuality the lone example? {{unsigned|Zeitgeisted}}

Yeah, you're forgetting how many times it was wrong, like how it said that the earth was flat, that the sun went around the earth, and that the moon was unreachable, and that you could make a tower to physically reach heaven, just to name a few.
--[[User:JackSmith|JackSmith]] 16:00, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

It is not simply the bible that is full of inspired scientific foresight. Divinely inspired authors such as Jules Verne or scientists such as Konstantin Tsiolkovsky saw technological glimpses centuries ahead of their time. Given the abundance of science fiction and scientific papers, one cannot help but see God's hand in the revelation of technological advances. God's ability to reveal technological glimpses of the future is only distantly rivaled by Satan's ability to pervert God's teachings with concepts like homosexuality, atheism, and evolution, which are clearly not divinely inspired concepts.
Other great scientists, like Albert Einstein, were clearly divinely inspired, seeing details of the universe that defied intuition of other scientists of his day, and could not have been known without the direct intervention of god. The mathematical techniques that Einstein built upon were developed by God for centuries under the guise of Lorentz, Gauss, Riemann, and others. The fact that the Bible did not specifically foresee the development of the computer revolution, the standard model of particle physics, the automobile, airplanes, or high oil prices is simply a function of its limited text, with verbosity suppressed in order to provide a more accessible text for mankind.

This page is a joke right. It includes one lone example that itself is somewhat dodgy. Homosexual people on average have a greater number of STI's than the heterosexual population, but surely this is more because during the 80's it was assumed that homosexual men didn't need to use condoms, thus increasing the spread of disease.
We also make the point at this time that statistical information of this nature isn't actually scientific knowledge. If the bible said "God created light, such that it would always travel at the same speed" that would be impressive. This is not.

==Atheism==

What does that have to do with bible scientific foreknowledge? I assume it's a mistake and I'll be removing it shortly. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 00:04, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
:I was ''going'' to remove it, since it's quite inappropriate, but I failed to notice that the article has been locked, for no apparent reason except that it falls under Conservative's atheism pet project. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 23:00, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

==A Thought==

I won't offer you a deep philosohpical argument on why I feel that this article does more harm to the Christian cause than it does good, I will merely state what affect it had for me, browsing this website. When I found this page I was exploring the entries on atheism, with interest on why there was such a concentration on communism, as if to imply by analogy that the tens of millions of innocent deaths from Communist regimes have a bad influence on atheist, and I found this page. The problem is merely it smacks of desparation, or clutching at straws.

== Not until it's done ==

I like where this article is going, but for the moment is is terribly unfinished and perhaps shouldn't be present quite yet? I'm currently working on a degree in Christian Theology so I'd be glad to help, and can offer a few examples, but we would really need a trained eye to comb through the Bible for this sort of thing. May I suggest going through the Old Law and deducting the practical reasons those laws existed? An example, just off the top of my head, would be the prohibition of eating pork due to the dangers in eating improperly cooked pork. Another example is that the curse given to Adam in Genesis, "remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return", coupled with how Man was formed, could be taken as an early description of the carbon cycle.

Secondly, it may be prudent to keep a keen focus on the theological and historical context of each reference where appropriate. I noticed someone mention earlier "building a tower to Heaven", obviously missing that this was said of those building the tower, not God. This misunderstanding of the Tower of Babel story is a great example of what I mean here: we need people that realize that the tower was destroyed as its purpose was as a landmark for man to stay all together, violating God's command for man to "spread to all the corners of the earth." It had nothing to do with their possibly reaching Heaven. When looking for examples, we need to be wary of making mistakes such as that. Sorry for all the paraphrasing :-P

Forgive me if I didn't sign or post this properly, as I'm new to all this. [[User:Rev|Rev]] 16:47, 28 June 2009 (EDT)

== Creation Ministries International and scientific foreknowledge ==

I'm a little bit uncomfortable with the claim that CMI supports the idea of scientific foreknowledge, given that they include it on their list of "doubtful" arguments. While they don't dismiss it out of hand, they certainly don't seem to embrace the concept, either:

'':There is amazing modern scientific insight in the Bible.’ We should interpret the Bible as the author originally intended, and as the intended readership would have understood it. Therefore we should be cautious in reading modern science into passages where the readers would not have seen it. This applies especially to poetic books like Job and Psalms. For example, Job’s readers would not have understood Job 38:31 to be teaching anything about gravitational potential energy of Orion and Pleiades. Rather, the original readers would have seen it as a poetic illustration of God’s might, i.e. that God, unlike Job, could create the Pleiades in a tightly-knit cluster which is what it looks like; while God created Orion as a well spread out constellation, again something well beyond Job’s ability. Similarly, Job 38:14 is not advanced scientific insight into the Earth’s rotation, because the earth is not being compared to the turning seal but to the clay turning from one shape into another under the seal.
''

(Creation Ministries International, "What Arguments are Doubtful, Hence Inadvisable to Use?")

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:55, 27 November 2009 (EST)

== Beginning of the universe ==

While the Big Bang theory may be more in line with Genesis than a steady-state theory, most Biblican literalists would argue the Big Bang theory is false. Since it's false, Genesis saying something ''kind of'' like it isn't really scientific foreknowledge, and I feel this part should be removed. Thoughts, anybody? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 14:59, 8 February 2010 (EST)

== Eyesight ==

I just read the part about eye sight and was trying to find out more information about this and am rather curious. Is there any source for this or anyone know about what what medical techniques it is referring to in the article or even the doctor that confirmed this? Thank you in advance [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 19:42, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

:Your question is a good one. This NPR story describes superficially one woman's experience in having her sight restored. [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112933586] It doesn't go into as much detail as the biblical account so more citations would be welcome. I'll continue to look as well.

:: Please let us know I would love to read it and we could also put it as the reference to the article. Thanks Andy! [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 22:39, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

::: This account from Friday's newspaper in the [[U.K.]] is analogous but doesn't specifically mention the experience of seeing people walking as the eyesight is restored. It does, however, capture the overall sensation. [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-138886/Robot-eye-restore-lost-sight-20-years.html]
:::: I looked in the history of the article and show that you added this on 24 November 2009. Do you remember where this information came from? Was it from a medical journal or newspaper or something different? [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 23:08, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

::::: I heard it from a medical source -- an eye surgeon I believe -- which may not have been published. The foregoing newspaper accounts come close but if the editors become aware of the similarity with the biblical account, then I doubt they would publish it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:25, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

:::::: Sounds like an interesting story wish I was able to read it. Maybe I will come across it in the future. Also in cases where there is no written source how should these types of things be referenced on conservapedia? [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 11:41, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Unlike Wikipedia, Conservapedia recognizes liberal bias in newspapers. Accordingly, not all newspapers citations are valid (due to bias), and some citations are difficult to find because liberals are censoring the information in publications they control. In the latter case, we keep looking when there is reason to think a statement is true, rather than censoring the truth to the detriment of visitors. Conservapedia is a leader, not a follower.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:56, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

(unident) I hope this isn't taken the wrong way, but it sounds as though you are saying Add content to articles that is believed to be valid and then find sources that match rather than finding useful information and then putting it into the article. If you can't then just leave it unsourced. In that case I should add information about volcanoes since some believe that information in the bible (Sodom and Gomorrah) predates scientific knowledge. I however don't have sources for this. [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 13:55, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

== Engineering ==

Hmm... How does Joel 2:3-4 predict automobiles? Also, there is no Isaiah 31:56... although I definitely see how Ecc 10:20 could be a reference to radio! [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 23:46, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

: It was a suggestion taken from a credible site. I admit my skepticism about these alleged predictions of engineering developments also, but have an open mind about them. Obviously if there is no Isaiah 31:56, then that is a real problem! Please feel free to revise as you think appropriate.

: Of course, when [[Leonardo da Vinci]] sketched something flying, every atheist claims he had foreknowledge of the airplane!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:52, 11 June 2010 (EDT)
::Haha - ironic considering that though he disagreed with the Church of his day on many topics, he was nevertheless a practicing Catholic!
::A little bit of digging reveals Isaiah 40:31, which reads ''"But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint."'' I wonder if that's the passage they meant? I'll change it to that, since 31:56 doesn't exist, although I confess your skepticism that these are actual references to airplanes. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 00:09, 12 June 2010 (EDT)

::: I do believe that this was meant to be Isaiah 31:5 and the 6 was a mistake("Like birds hovering overhead, the LORD Almighty will shield Jerusalem; he will shield it and deliver it, he will 'pass over' it and will rescue it.") however I think the point the referenced article was trying to make was that one should not try to reinterpret biblical passages to make it fit what you want instead look at the context of what it it is trying to say and not just the verse. In this case Isaiah 31:5 is more about God keeping Jerusalem safe from Egypt and not about Airplanes flying over head. Unless of course God is keeping it safe with F-14. [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 11:43, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

:::: I have an open mind about this, but admit that it struck me as too much of a reach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:45, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

::::: Well, in the Six-Day War the Israeli Air Force did keep Jerusalem and Israel defended and safe from Eyptian planes by destroying most of them while they were still on the ground. Maybe the verses were telling contemporary Israelites and the future Israelis they were safe, but only the latter would understand that the birds represented air planes. It's possible. As Mr. Schlafly says, we should keep an open mind. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 01:21, 14 June 2010 (EDT)

Dot product

2010-06-09T00:38:33Z

ReligiousRight:

{{math-h}}

The '''dot product''' is defined for two [[Vector|vectors]] <math>\vec{X}</math> and <math>\vec{Y}</math> to be:

: <math>\vec{X} \cdot \vec{Y} = |\vec{X}||\vec{Y}|\cos\theta</math>

where |\vec{x}| is the norm and <math>\theta</math> is the angle between the vectors.

In 3 dimensional space, for two vectors, <a,b,c> and <d,e,f>, their dot product equals a*d + b*e + c*f.

In n-dimensional space, the dot prodct of two vectors, <math>\vec{v}=(v_1, v_2,...,v_n)</math> and <math>\vec{w}=(w_1,w_2,..., w_n)</math>, is:

:<math> \vec{v}\cdot\vec{w} = v_1w_1 + v_2w_2 +... v_nw_n = \sum_{i=1}^{n}v_iw_i.</math>

Unlike the [[cross product]], the dot product is a [[scalar]], not a vector, and has no direction.

It follows from the above definition that the dot product of X and Y is 0 if X is perpendicular to Y.

Alternatively, one can describe the dot product as the length of the geometric projection of X onto Y times the length of Y, when the tails of the two vectors are placed at the same point. It must be remembered though, that the dot product is positive if the angle between the two vectors is less than 90 degrees, negative if the angle is between 90 and 180 degrees (it is in this sense that the algebraic sign of the dot product does give some limited directional information).

== Application ==

The [[dot product]] is useful in projecting one vector onto another, as in calculating the work done by applying a force to a particle. If you know the dot product of two vectors, then you can easily calculate the angle between the vectors.

The dot product can also be used to find other values through application of the [[Stokes' Theorem]] and other theorems.

==See also==
[[Cross product]]

[[Category:Linear algebra]]
[[Category:vector analysis]]
[[Category:calculus]]
[[Category:mathematics]]
[[category:physics]]

Russell's Paradox

2010-06-09T00:16:50Z

ReligiousRight:

[[Bertrand Russell]]'s Paradox revealed a flaw in 1901 in early or naive [[set theory]]. (It is likely others saw this flaw before [[Bertrand Russell]].) It is a form of the [[liar's paradox]] expressed in the terms of [[set theory]].

The defect is as follows. Let S be the set of all sets that do not contain themselves as members. In other words, set T is an element of S if, and only if, T is not an element of T:

: <math>S=\{T\mid T\not\in T\}.</math>

Here is the flaw. Is Set S a member of itself? If S is a member of itself, then it cannot be a member of itself by the very definition of S. But if S is not a member of itself, then it must be a member of itself, again by its very definition. Hence there is a fundamental logical contradiction in this type of set, and in any theory that allows it. In formal terms,

:<math> S\in S \iff S\not\in S.</math>

Russel's paradox and others like it can be avoided only at the expense of giving up the idea that any criteria can be used to construct sets. For example in [[Zermelo-Fraenkel]] set theory the construction <math>S=\{T\mid T\not\in T\}</math> would not qualify as [[well-founded]]. Some formulations of set theory would allow such a construction but then S would be a [[proper class]] rather than a set.

==External Links==
:[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell-paradox/ Russell's Paradox at Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

[[Category: set theory]]

Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth

2010-06-09T00:09:49Z

ReligiousRight: /* Another observation */

::''For older discussions, see the archives: [[Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth/Archive 1|Archive 1]].''


I'd like to take out the phrase "asserted by atheists" from one of the Astronomy counterexamples, because it is not just atheists who believe in an [[Old Earth]] but also [[Old Earth Creationists]]. Any objections? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:37, 20 April 2010 (EDT)

== Freshwater lakes are known to be relatively young. ==

I'd like to have this point removed: The [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth/Archive_1#Countering_the_counter_examples|previous discussion]] has shown that it doesn't have any merit.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 15:05, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

As no one added to the previous discussion, I removed the point. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 14:18, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

== continued existence of fragile natural arches ==

That's as bad as the example of the lakes: it reminds me of stating: ''he cannot be old, all his pimples are recent''. And the given references don't mention any ''extrapolation''. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 14:03, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

== Great Lakes ==

''The massive [[Great Lakes]] are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago''

That would be only a counterexample, if there were any geologist who thought them to be millions of years old. But it seems to be scientific consensus that these lakes were created during the last great ice age ca. 10,000 years ago. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 14:07, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

== Salt Water Lakes ==

''The existence of inland saltwater lakes, such as [[Mono Lake]] and the [[Great Salt Lake]], suggest a recent global [[flood]]''

No, it doesn't. It just suggests that [[endorheic]] lakes exist - lakes without an outflow to rivers or the ocean. If such a sea has an inflow, any dissolved material (like salts) will accumulate, while the water just evaporates.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 14:12, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

== Reply to above 4 comments ==

The 4 comments above are not substantive. In each case, the evidence is that a basic attribute of Earth ''is'' young, and nothing above supports the denial of this fact.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:58, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

== What's a counterexample? ==

Maybe we have to start with the question above. I think it is reasonable to expect a ''counterexample'' to have some basic properties:

# it should not be easily - or even obviously - be reconciled or explained within the theory of an ''Old Earth''.
# it should be at least as well be explained within the concurring theory of a ''Young Earth'' and finally:
# the negation of the counterexample should be even more obviously and more easily be reconciled or explained within the theory of an ''Old Earth''.

What are the theories saying? Here are two working definitions...

'''Old Earth''': Since the 18th century, scientist are convinced that the surface of the Earth is changing gradually over long periods of time. So, if there is a somewhat widespread geological feature, we expect that we can observe it in all stages of development.

'''Young Earth''': The surface of the Earth was mainly shaped as we find it now by the Great Flood.

So, how do the examples fit in?

: Frank, the style of your remarks reflect a lack of an open mind towards this issue. You state, "Since the 18th century, scientist[s] are convinced ... over long periods of time." This is an historical distortion, and unhelpful to an open-minded discussion even if were true.

: I welcome open-minded discussions, but closed-minded discussions are often a waste of time. So please show some signs of an open mind about this first. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:10, 11 May 2010 (EDT)

::I'm all for an open-minded discussion, too, and I'm sorry if my previous comment didn't convey this. So, let's drop the historical aspect, and just say:
::*'''Old Earth''': The surface of the Earth is changing gradually over long periods of time, and the rate of this change is roughly constant.
::*'''Young Earth''': The surface of the Earth was mainly shaped by the Great Flood a couple of thousands years ago.

::But I hope you can agree with the basic properties (points 1-3 above) a ''counterexample to an Old Earth'' should have?
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 07:46, 12 May 2010 (EDT)

:::Frank, are you trying to refute any of the counterexamples? (In which case please provide some actual evidence) Your closed-minded insistence on causing argument seems pointless. [[User:ArnoldR|ArnoldR]] 08:34, 12 May 2010 (EDT)

=== The continued existence of fragile natural arches without having collapsed a short time period for erosion and stresses on them ===
''Fragile natural arches'' exist, as there are always formed new ones. Old natural arches collapse, but [http://www.archmillennium.net/Baby_Arch.htm others] may [http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/close/kcb60/level2/lith61.html replace] them. What if there were no natural arches? I don't think that anybody had thought of them then.

=== The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago ===
No geologists thinks that these lakes are millions of years old: they were created during the last ice age. Lakes are constantly created (e.g., when rivers change there bed), and happen to perish over time ([[Messel pit]]). Some are older than others ([[Baikal sea]]). The absence of new lakes would be quite puzzling for geologists! And Earth isn't as young as the youngest lake, but much older than the oldest one... (by FrankC)

: The "ice age theory" was a patch to try to explain away the counterexample. The patch fails, however, because freshwater lakes exist near the Equator, too far from any plausible ice.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:20, 15 May 2010 (EDT)

::It quite a leap to get from ''Great Lakes were created during the last ice age'' to ''all lakes were created during the last ice age''! There a various mechanisms to form a lake, though in the north (Canada, US, Finland) the ice age is responsible for most of them. I doubt that Young Earth Creationists claim that all lakes were created during the [[Great Flood]], though I assume that they think that no lake is older than this.
::BTW, what do you think of the three basic properties of a counterexample which I mentioned above?
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:45, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::: Well, then, the freshwater lakes that were not formed by the (implausible) "ice age" theory serve as a counterexample.

::: As to your suggestion of three basis properties of a counterexample, I comment on each here:

::::1. it should not be easily - or even obviously - be reconciled or explained within the theory of an Old Earth.

:::::This would work if you include a requirement of plausibility.

::::2. it should be at least as well be explained within the concurring theory of a Young Earth and finally:

:::::No, this is not required, but illustrates a basic flaw in Old-Earth-thinking. Do you think mathematicians accept the validity of a hypothesis as long as no competing hypothesis has been proven? Of course not.

::::3. the negation of the counterexample should be even more obviously and more easily be reconciled or explained within the theory of an Old Earth.

:::::This is incoherent, but illustrates the contorted logic of Old-Earth advocates.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:39, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::::::''implausible ice age theory''? What's implausible about that? It just doesn't fit your YEC preconceptions.
::::::# Yes, I include the requirement of plausibility. What's the point of implausible counterexamples?
::::::# Is there a third theory I haven't heard of? If the Earth isn't young, it is old.
::::::# ''This is incoherent, but illustrates the contorted logic of Old-Earth advocates''. No, I'm afraid, that' just obvious common sense.
::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:55, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Frank, if you're not going to address my substantive points, then please don't respond. I make a direct analogy to mathematical hypotheses and you ignored it. Do you really think a mathematical hypothesis must be true if there is no proof for the converse?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:16, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::::::::I'm sorry, I seem to have missed the substantive points, so I try to make myself clearer by using the language of logic. So, let's '''C''' be a counterexample to the Old Earth Theory ('''OET'''). If '''C''' is true, than '''OET''' should be false, that's the first point:
::::::::'''1: ''' '''C ⇒ ~OET'''. If '''C''' is a good counterexample, than this equation should be obvious for everyone.
::::::::I thought the Young Earth Theory ('''YET''') and the Old Earth Theory to be complementary, so ''' YET = ~OET'''. Therefore obviously
::::::::'''2: ''' '''C ⇒ YET'''
::::::::And from ''1'', one gets
::::::::'''3: ''' ''' OET ⇒ ~C'''
::::::::I hope that this straightforward formulation is less confusing than my verbose ''the negation of the counterexample should be even more obviously and more easily be reconciled or explained within the theory of an Old Earth. '' I formulated it this way, as all this isn't as ''exact'' as one would wish for: what's an obvious relation for one, needs quite an elaborate explanation for another.

::::::::But now for ''The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago ''. As I said before, OET don't claim that these lakes existed millions of years ago, but are quite recent. You then said : '' The patch fails, however, because freshwater lakes exist near the Equator, too far from any plausible ice.'' So, what's your ''counterexample'' now? Do you claim that the OET implies that all lakes are of the same age or were created in the same way? It seems to me that you are saying: ''As there are lakes near the Equator, the Great Lakes are millions of years old - according to OET''. But that's just a [[strawman]], and shouldn't be included in the list.
::::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:31, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

=== The existence of inland saltwater lakes, such as Mono Lake and the Great Salt Lake, suggest a recent global flood ===
As said earlier, saltwater lakes are explained easily as being [[endorheic]]. If there were no saltwater seas, then the endorheic basins would have to be very unstable, preventing bodies of water to become older than a couple of hundred years. This would imply quite a geologic activity, which we don't observe. But how do these inland saltwater lakes fit within the theory of a ''Young Earth''? Do you imply that the Earth was inundated by a salty ocean for forty days and nights? How could anything survive - and multiply - on this salty ground when the water receded? To explain these lakes with a global flood poses quite a few problems.
So, this ''counterexample'' is especially unconvincing, as it fails all three basic properties...

=== An extrapolation of time between the collapse of weaker arches with still-standing stronger arches supports a young earth age ===
Has anyone done this extrapolation? Without it, the point is moot.

At the moment, the article impresses with the quantity of examples. But the obvious weakness of some examples distracts from other examples which may have some merit.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:00, 11 May 2010 (EDT)

== Lakes again ==

*It was repeatedly explained why the ''Great Lakes'' are no countexample to an Old Earth.
*Aschlafly concluded: ''Well, then, the freshwater lakes that were not formed by the (implausible) "ice age" theory serve as a counterexample."''
*Aschlafly, could you reformulate the ''counterexample'' in question? Thanks.
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:49, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

: There are large freshwater lakes near the Equator. Do you think an "Ice Age" formed them also?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:10, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

::To quote myself: ''There a various mechanisms to form a lake, though in the north (Canada, US, Finland) the ice age is responsible for most of them. I doubt that Young Earth Creationists claim that all lakes were created during the Great Flood, though I assume that they think that no lake is older than this.'' [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:15, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

::: You may quote yourself, but your answer was less than direct. You seem to admit that that the Ice Age did NOT form the large freshwater lakes near the Equator. But I'm confident that any testing done on those lakes will reveal a young age for them also. That defies explanation consistent with an Old Earth theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:29, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

:::: Pfft, in the 70's [[Liberal|liberals]] were saying that the earth was cooling. Now, its supposedly warming. I wouldn't be surprised if they change their tune about the "Ice Age" in 40 years.

''But I'm confident that any testing done on those lakes will reveal a young age for them also.''

I'm afraid that your confidence is misplaced - the examinations and tests of geologists lead to different results. Let's have a closer look - what lakes are we talking about? Near to the equator - say in the strip between 5° North and 5° South - the number of lakes of considerable size isn't big:
*[[South America]]: none
*[[Indonesia]]: '''Lake Toba''' on [[Sumatra]], '''Lake Tempe''' and '''Lake Poso''' on [[Sulawesi]]. Lake Toba is the largest volcanic lake in the world, resulting from an eruption 69,000 - 78,000 years ago. So, it's older (according to the test of geologists) than the last [[Ice Age]], but fairly young on a geological scale. Lake Tempe is a flood plain of an average depth of 5m, so it's quite volatile in geological standards. Lake Poso is a tectonic lake and regarded as ancient (1 - 2 million years).
*[[Africa]]: Here you find the [[African Great Lakes]], in the area of our interest especially, the [[Lake Victoria]], [[Lake Tanganyika]], [[Lake Turkana]], [[Lake Albert]], [[Lake Kivu]], and [[Lake Edward]]. These are located in the [[Great Rift Valley]], which is - according to geologists - a continental rift zone. Though you may call ''Lake Victoria'' young - as it's only 500,000 old and dried out a couple of times, the other lakes are estimated to be roughly 4 million years old.

All of these lakes are older than the American [[Great Lakes]]. So, I repeat my request: please, remove ''The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago '' from the list of counterexamples:
* it is misleading, as ''atheistic geologists'' don't claim that these lakes ''have existed millions of years ago''
* your alternate approach (''Well, then, the freshwater lakes that were not formed by the (implausible) "ice age" theory serve as a counterexample'') doesn't work neither, as there are ancient (≈ 4 million years) freshwater lakes.
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:47, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

: None of the freshwater lakes are older than 10,000 years, and you cite nothing to the contrary. Carbon dating, for example, repeatedly confirms that even the oldest freshwater sources are young.

: I've answered your question, now how about answering mine below, repeated here for your convenience: do you agree that arguing against your view of creationism is no basis for defending the [[Old Earth]] theory? {{unsigned|Aschlafly}}

::''None of the freshwater lakes are older than 10,000 years, and you cite nothing to the contrary.''
::On the contrary, there is little doubt under geologists that all of the lakes above are not young (with the possible exception of Lake Tempe) . Every textbook on geology will tell you that the oldes of Great African Lakes were formed ≈ 4 mya ago, with Lake Victoria being the youngest of the lot<ref>John Reader, ''Africa'', National Geographic 9/2001</ref>. The [http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/volcano.cfm?vnum=0601-09= Toba event] took place ≈ 70,000 years ago.
::''Carbon dating, for example, repeatedly confirms that even the oldest freshwater sources are young.''
::This doesn't make sense. Carbon dating is only used on relatively young (holecenic) freshwater sources. (More in a separate section)
::''I've answered your question, now how about answering mine below, repeated here for your convenience: do you agree that arguing against your view of creationism is no basis for defending the [[Old Earth]] theory?''
::I thought that I've answered this question, too, but I'll elaborate:
::*no, arguing against one theory doesn't defend the other. But both theories can't be true simultaneously - though both could be false. OTOH, there aren't that many concurring theories out there. And entries like [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&diff=784643&oldid=784484 this] of your fellow sysop ''Conservative'' show that on this page, Old Earth Theory and Young Earth Theory are put against each other.
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:58, 5 June 2010 (EDT)

::: You still don't explain why you have repeatedly argued that an Old Earth theory must be true because you think that your view of creationism is false. I don't know why you include creationism at all in your reasoning, given that you think it is false. Would you expect a mathematician to chant as part of his proof of a difficult problem a statement that another proposed proof is false? Of course not. The Old Earth theory is disproved by the numerous counterexamples, and creationism is irrelevant to that disproof or a reasoned discussion of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:07, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

== Implausibility of the Ice Age Theory ==

What's implausible about it? The article [[Ice Age]] doesn't say anything about plausibility. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:51, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

: What is implausible is that sheets of ice from the north would carve the Great Lakes in their unique shape, plus the Mississippi bluffs that sometimes face north-to-south, plus other unexpected formations. Has a computer simulation ever duplicated this result? I've never found a paper about such a simulation in my search for one. Have you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:29, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

::I'm not aware of any computer simulation of the formation of the Great Lakes and the Mississippi which encompasses the whole of North America and is granular enough to show features like the bluffs you spoke of - neither for the last [[Ice Age]] nor for the [[Great Flood]].

::The creation of the Great Lakes however can be studied by geologists who examined the history of this area. Their surveys paint an interesting picture of the formation of the Great Lakes ([http://www.emporia.edu/earthsci/student/damery1/gl_form.html here] an introduction).

::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:49, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

::: Frank, you repeatedly reason in an "either-or" manner, as though the only two possibilities are the [[Old Earth]] and your view of [[creationism]]. That's not logical or scientific. Both could be wrong. No mathematician would claim that if one proof is defective then an alternative proof must be correct.

::: If the Ice Age theory provided a plausible explanation for the Great Lakes and other observed formations (such as the Mississippi bluffs), then a computer simulation would be easy to build. But it hasn't been done, which suggests that the Ice Age theory is implausible in explaining all that is observed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:14, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

:::*both could be false, both aren't simulated globally
:::*are you ''confident'' that such a simulation could be easily build? The formation of the Great Lakes has been simulatied - that's something I'm confident of.
:::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:24, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

:::(Could you please answer to my substantive edits in the previous section? Thanks. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:25, 2 June 2010 (EDT))

:::: Computer simulations would be easy to make. scientists clearly have access to computers. If they're so confident of their "theories" why not make an accurate simulation and add that as proof? I think they know there irratioinal beliefs won't help up to scruteny. FrankC, just have an open mind. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 12:36, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

== All carbon dating of water supplies, even the most ancient and the deepest underground reservoirs, result in relatively young ages ==

# All [[carbon dating]] of water supplies, even the most ancient and the deepest underground reservoirs, result in relatively young ages,<ref>http://www.betalabservices.com/PDF/Geyh.pdf</ref> and no water has been found suggesting an Old Earth.

The source doesn't corroborate the claim. The authors of the study seem to be well aware of the limits of [[carbon dating]], and don't try to apply it to pre-Holecene water. And of course, a reservoir can be older than the water it holds (you can't judge the age of the glass by the vintage of the wine!).

Conservapedia's article on [[carbon dating]] highlights the fact that it can't be used to determine ages older than 50,000 years.

nota bene: the source shouldn't be used for ''lakes'' at all: it mentions lakes only in a passing reference to the founder of the science of dating water, Franke and Deevey.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:08, 5 June 2010 (EDT)

<references/>

== Answer to Aschlafy ==

You asked: ''You still don't explain why you have repeatedly argued that an Old Earth theory must be true because you think that your view of creationism is false. I don't know why you include creationism at all in your reasoning, given that you think it is false. Would you expect a mathematician to chant as part of his proof of a difficult problem a statement that another proposed proof is false? ''

I don't think that the reason for the Old Earth theory to be true is that Young Earth creationism is false. But even if I followed the insinuated reasoning above, that shouldn't influence the topic of our discussion: ''counterexamples to an Old Earth''. On this talkpage, I want to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these counterexamples.

Just for an analogy. Often, you hear criticism of the infallibility of the Bible phrased as questions like ''Whom did Cain marry?'' ''What's the value of π according to 1 Kings 7:23?''. These questions can be phrased as ''counterexamples to Biblical inerrancy'':

*Cain dwelt in the land of Nod. There were no other people. So he couldn't get a wife.

*The circumference and the diameter of a bronze vessel are given as 30 units and 10 units. Therefore, the Bible claims that π equals 3.

Are these valid ''counterexamples''? Would someone using these examples in a discussion impress his dialog partners? No , of course not! The first one makes a claim (''there were no other people'' - Adam and Eve had other children!) not made in the Bible - therefore erecting a straw-man, the second one talks about the features of a special object: maybe there was a brim? And ''3''' ''is'' an approximation for π.... a These so-called ''counterexamples'' are easily explained within the Biblical framework, and anyone using them shows just his ignorance in these matters. Therefore, repeating them and ignoring the given explanation is just a Mantric exercise for those who chose not to face reality: I hope that we can agree that these ''counterexamples'' are weak, and their weakness can be seen be everyone - believing in Biblical inerrancy or not.

I'm afraid that the same must be said about some of the ''counterexamples to an Old Earth'': the most impressive about them is their number. But the individual examples tend to be quite weak. What happens to a pupil using them in a discussion with his fellow students - or his teacher? He will be faced with further questions and explanations. For instance, look at:

*The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago

Here, the straw-man are the ''millions of years'': no geologist is claiming that the Great Lakes are that old. What do you expect the pupil to answer to this? Should he chose to ignore the explanation and go on to the next point in the list? After a couple of easily refuted points, his public will get weary and start to think that there isn't a good counterexample against an Old Age of the Earth.

To prevent this, you should perhaps elaborate the examples, and give refutations for the explanations of geologists.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:39, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

:What if we assume that geologists really do think that the Great Lakes were made by icebergs 10,000 years ago instead of 10,000,000? There is still no proof of this, not even a computer model (which I assure you could be easily done). Your argument is much ado about nothing. [[User:NateSmall|NateSmall]] 14:59, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

== Observations on some deceitful points in this article ==

Hi. I'm new here after finding this site from a google search on abortion. I also came across this, um, peculiar article. I looked at some of the facts presented and it looks deliberately misleading:

*For example, because freshwater lakes appear to be "young" (subjective term but we'll go with it) has no indication on the age of the earth.

*The earth's magnetic field is indeed declining, but when I go to that NASA site, in the ''same, exact'' paragraph, it says:

{{Cquote|There have been about 170 of these reversals during the last 76 million years according to geological evidence. The time between reversals seems to be growing longer, and is currently about 300,000 years or so. The last one of these happened about 770,000 years ago (0.77 on the graph). We are currently living during a period that has been called the Brunhes Magnetic Chron when the South Magnetic Pole is in the Northern Hemisphere. During the previous Matumaya Magnetic Chron, the North Magnetic Pole was in the Northern Hemisphere! Note that, from the polarity figure, at a time 0.94 million years ago (940,000 years ago) the magnetic field reverse itself by going nearly to 'zero' but then after a few thousand years it recovered and began to increase in strength. During the next 150,000 years it rose to a maximum strength and then began to decline. Notice, also, how fast the magnetic field recovers after it reaches 'zero', in some cases much less than 10,000 years.}}

.. but then the article has:

''Presently, Earth's magnetic field is weakening in strength by 5% every 100 years. ... Not comparable to an old earth''

Kind of deceptive and misleading, if not blatantly lying, no?

Thanks for your feedback, [[User:DouglasM|DouglasM]] 15:45, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

===Another observation===
Religulous Right [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&diff=786079&oldid=786069 undid] an edit of mine, so I'll explain why I removed it. First off, it's highly speculative and opinionated to an individual:
*Are SAT scores going down everywhere? Is this a pattern? I should think that such a remarkable conclusion should have a reference.
*Personal letters and style of writing does not necessarily reflect intelligence. I'd see this as more of a "times change" event. Not to invoke a response here, but language evolves: compare old english to the english of the 1700s to today: all 3 are very different. Because language and social cues change throughout human history doesn't compare to overall intelligence and thus certainly not to the age of the earth. Thanks [[User:DouglasM|DouglasM]] 19:21, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
: I realize you're new here. However, you can't just walk into somebody's living room and strart deleting their work because you don't approve of it. Either you make your case here or contribute to the project with material before you start deleting stuff. If all new useres starting deleting everything they didn't like we would end up with no material. Also, if you didn't notice, there were four footnotes in the section you deleted. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 19:47, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

::I made my case above, did you not read it? [[User:DouglasM|DouglasM]] 19:50, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

:::Hopefully I can address a few of your concerns here, Douglas.
:::*''Are SAT scores going down everywhere? Is this a pattern? I should think that such a remarkable conclusion should have a reference.'' The only data I could find on this statement is [http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/08/26/sat here], which does show a slow and steady decline within the past five years of critical reading skills, while mathematics has stayed steady the past three years. The average high school student's SAT score, given the data, has dropped, though I concede that there is perhaps not enough data to make a definitive statement on the matter.
:::*''Personal letters and style of writing does not necessarily reflect intelligence. I'd see this as more of a "times change" event. Not to invoke a response here, but language evolves: compare old english to the english of the 1700s to today: all 3 are very different. Because language and social cues change throughout human history doesn't compare to overall intelligence and thus certainly not to the age of the earth.'' Style of writing does not necessarily reflect intelligence, but linguistics and grammar do. The spoken word has become—for lack of a better word (heh)—lazy due to either lost interest in proper spoken word or lack of mental ability to comprehend and utilize it. I believe that one's speech capabilities are intertwined with how intelligent he is.
:::In the future, please wait for someone to address your points before making changes to a sensitive article. -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 20:05, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

:::: Yes. However, I'm saying make your case BEFORE you start deleting points that could possibly be great insights. We don't want to be engaging in [[Liberal censorship]]. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 19:59, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
Thanks for the aid, RR, but this user has been politely removed from the site. He may return in three days. Until then, RR, may I suggest you do something more productive than bicker with liberals on talk pages? I understand they are infuriating, but trust me, us admins have got it under control. Nothing gets by us. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 20:03, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
: I didn't realize he was a liberal. I thought he just may have been a deluded conservative. Even they make me very angry! But you're right. I'll do something more productive. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 20:09, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth

2010-06-08T23:59:15Z

ReligiousRight: /* Another observation */

::''For older discussions, see the archives: [[Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth/Archive 1|Archive 1]].''


I'd like to take out the phrase "asserted by atheists" from one of the Astronomy counterexamples, because it is not just atheists who believe in an [[Old Earth]] but also [[Old Earth Creationists]]. Any objections? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:37, 20 April 2010 (EDT)

== Freshwater lakes are known to be relatively young. ==

I'd like to have this point removed: The [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth/Archive_1#Countering_the_counter_examples|previous discussion]] has shown that it doesn't have any merit.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 15:05, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

As no one added to the previous discussion, I removed the point. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 14:18, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

== continued existence of fragile natural arches ==

That's as bad as the example of the lakes: it reminds me of stating: ''he cannot be old, all his pimples are recent''. And the given references don't mention any ''extrapolation''. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 14:03, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

== Great Lakes ==

''The massive [[Great Lakes]] are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago''

That would be only a counterexample, if there were any geologist who thought them to be millions of years old. But it seems to be scientific consensus that these lakes were created during the last great ice age ca. 10,000 years ago. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 14:07, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

== Salt Water Lakes ==

''The existence of inland saltwater lakes, such as [[Mono Lake]] and the [[Great Salt Lake]], suggest a recent global [[flood]]''

No, it doesn't. It just suggests that [[endorheic]] lakes exist - lakes without an outflow to rivers or the ocean. If such a sea has an inflow, any dissolved material (like salts) will accumulate, while the water just evaporates.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 14:12, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

== Reply to above 4 comments ==

The 4 comments above are not substantive. In each case, the evidence is that a basic attribute of Earth ''is'' young, and nothing above supports the denial of this fact.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:58, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

== What's a counterexample? ==

Maybe we have to start with the question above. I think it is reasonable to expect a ''counterexample'' to have some basic properties:

# it should not be easily - or even obviously - be reconciled or explained within the theory of an ''Old Earth''.
# it should be at least as well be explained within the concurring theory of a ''Young Earth'' and finally:
# the negation of the counterexample should be even more obviously and more easily be reconciled or explained within the theory of an ''Old Earth''.

What are the theories saying? Here are two working definitions...

'''Old Earth''': Since the 18th century, scientist are convinced that the surface of the Earth is changing gradually over long periods of time. So, if there is a somewhat widespread geological feature, we expect that we can observe it in all stages of development.

'''Young Earth''': The surface of the Earth was mainly shaped as we find it now by the Great Flood.

So, how do the examples fit in?

: Frank, the style of your remarks reflect a lack of an open mind towards this issue. You state, "Since the 18th century, scientist[s] are convinced ... over long periods of time." This is an historical distortion, and unhelpful to an open-minded discussion even if were true.

: I welcome open-minded discussions, but closed-minded discussions are often a waste of time. So please show some signs of an open mind about this first. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:10, 11 May 2010 (EDT)

::I'm all for an open-minded discussion, too, and I'm sorry if my previous comment didn't convey this. So, let's drop the historical aspect, and just say:
::*'''Old Earth''': The surface of the Earth is changing gradually over long periods of time, and the rate of this change is roughly constant.
::*'''Young Earth''': The surface of the Earth was mainly shaped by the Great Flood a couple of thousands years ago.

::But I hope you can agree with the basic properties (points 1-3 above) a ''counterexample to an Old Earth'' should have?
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 07:46, 12 May 2010 (EDT)

:::Frank, are you trying to refute any of the counterexamples? (In which case please provide some actual evidence) Your closed-minded insistence on causing argument seems pointless. [[User:ArnoldR|ArnoldR]] 08:34, 12 May 2010 (EDT)

=== The continued existence of fragile natural arches without having collapsed a short time period for erosion and stresses on them ===
''Fragile natural arches'' exist, as there are always formed new ones. Old natural arches collapse, but [http://www.archmillennium.net/Baby_Arch.htm others] may [http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/close/kcb60/level2/lith61.html replace] them. What if there were no natural arches? I don't think that anybody had thought of them then.

=== The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago ===
No geologists thinks that these lakes are millions of years old: they were created during the last ice age. Lakes are constantly created (e.g., when rivers change there bed), and happen to perish over time ([[Messel pit]]). Some are older than others ([[Baikal sea]]). The absence of new lakes would be quite puzzling for geologists! And Earth isn't as young as the youngest lake, but much older than the oldest one... (by FrankC)

: The "ice age theory" was a patch to try to explain away the counterexample. The patch fails, however, because freshwater lakes exist near the Equator, too far from any plausible ice.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:20, 15 May 2010 (EDT)

::It quite a leap to get from ''Great Lakes were created during the last ice age'' to ''all lakes were created during the last ice age''! There a various mechanisms to form a lake, though in the north (Canada, US, Finland) the ice age is responsible for most of them. I doubt that Young Earth Creationists claim that all lakes were created during the [[Great Flood]], though I assume that they think that no lake is older than this.
::BTW, what do you think of the three basic properties of a counterexample which I mentioned above?
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:45, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::: Well, then, the freshwater lakes that were not formed by the (implausible) "ice age" theory serve as a counterexample.

::: As to your suggestion of three basis properties of a counterexample, I comment on each here:

::::1. it should not be easily - or even obviously - be reconciled or explained within the theory of an Old Earth.

:::::This would work if you include a requirement of plausibility.

::::2. it should be at least as well be explained within the concurring theory of a Young Earth and finally:

:::::No, this is not required, but illustrates a basic flaw in Old-Earth-thinking. Do you think mathematicians accept the validity of a hypothesis as long as no competing hypothesis has been proven? Of course not.

::::3. the negation of the counterexample should be even more obviously and more easily be reconciled or explained within the theory of an Old Earth.

:::::This is incoherent, but illustrates the contorted logic of Old-Earth advocates.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:39, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::::::''implausible ice age theory''? What's implausible about that? It just doesn't fit your YEC preconceptions.
::::::# Yes, I include the requirement of plausibility. What's the point of implausible counterexamples?
::::::# Is there a third theory I haven't heard of? If the Earth isn't young, it is old.
::::::# ''This is incoherent, but illustrates the contorted logic of Old-Earth advocates''. No, I'm afraid, that' just obvious common sense.
::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:55, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Frank, if you're not going to address my substantive points, then please don't respond. I make a direct analogy to mathematical hypotheses and you ignored it. Do you really think a mathematical hypothesis must be true if there is no proof for the converse?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:16, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::::::::I'm sorry, I seem to have missed the substantive points, so I try to make myself clearer by using the language of logic. So, let's '''C''' be a counterexample to the Old Earth Theory ('''OET'''). If '''C''' is true, than '''OET''' should be false, that's the first point:
::::::::'''1: ''' '''C ⇒ ~OET'''. If '''C''' is a good counterexample, than this equation should be obvious for everyone.
::::::::I thought the Young Earth Theory ('''YET''') and the Old Earth Theory to be complementary, so ''' YET = ~OET'''. Therefore obviously
::::::::'''2: ''' '''C ⇒ YET'''
::::::::And from ''1'', one gets
::::::::'''3: ''' ''' OET ⇒ ~C'''
::::::::I hope that this straightforward formulation is less confusing than my verbose ''the negation of the counterexample should be even more obviously and more easily be reconciled or explained within the theory of an Old Earth. '' I formulated it this way, as all this isn't as ''exact'' as one would wish for: what's an obvious relation for one, needs quite an elaborate explanation for another.

::::::::But now for ''The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago ''. As I said before, OET don't claim that these lakes existed millions of years ago, but are quite recent. You then said : '' The patch fails, however, because freshwater lakes exist near the Equator, too far from any plausible ice.'' So, what's your ''counterexample'' now? Do you claim that the OET implies that all lakes are of the same age or were created in the same way? It seems to me that you are saying: ''As there are lakes near the Equator, the Great Lakes are millions of years old - according to OET''. But that's just a [[strawman]], and shouldn't be included in the list.
::::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:31, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

=== The existence of inland saltwater lakes, such as Mono Lake and the Great Salt Lake, suggest a recent global flood ===
As said earlier, saltwater lakes are explained easily as being [[endorheic]]. If there were no saltwater seas, then the endorheic basins would have to be very unstable, preventing bodies of water to become older than a couple of hundred years. This would imply quite a geologic activity, which we don't observe. But how do these inland saltwater lakes fit within the theory of a ''Young Earth''? Do you imply that the Earth was inundated by a salty ocean for forty days and nights? How could anything survive - and multiply - on this salty ground when the water receded? To explain these lakes with a global flood poses quite a few problems.
So, this ''counterexample'' is especially unconvincing, as it fails all three basic properties...

=== An extrapolation of time between the collapse of weaker arches with still-standing stronger arches supports a young earth age ===
Has anyone done this extrapolation? Without it, the point is moot.

At the moment, the article impresses with the quantity of examples. But the obvious weakness of some examples distracts from other examples which may have some merit.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:00, 11 May 2010 (EDT)

== Lakes again ==

*It was repeatedly explained why the ''Great Lakes'' are no countexample to an Old Earth.
*Aschlafly concluded: ''Well, then, the freshwater lakes that were not formed by the (implausible) "ice age" theory serve as a counterexample."''
*Aschlafly, could you reformulate the ''counterexample'' in question? Thanks.
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:49, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

: There are large freshwater lakes near the Equator. Do you think an "Ice Age" formed them also?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:10, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

::To quote myself: ''There a various mechanisms to form a lake, though in the north (Canada, US, Finland) the ice age is responsible for most of them. I doubt that Young Earth Creationists claim that all lakes were created during the Great Flood, though I assume that they think that no lake is older than this.'' [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:15, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

::: You may quote yourself, but your answer was less than direct. You seem to admit that that the Ice Age did NOT form the large freshwater lakes near the Equator. But I'm confident that any testing done on those lakes will reveal a young age for them also. That defies explanation consistent with an Old Earth theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:29, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

:::: Pfft, in the 70's [[Liberal|liberals]] were saying that the earth was cooling. Now, its supposedly warming. I wouldn't be surprised if they change their tune about the "Ice Age" in 40 years.

''But I'm confident that any testing done on those lakes will reveal a young age for them also.''

I'm afraid that your confidence is misplaced - the examinations and tests of geologists lead to different results. Let's have a closer look - what lakes are we talking about? Near to the equator - say in the strip between 5° North and 5° South - the number of lakes of considerable size isn't big:
*[[South America]]: none
*[[Indonesia]]: '''Lake Toba''' on [[Sumatra]], '''Lake Tempe''' and '''Lake Poso''' on [[Sulawesi]]. Lake Toba is the largest volcanic lake in the world, resulting from an eruption 69,000 - 78,000 years ago. So, it's older (according to the test of geologists) than the last [[Ice Age]], but fairly young on a geological scale. Lake Tempe is a flood plain of an average depth of 5m, so it's quite volatile in geological standards. Lake Poso is a tectonic lake and regarded as ancient (1 - 2 million years).
*[[Africa]]: Here you find the [[African Great Lakes]], in the area of our interest especially, the [[Lake Victoria]], [[Lake Tanganyika]], [[Lake Turkana]], [[Lake Albert]], [[Lake Kivu]], and [[Lake Edward]]. These are located in the [[Great Rift Valley]], which is - according to geologists - a continental rift zone. Though you may call ''Lake Victoria'' young - as it's only 500,000 old and dried out a couple of times, the other lakes are estimated to be roughly 4 million years old.

All of these lakes are older than the American [[Great Lakes]]. So, I repeat my request: please, remove ''The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago '' from the list of counterexamples:
* it is misleading, as ''atheistic geologists'' don't claim that these lakes ''have existed millions of years ago''
* your alternate approach (''Well, then, the freshwater lakes that were not formed by the (implausible) "ice age" theory serve as a counterexample'') doesn't work neither, as there are ancient (≈ 4 million years) freshwater lakes.
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:47, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

: None of the freshwater lakes are older than 10,000 years, and you cite nothing to the contrary. Carbon dating, for example, repeatedly confirms that even the oldest freshwater sources are young.

: I've answered your question, now how about answering mine below, repeated here for your convenience: do you agree that arguing against your view of creationism is no basis for defending the [[Old Earth]] theory? {{unsigned|Aschlafly}}

::''None of the freshwater lakes are older than 10,000 years, and you cite nothing to the contrary.''
::On the contrary, there is little doubt under geologists that all of the lakes above are not young (with the possible exception of Lake Tempe) . Every textbook on geology will tell you that the oldes of Great African Lakes were formed ≈ 4 mya ago, with Lake Victoria being the youngest of the lot<ref>John Reader, ''Africa'', National Geographic 9/2001</ref>. The [http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/volcano.cfm?vnum=0601-09= Toba event] took place ≈ 70,000 years ago.
::''Carbon dating, for example, repeatedly confirms that even the oldest freshwater sources are young.''
::This doesn't make sense. Carbon dating is only used on relatively young (holecenic) freshwater sources. (More in a separate section)
::''I've answered your question, now how about answering mine below, repeated here for your convenience: do you agree that arguing against your view of creationism is no basis for defending the [[Old Earth]] theory?''
::I thought that I've answered this question, too, but I'll elaborate:
::*no, arguing against one theory doesn't defend the other. But both theories can't be true simultaneously - though both could be false. OTOH, there aren't that many concurring theories out there. And entries like [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&diff=784643&oldid=784484 this] of your fellow sysop ''Conservative'' show that on this page, Old Earth Theory and Young Earth Theory are put against each other.
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:58, 5 June 2010 (EDT)

::: You still don't explain why you have repeatedly argued that an Old Earth theory must be true because you think that your view of creationism is false. I don't know why you include creationism at all in your reasoning, given that you think it is false. Would you expect a mathematician to chant as part of his proof of a difficult problem a statement that another proposed proof is false? Of course not. The Old Earth theory is disproved by the numerous counterexamples, and creationism is irrelevant to that disproof or a reasoned discussion of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:07, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

== Implausibility of the Ice Age Theory ==

What's implausible about it? The article [[Ice Age]] doesn't say anything about plausibility. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:51, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

: What is implausible is that sheets of ice from the north would carve the Great Lakes in their unique shape, plus the Mississippi bluffs that sometimes face north-to-south, plus other unexpected formations. Has a computer simulation ever duplicated this result? I've never found a paper about such a simulation in my search for one. Have you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:29, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

::I'm not aware of any computer simulation of the formation of the Great Lakes and the Mississippi which encompasses the whole of North America and is granular enough to show features like the bluffs you spoke of - neither for the last [[Ice Age]] nor for the [[Great Flood]].

::The creation of the Great Lakes however can be studied by geologists who examined the history of this area. Their surveys paint an interesting picture of the formation of the Great Lakes ([http://www.emporia.edu/earthsci/student/damery1/gl_form.html here] an introduction).

::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:49, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

::: Frank, you repeatedly reason in an "either-or" manner, as though the only two possibilities are the [[Old Earth]] and your view of [[creationism]]. That's not logical or scientific. Both could be wrong. No mathematician would claim that if one proof is defective then an alternative proof must be correct.

::: If the Ice Age theory provided a plausible explanation for the Great Lakes and other observed formations (such as the Mississippi bluffs), then a computer simulation would be easy to build. But it hasn't been done, which suggests that the Ice Age theory is implausible in explaining all that is observed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:14, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

:::*both could be false, both aren't simulated globally
:::*are you ''confident'' that such a simulation could be easily build? The formation of the Great Lakes has been simulatied - that's something I'm confident of.
:::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:24, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

:::(Could you please answer to my substantive edits in the previous section? Thanks. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:25, 2 June 2010 (EDT))

:::: Computer simulations would be easy to make. scientists clearly have access to computers. If they're so confident of their "theories" why not make an accurate simulation and add that as proof? I think they know there irratioinal beliefs won't help up to scruteny. FrankC, just have an open mind. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 12:36, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

== All carbon dating of water supplies, even the most ancient and the deepest underground reservoirs, result in relatively young ages ==

# All [[carbon dating]] of water supplies, even the most ancient and the deepest underground reservoirs, result in relatively young ages,<ref>http://www.betalabservices.com/PDF/Geyh.pdf</ref> and no water has been found suggesting an Old Earth.

The source doesn't corroborate the claim. The authors of the study seem to be well aware of the limits of [[carbon dating]], and don't try to apply it to pre-Holecene water. And of course, a reservoir can be older than the water it holds (you can't judge the age of the glass by the vintage of the wine!).

Conservapedia's article on [[carbon dating]] highlights the fact that it can't be used to determine ages older than 50,000 years.

nota bene: the source shouldn't be used for ''lakes'' at all: it mentions lakes only in a passing reference to the founder of the science of dating water, Franke and Deevey.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:08, 5 June 2010 (EDT)

<references/>

== Answer to Aschlafy ==

You asked: ''You still don't explain why you have repeatedly argued that an Old Earth theory must be true because you think that your view of creationism is false. I don't know why you include creationism at all in your reasoning, given that you think it is false. Would you expect a mathematician to chant as part of his proof of a difficult problem a statement that another proposed proof is false? ''

I don't think that the reason for the Old Earth theory to be true is that Young Earth creationism is false. But even if I followed the insinuated reasoning above, that shouldn't influence the topic of our discussion: ''counterexamples to an Old Earth''. On this talkpage, I want to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these counterexamples.

Just for an analogy. Often, you hear criticism of the infallibility of the Bible phrased as questions like ''Whom did Cain marry?'' ''What's the value of π according to 1 Kings 7:23?''. These questions can be phrased as ''counterexamples to Biblical inerrancy'':

*Cain dwelt in the land of Nod. There were no other people. So he couldn't get a wife.

*The circumference and the diameter of a bronze vessel are given as 30 units and 10 units. Therefore, the Bible claims that π equals 3.

Are these valid ''counterexamples''? Would someone using these examples in a discussion impress his dialog partners? No , of course not! The first one makes a claim (''there were no other people'' - Adam and Eve had other children!) not made in the Bible - therefore erecting a straw-man, the second one talks about the features of a special object: maybe there was a brim? And ''3''' ''is'' an approximation for π.... a These so-called ''counterexamples'' are easily explained within the Biblical framework, and anyone using them shows just his ignorance in these matters. Therefore, repeating them and ignoring the given explanation is just a Mantric exercise for those who chose not to face reality: I hope that we can agree that these ''counterexamples'' are weak, and their weakness can be seen be everyone - believing in Biblical inerrancy or not.

I'm afraid that the same must be said about some of the ''counterexamples to an Old Earth'': the most impressive about them is their number. But the individual examples tend to be quite weak. What happens to a pupil using them in a discussion with his fellow students - or his teacher? He will be faced with further questions and explanations. For instance, look at:

*The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago

Here, the straw-man are the ''millions of years'': no geologist is claiming that the Great Lakes are that old. What do you expect the pupil to answer to this? Should he chose to ignore the explanation and go on to the next point in the list? After a couple of easily refuted points, his public will get weary and start to think that there isn't a good counterexample against an Old Age of the Earth.

To prevent this, you should perhaps elaborate the examples, and give refutations for the explanations of geologists.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:39, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

:What if we assume that geologists really do think that the Great Lakes were made by icebergs 10,000 years ago instead of 10,000,000? There is still no proof of this, not even a computer model (which I assure you could be easily done). Your argument is much ado about nothing. [[User:NateSmall|NateSmall]] 14:59, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

== Observations on some deceitful points in this article ==

Hi. I'm new here after finding this site from a google search on abortion. I also came across this, um, peculiar article. I looked at some of the facts presented and it looks deliberately misleading:

*For example, because freshwater lakes appear to be "young" (subjective term but we'll go with it) has no indication on the age of the earth.

*The earth's magnetic field is indeed declining, but when I go to that NASA site, in the ''same, exact'' paragraph, it says:

{{Cquote|There have been about 170 of these reversals during the last 76 million years according to geological evidence. The time between reversals seems to be growing longer, and is currently about 300,000 years or so. The last one of these happened about 770,000 years ago (0.77 on the graph). We are currently living during a period that has been called the Brunhes Magnetic Chron when the South Magnetic Pole is in the Northern Hemisphere. During the previous Matumaya Magnetic Chron, the North Magnetic Pole was in the Northern Hemisphere! Note that, from the polarity figure, at a time 0.94 million years ago (940,000 years ago) the magnetic field reverse itself by going nearly to 'zero' but then after a few thousand years it recovered and began to increase in strength. During the next 150,000 years it rose to a maximum strength and then began to decline. Notice, also, how fast the magnetic field recovers after it reaches 'zero', in some cases much less than 10,000 years.}}

.. but then the article has:

''Presently, Earth's magnetic field is weakening in strength by 5% every 100 years. ... Not comparable to an old earth''

Kind of deceptive and misleading, if not blatantly lying, no?

Thanks for your feedback, [[User:DouglasM|DouglasM]] 15:45, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

===Another observation===
Religulous Right [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&diff=786079&oldid=786069 undid] an edit of mine, so I'll explain why I removed it. First off, it's highly speculative and opinionated to an individual:
*Are SAT scores going down everywhere? Is this a pattern? I should think that such a remarkable conclusion should have a reference.
*Personal letters and style of writing does not necessarily reflect intelligence. I'd see this as more of a "times change" event. Not to invoke a response here, but language evolves: compare old english to the english of the 1700s to today: all 3 are very different. Because language and social cues change throughout human history doesn't compare to overall intelligence and thus certainly not to the age of the earth. Thanks [[User:DouglasM|DouglasM]] 19:21, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
: I realize you're new here. However, you can't just walk into somebody's living room and strart deleting their work because you don't approve of it. Either you make your case here or contribute to the project with material before you start deleting stuff. If all new useres starting deleting everything they didn't like we would end up with no material. Also, if you didn't notice, there were four footnotes in the section you deleted. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 19:47, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

::I made my case above, did you not read it? [[User:DouglasM|DouglasM]] 19:50, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

::: Yes. However, I'm saying make your case BEFORE you start deleting points that could possibly be great insights. We don't want to be engaging in [[Liberal censorship]]. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 19:59, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth

2010-06-08T23:47:19Z

ReligiousRight: /* Another observation */

Counterexamples to an Old Earth

2010-06-08T23:15:49Z

ReligiousRight: Undo revision 786069 by DouglasM (Talk) If you have a problem with this discuss it in the talk page

It takes only one "counterexample" to disprove the theory of an [[Old Earth]]. As with any logical proposition, one contradiction disproves the proposed rule.

== Counterexamples ==
The growing list of counterexamples to the theory of an [[Old Earth]] includes:

=== Astronomy ===
# The [[moon]] is receding from the [[Earth]] at a rate suggesting it would have been too close a billion years ago
# [[Spiral galaxies]] appear to be young, and only implausible proposals of the existence of [[dark matter]] can reconcile with belief in an [[old universe]]
# The planetary orbits in the solar system - including Earth's - are unstable and unsustainable over the very long time periods asserted by [[atheists]]<ref>[http://www.newsweek.com/id/201582 Newsweek: "An embarrassing little secret of astronomy ...."].</ref>

=== Geology ===
[[Image:Stratigraphy_of_the_Grand_Canyon.png|right|thumb|300px|The Unconformity is readily apparent in the [[Grand Canyon]] where foliage and ground cover do not obscure the rock face.]]
# The continued existence of fragile natural arches without having collapsed a short time period for erosion and stresses on them<ref>http://www.naturalarches.org/big9.htm</ref>
# An extrapolation of time between the collapse of weaker arches<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/11/AR2008081102290.html</ref> with still-standing stronger arches supports a young earth age
# The massive [[Great Lakes]] are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago
# The existence of inland saltwater lakes, such as [[Mono Lake]] and the [[Great Salt Lake]], suggest a recent global [[flood]]
# The plentiful supply of high concentrations of underground well water, which would be expected based on familiar principles of [[entropy]] to dissipate over a long period of time.
# Earthquakes alter the Earth's rotation every century; extrapolating by orders of magnitude in time would have resulted in the occurrence of much larger earthquakes that would have destabilized the rotation<ref>A similar analysis may be performed for the likelihood of devastating collisions with meteors as time is extrapolated by orders of magnitude.</ref>
# The lack of erosion between rock layers<ref>http://www.amazon.com/review/R1WTZL8GG4H9K0</ref><ref>http://www.knowthebible.net/id115.html</ref>
# Levels of contamination in water are rising, as water procedes through the [[water cycle]] it becomes progressively more contaminated. If earth (and life) had existed for billions of years, a limit would have long been reached where water (essential to life) was too contaminated for life to continue.
# [[Paraconformity]] and unconformity such as that seen at the [[Grand Canyon]] disprove the [[uniformitarianism (science)|uniformitarian]] view of earth history.
# All [[carbon dating]] of water supplies, even the most ancient and the deepest underground reservoirs, result in relatively young ages,<ref>http://www.betalabservices.com/PDF/Geyh.pdf</ref> and no water has been found suggesting an Old Earth.

=== Biology ===
# The intelligence of humans is rapidly declining, whether measured by SAT scores,<ref>SAT scores have been rapidly decreasing in real terms.</ref> music, personal letters,<ref>E.g., Civil War letters.</ref> quality of political debates,<ref>E.g., contrast the Lincoln-Douglas debates with debates today.</ref> the quality of news articles,<ref>''The Federalist'' was written for the newspaper audience in the late 1780s, but is far too intellectual for newspapers today.</ref> or any other measure.
# The age of onset of [[puberty|sexual maturity]] is rapidly changing, suggesting that life is in a short-term rather than long-term equilibrium<ref>For evidence of a rapidly changing age for sexual maturity in fish, see http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/46/3/235</ref>
# The high observed rate of [[extinctions of species]] and harmful [[genetic mutation]]s suggest a relatively short period for the existence of life rather than a long one.
# The age of onset of [[cancer]] is markedly decreasing,<ref>http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/109865519/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0</ref> suggesting rapid changes inconsistent with an alleged long existence to life
# The oldest direct evidence of life -- written documents, remnants of civilizations, tree rings, etc. -- is no older than about 3000 B.C.
# The number of natural, pure-bred bred dogs declines over time as dogs naturally crossbreed; a short period of time is suggested by the fact that there are over 100 different natural, pure breeds of dog thriving today
# Lack of genetic diversity among the ''Homo sapiens'' species. Were evolution and the old earth true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>

== External links ==
*[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth -101 evidences for a young earth and universe] by [[Creation Ministries International]]

== References ==

<references/>

== See also ==

* [[Counterexamples to Evolution]]
[[Category:geology]]

Talk:Letter to Douglas Moo

2010-06-08T01:55:12Z

ReligiousRight:

'Professor Moo' sounds like a silly name, perhaps fittingly. We should provide a link to the [[Conservative Bible]], just in case he doesn't believe us. Also, is his reponse (or lack thereof) going to be made public? --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 21:20, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
: Never mind, I just saw the link. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 21:25, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

::Sure, I'll publish his response (or lack thereof). I'll add mention of that so he'll know.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:31, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

I would recommend against sending this letter. I fail to see how it could result in anything but ridicule. [[User:BobF|BobF]] 21:30, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

: Christianity wouldn't exist if fear of ridicule were a concern.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:31, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
::Very well, but I think you should ackowledge that there is a difference between translating the Bible from its original languages and translating it from an archaic form of English, which is what was done here. [[User:BobF|BobF]] 21:33, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
:::I would recommend against making rude comments like that, BobF. I fail to see how it could result in anything but annoying the community. I, for one, am quite interested to see Dr. Moo stutter his way through some pathetic rebuttal attempt. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 21:33, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
::::I'm just stating the facts. The CBP was a tranlsation of the KJV, was it not? Nothing wrong with that, but it really isn't comparable to translating from Greek or Aramaic. [[User:BobF|BobF]] 21:36, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
:::::Yeah, I personally don't see how this could "result in ridicule." It's someone (speaking for a group of people, Conservapedia) voicing his concerns regarding a Biblical translation. Let's see what Professor Moo has to say. -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 21:38, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
::::::Actually, BOB, most of us used the Greek in our translations. You're clearly here just to argue. So, bye! [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 21:38, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
:::::::Well, then I suggest that the tone of the letter be a bit less insulting. No harm in taking the high road. [[User:BobF|BobF]] 21:39, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
::::::::What exactly is insulting? I just read through the letter twice, and it seems to be a clear, non-aggressive statement of facts. -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 21:42, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
:::::::::Taking the high road doesn't appear to be something you know much about. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 21:40, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
::::::::::BobF, Moo is going make a translation that will be read potentially by millions. It's important to know if he is going use his translation to only further his political agenda. As for ridicule, Moo already ridiculed the [[Conservative Bible]]. This is our rebuttal to his outrageous [[Liberal| liberal]] mockery. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 21:43, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

Question: Why is only Moo being emailed? Looking at [http://www.biblica.com/bible/cbt/index.php the Committee homepage] while Moo is the Chairman there are other professors participating in the "translation". How do we know that they won't try to insert liberal or pro-abortion bias into the "translation" as well? Perhaps we should send a letter to them as well, or at the very least cc this to them. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 21:58, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

: Presumably the Chairman is authorized to speak for the Committee. Also, he's the one who criticized us.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:41, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
:: Good point. Fair enough. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 22:46, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
:::Is it right to say that the Conservapedia translation has been "wrapped up"? I thought it was just a first draft that had been completed, with a provisional translation of each verse. I'm sure there are improvements that can and should be made before the project is considered completely finished. For example, I've just made an improvement to the Galatians translation, where the importance of Titus' being Greek was missed.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:18, 7 June 2010 (EDT)

:::::Good point. I'll replace "wrapped up" with a more accurate phrase about our project, which certainly does remain open to improvements.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:30, 7 June 2010 (EDT)

==Interview with Moo==

Moo stated in [http://www.dashhouse.com/2009/09/interview-with-douglas-moo-on-the-2011-niv/ an interview]:

: [Biblica and Zondervan] are intent on deflecting any possible claim that the 2011 NIV was a secretive project.... And we are also seeking input from anyone who wants to make a suggestion about how the 2011 NIV might be improved over the latest published version of the work of CBT, the TNIV.

Zondervan president also said that they want the process to be as “transparent as possible”. Perhaps we should remind Moo of this. Also, he stated that gender-inclusive language is “back on the table”. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 21:55, 7 June 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Letter to Douglas Moo

2010-06-07T02:46:56Z

ReligiousRight:

Talk:Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?

2010-06-07T02:39:35Z

ReligiousRight:

Should we not attack his view point than attack the person? This essay does not appear to be in a very good taste. --[[User:Johntalbot|Johntalbot]] 22:28, 22 May 2010 (EDT)
::::Are you saying that an essay cannot comment on a person's behavior or use satire? If so, please justify. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 01:51, 23 May 2010 (EDT)
:::::No I am not saying that. But I do not have any special knowledge about Richard Dawkin's manhood or machismo. I don't think any information is publicly available about his manhood related behaviour as well, So how do you comment on that? Satire is great if used well. For example Catch 22 is a great satire, but unfortunately your essay is not. It would be rude if I really express what I think about it. --[[User:Johntalbot|Johntalbot]] 15:41, 23 May 2010 (EDT)
::::Perhaps, you should read the essay and the linked resources a few times more and see if you can spot a pattern of cowardice by Richard Dawkins. Anyways, I wrote the essay when I was rather tired and I am made some revisions to it. By the way, the Google algorithm loves the essay. It ranks #1 for Richard Dawkins and Machismo and ranks #1 for Dawkins and machismo. However, I am guessing given Dawkins' behavior that many people don't associate the Richard Dawkins with machismo so there is probably not too many searches for this term. There are a 11,900 Google search results for Richard Dawkins and cowardice, just in case you are looking for further evidence concerning the subject of Richard Dawkins and cowardice. By the way, could you define "special knowledge". Also, do all Conservapedia essays need to pass a "special knowledge" litmus test? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:12, 23 May 2010 (EDT)
::::::I wouldn't use the number of google results to prove a point, it's not a very accurate indicator.[[User:RaymondP|RaymondP]] 21:22, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

so.. are you writing this for google algorithm. Sorry to burst your bubble, but no one is going to search for Dawkins and Machismo. May be you should clear your cache and search it, because when I do that, your page is not even in the top 10. I don't understand what you aim to say by 11900 results for Dawkins and cowardice. conservative and cowardice brings up 287000 results. does that mean anything? I am not sure why you are so much obsessed about Richard Dawkins' manhood. Shouldn't you be trying to refute his arguments in that precious time? --[[User:Johntalbot|Johntalbot]] 20:24, 23 May 2010 (EDT)
::::I guess you need to take some reading comprehension classes. I did indicate that I didn't believe there were going to be many searches for the term Dawkins and machismo. I also noticed you also didn't answer my questions. I will return the favor and not answer yours. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:57, 23 May 2010 (EDT)

I was given a link to this essay on youtube, and I can say that it certainly hits the target! Dawkins is well know for being a coward with regards to avoid all debate with those who don't agree with his worldview, so this kind of hard-hitting satire suits him perfectly! Keep up the good work Mr Conservative, sadly it's no surprise that the the liberal 'Dawkins Defenders' do nothing but criticize anything that exposes their evolutionist leaders for the frauds that they are. - Andrew.
::::Thanks for the positive review. Here is something I just put at the bottom of the essay: '''QUICK NOTE:''' The above essay was produced as part of the [[Conservapedia:Richard Dawkins Project]]. If you like this essay, please feel free to give it three "oles!" by creating a [[YouTube ]] video on it. Also, feel free to mention it on your blog or [[Facebook]] page. There are also some tips [[Conservapedia:Richard Dawkins Project - Spreading the News|HERE]] on spreading the word about this essay. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCZYpGzu7rA&feature=related Ole!][http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAYSQXSMnss&feature=related Ole!][http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQwWvw3uTJM&feature=related Ole!] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:31, 24 May 2010 (EDT)

== Unconservapedia? ==

What's the point of all those essays about Richard Dawkinds? Is this the embryo of an ''unconservapedia'', parody of ''uncyclopedia'', the ''official'' parody of ''wikipedia''? That would be fun, a parody of a parody. Might as well be called ''liberopedia'', and have articles with the Khaddaffi Peace Prize or the Stalin Human Rights awards. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 10:01, 27 May 2010 (EDT)

== Messed up ==

Purposefully creating provocative pages and then limiting the editing for such pages is ridiculous. I can't even fix the spelling errors.
: First prove yourself by fixing up or writing other articles. We're not here just to talk, talk, talk. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 22:39, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Letter to Douglas Moo

2010-06-07T01:58:54Z

ReligiousRight:

Talk:Letter to Douglas Moo

2010-06-07T01:43:24Z

ReligiousRight:

Talk:Letter to Douglas Moo

2010-06-07T01:25:38Z

ReligiousRight:

Talk:Letter to Douglas Moo

2010-06-07T01:20:18Z

ReligiousRight: Created page with ''Professor Moo' sounds like a silly name, perhaps fittingly. We should provide a link to the Conservative Bible, just in case he doesn't believe us. Also, is his reponse (or …'

Gaussian integral

2010-06-06T16:42:44Z

ReligiousRight:

{{Template:Math-h}}
The '''Gaussian integral''' is the integral:

:<math> \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-x^2}dx. </math>

It has a value of <math>\sqrt\pi</math>. The value is needed to normalize the [[Normal distribution]].

==Derivation==

First look at the [[Double integral|double integral]]

<math>\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-x^2-y^2}dxdy.</math>

Seperating it,

<math>\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-x^2}dx \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-y^2}dy = (\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-x^2}dx)^2 </math>

So, the double integral is merely the square of the Gaussian integral.

Now, do the double integral in polar co-ordinates. <math>-x^2-y^2= -(x^2+y^2) = -r^2</math> and <math>dxdy=rdrd\theta</math>, so:

<math>\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-x^2-y^2}dxdy = \int_{0}^{2\pi}\int_{0}^{\infty} e^{-r^2}rdrd\theta</math>

<math> = (\int_{0}^{2\pi}d\theta)(\int_{0}^{\infty} e^{-r^2}rdr)</math>

<math> = 2\pi \int_{0}^{\infty} e^{-r^2}rdr.</math>

Substitutiing <math>z=r^2</math> into the integral,

<math> = 2\pi \int_{0}^{\infty} e^{-z}(z^{1/2})(\frac{dz}{2z^{1/2}})</math>

<math> = \pi \int_{0}^{\infty} e^{-z}dz = \pi \left[-e^{-z} \right]_0^{\infty} = \pi.</math>

Therefore,

<math>(\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-x^2}dx)^2 = \pi </math>

<math>\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-x^2}dx = \sqrt\pi.</math>

[[category:mathematics]]

Gaussian integral

2010-06-06T16:42:13Z

ReligiousRight: Created page with '{{Template:Math-h}} The '''Gaussian integral''' is the integral: :<math> \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-x^2}dx. </math> It has a value of <math>\sqrt\pi</math>. The value is neede…'

Laplace's equation

2010-06-06T16:02:19Z

ReligiousRight:

'''Laplace's equation''' is an [[equation]] such that the sum of all of the non-mixed second order [[partial derivative]]s of a [[function]], f, equaling zero. All functions that have a [[Laplacian]] (usually denoted <math>\nabla^2 f</math> by physicists and <math>\Delta f</math> by mathematicians) of zero (and thus are a solution to Laplace's equation) are called [[harmonic function]]s.

In <math>\mathbb{R}^3</math>, Laplace's equation in Cartesian co-ordinates is:
: <math> \nabla^2 f =
{\partial^2 f\over \partial x^2 } +
{\partial^2 f\over \partial y^2 } +
{\partial^2 f\over \partial z^2 } = 0
</math>

or in the mathematicians' notation,
<math>\Delta f =
{\partial^2 f\over \partial x^2 } +
{\partial^2 f\over \partial y^2 } +
{\partial^2 f\over \partial z^2 } = 0.
</math>

[[category:mathematics]]

Talk:Gamma function

2010-06-06T15:45:26Z

ReligiousRight:

I think this needs a educational level template. What level of math (high school, undergrad, grad student) are we talking about here? I'm lucky to get 2 + 2 right on a regular basis. -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 10:57, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

: I'd say undergrad, though an eager high school student could make some sense of it. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]]

Gamma function

2010-06-06T14:41:01Z

ReligiousRight:

The '''Gamma funciton''' is defined as

<math>\Gamma(z) = \int_{0}^{\infty}t^{z-1}e^{-t}dt</math>

== Relations and values ==

===Factorial===
Using [[Integration_by_parts|integration by parts]],

<math>\Gamma(z) = \int_{0}^{\infty}t^{z-1}d(e^{-t}dt)</math>
:<math>= \left[t^{z-1}(-e^{-t}) \right]_0^{\infty}- \int_{0}^{\infty}(z-1)t^{(z-2)}(-e^{-t})dt.</math>

At <math>t=0</math>, <math>t^{z-1}(-e^{-t})</math> goes to 0. Using [[L'Hopital's rule]], it's easy to show that <math>\lim_{t\to \infty} \frac{t^{z-1}}{e^{t}} = 0</math>.

So,

:<math>=(z-1) \int_{0}^{\infty}t^{(z-1)-1}e^{-t}dt</math>
:<math>=(z-1) \Gamma(z-1).</math>
Thus,
:<math> \Gamma (z) = (z-1) \Gamma(z-1).</math>

Using this, and the the fact that <math>\Gamma(1)=1</math>, then we can get the [[Factorial|factorial]] function. For <math>n</math> a positive integer,

:<math> \Gamma(n) = (n-1)!. </math>

===z=1/2===
For z=1/2,

:<math> \Gamma(1/2) = \int_{0}^{\infty}t^{-1/2}e^{-t}dt </math>

Substituting <math>x=t^{1/2}</math>,

:<math>=\int_{0}^{\infty} (\frac{1}{x}) e^{-x^2} (2xdx )</math>
:<math>=2 \int_{0}^{\infty} e^{-x^2}dx </math>
:<math>= \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-x^2}dx </math>

where in the last line we used the fact that <math>e^{-x^2}</math> is an even function. The integral is called the Gaussian integral and has a well known value of <math>\sqrt\pi</math>.

Thus,

:<math> \Gamma(1/2) = \sqrt\pi. </math>

[[category:mathematics]]

Gamma function

2010-06-06T14:37:01Z

ReligiousRight:

The '''Gamma funciton''' is defined as

<math>\Gamma(z) = \int_{0}^{\infty}t^{z-1}e^{-t}dt</math>

== Relations and values ==

===Factorial===
Using [[Integration_by_parts|integration by parts]],

<math>\Gamma(z) = \int_{0}^{\infty}t^{z-1}d(e^{-t}dt)</math>
:<math>= \left[t^{z-1}(-e^{-t}) \right]_0^{\infty}- \int_{0}^{\infty}(z-1)t^{(z-2)}(-e^{-t})dt.</math>

At <math>t=0</math>, <math>t^{z-1}(-e^{-t})</math> goes to 0. Using [[L'Hopital's rule]], it's easy to show that <math>\lim_{t\to \infty} \frac{t^{z-1}}{e^{t}} = 0</math>.

So,

:<math>=(z-1) \int_{0}^{\infty}t^{(z-1)-1}e^{-t}dt</math>
:<math>=(z-1) \Gamma(z-1).</math>
Thus,
:<math> \Gamma (z) = (z-1) \Gamma(z-1).</math>

Using this, and the the fact that <math>\Gamma(1)=1</math>, then we can get the [[Factorial|factorial]] function. For <math>n</math> a positive integer,

:<math> \Gamma(n) = (n-1)!. </math>

===z=1/2===
For z=1/2,

:<math> \Gamma(1/2) = \int_{0}^{\infty}t^{-1/2}e^{-t}dt </math>

Substituting <math>x=t^{1/2}</math>,

:<math>=\int_{0}^{\infty} (\frac{1}{x}) e^{-x^2} (2xdx )</math>
:<math>=2 \int_{0}^{\infty} e^{-x^2}dx </math>
:<math>= \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-x^2}dx </math>

where in the last line we used the fact that the function <math>e^{-x^2}</math> is an even function. The integral is called the Gaussian integral and has a well known value of <math>\sqrt\pi</math>.

Thus,

:<math> \Gamma(1/2) = \sqrt\pi. </math>

[[category:mathematics]]

Gamma function

2010-06-06T14:36:11Z

ReligiousRight:

The '''Gamma funciton''' is defined as

<math>\Gamma(z) = \int_{0}^{\infty}t^{z-1}e^{-t}dt</math>

== Relations and values ==

===Factorial===
Using [[Integration_by_parts|integration by parts]],

<math>\Gamma(z) = \int_{0}^{\infty}t^{z-1}d(e^{-t}dt)</math>
:<math>= \left[t^{z-1}(-e^{-t}) \right]_0^{\infty}- \int_{0}^{\infty}(z-1)t^{(z-2)}(-e^{-t})dt.</math>

At <math>t=0</math>, <math>t^{z-1}(-e^{-t})</math> goes to 0. Using [[L'Hopital's rule]], it's easy to show that <math>\lim_{t\to \infty} \frac{t^{z-1}}{e^{t}} = 0</math>.

So,

:<math>=(z-1) \int_{0}^{\infty}t^{(z-1)-1}e^{-t}dt</math>
:<math>=(z-1) \Gamma(z-1).</math>
Thus,
:<math> \Gamma (z) = (z-1) \Gamma(z-1).</math>

Using this, and the the fact that <math>\Gamma(1)=1</math>, then we can get the [[Factorial|factorial]] function. For <math>n</math> a positive integer,

:<math> \Gamma(n) = (n-1)!. </math>

===z=1/2===
For z=1/2,

:<math> \Gamma(1/2) = \int_{0}^{\infty}t^{-1/2}e^{-t}dt </math>

Substituting <math>x=t^{1/2}</math>,

:<math>=\int_{0}^{\infty} (\frac{1}{x}) e^{-x^2} (2xdx )</math>
:<math>=2 \int_{0}^{\infty} e^{-x^2}dx </math>
:<math>= \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-x^2}dx </math>

where in the last line we used the fact that the function <math>e^{-x^2}</math> is even. The integral is called the Gaussian integral and has a well known value of <math>\sqrt\pi</math>.

Thus,

:<math> \Gamma(1/2) = \sqrt\pi. </math>

[[category:mathematics]]

Gamma function

2010-06-05T21:05:05Z

ReligiousRight:

The '''Gamma funciton''' is defined as

<math>\Gamma(z) = \int_{0}^{\infty}t^{z-1}e^{-t}dt</math>

== Relations and values ==

===Factorial===
Using [[Integration_by_parts|integration by parts]],

<math>\Gamma(z) = \int_{0}^{\infty}t^{z-1}d(e^{-t}dt)</math>
:<math>= \left[t^{z-1}(-e^{-t}) \right]_0^{\infty}- \int_{0}^{\infty}(z-1)t^{(z-2)}(-e^{-t})dt.</math>

At <math>t=0</math>, <math>t^{z-1}(-e^{-t})</math> goes to 0. Using [[L'Hopital's rule]], it's easy to show that <math>\lim_{t\to \infty} \frac{t^{z-1}}{e^{t}} = 0</math>.

So,

:<math>=(z-1) \int_{0}^{\infty}t^{(z-1)-1}e^{-t}dt</math>
:<math>=(z-1) \Gamma(z-1).</math>
Thus,
:<math> \Gamma (z) = (z-1) \Gamma(z-1).</math>

Using this, and the the fact that <math>\Gamma(0)=1</math>, then we can get the [[Factorial|factorial]]. For <math>n</math> a positive integer,

:<math> \Gamma(n) = (n-1)!. </math>

===z=1/2===
For z=1/2,

:<math> \Gamma(1/2) = \int_{0}^{\infty}t^{-1/2}e^{-t}dt </math>

Substituting <math>x=t^{1/2}</math>,

:<math>=\int_{0}^{\infty} (\frac{1}{x}) e^{-x^2} (2xdx )</math>
:<math>=2 \int_{0}^{\infty} e^{-x^2}dx </math>
:<math>= \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-x^2}dx </math>

where in the last line we used the fact that the function <math>e^{-x^2}</math> is even. The integral is called the Gaussian integral and has a well known value of <math>\sqrt\pi</math>.

Thus,

:<math> \Gamma(1/2) = \sqrt\pi. </math>

[[category:mathematics]]

Gamma function

2010-06-05T20:31:39Z

ReligiousRight:

The '''Gamma funciton''' is defined as

<math>\Gamma(z) = \int_{0}^{\infty}t^{z-1}e^{-t}dt</math>

Using [[Integration_by_parts|integration by parts]],

<math>\Gamma(z) = \int_{0}^{\infty}t^{z-1}d(e^{-t}dt)</math>
:<math>= \left[t^{z-1}(-e^{-t}) \right]_0^{\infty}- \int_{0}^{\infty}(z-1)t^{(z-2)}(-e^{-t})dt</math>
:<math>=(z-1) \int_{0}^{\infty}t^{(z-1)-1}e^{-t}dt</math>
:<math>=(z-1) \Gamma(z-1).</math>
Thus,
:<math> \Gamma (z) = (z-1) \Gamma(z-1)</math>

Using this, and the the fact that <math>\Gamma(0)=1</math>, then we can get the [[Factorial|factorial]]. For <math>n</math> a positive integer,

:<math> \Gamma(n) = (n-1)!. </math>

[[category:mathematics]]

Gamma function

2010-06-05T20:30:34Z

ReligiousRight:

The '''Gamma funciton''' is defined as

<math>\Gamma(z) = \int_{0}^{\infty}t^{z-1}e^{-t}dt</math>

Using [[Integration_by_parts|integration by parts]],

<math>\Gamma(z) = \int_{0}^{\infty}t^{z-1}d(e^{-t}dt)</math>
:<math>= \left[t^{z-1}(-e^{-t}) \right]_0^{\infty}- \int_{0}^{\infty}(z-1)t^{(z-2)}(-e^{-t})dt</math>
:<math>=(z-1) \int_{0}^{\infty}t^{(z-1)-1}e^{-t}dt</math>
:<math>=(z-1) \Gamma(z-1)</math>
Thus,
:<math> \Gamma (z) = (z-1) \Gamma(z-1)</math>

Using this, and the the fact that <math>\Gamma(0)=1</math>, then we can get the [[Factorial|factorial]]. For <math>n</math> a positive integer,

:<math> \Gamma(n) = (n-1)!. </math>

Gamma function

2010-06-05T20:25:36Z

ReligiousRight: Created page with 'The '''Gamma funciton''' is defined as <math>\Gamma(z) = \int_{0}^{\infty}t^{z-1}e^{-t}dt</math> Using integration by parts, <math>\Gamma(z) = \int_{…'

Talk:Liberal

2010-06-04T16:02:18Z

ReligiousRight: /* First few sentences (Edit Break) */

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Using the term liberal and conervative is misleading. Conservative thought historically believes that human beings are unable to govern themselves and must have a strong ruler. Liberal thought is responsible for the American State as a whole. Assuming the Bible is concrete fact is a mistake. Since the bible is translated the only way to insure that it has not been corrupted would be to read it in the original language. Most conservatives are also economic liberals making these terms too broad to describe the political thought in this article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Picture ==

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

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

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

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

::Which doesn't change a thing about the fact that a 'trustworthy encyclopedia' should not let satire dominate such an important article (it's linked on the main page if I remember correctly). After all, this is the first picture people see and is hence in some way a discription or a resume for the whole article. If you want to be taken seriously, better take another picture up first. (You can still have the picture later in the article like you have in the article about atheism.) A picture of your favourite liberal would probably be better. You might even consider to cut the picture altogether. -[[User:Shakleton|Shakleton]] 16:04, 8 February 2010 (EST)

:::Odd that a "new" editor here would remember the Main Page linkage so far back, Shakleton. I am happy you so well note and remember our topical and thought-provoking news items! But try to remember that a European Socialist, such as yourself, will have little of value to contribute to our American, conservative encyclopedia project, or agree with much of what we say. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:15, 8 February 2010 (EST)

:::: You may be right in me not agreeing with everything you say but what I can indeed say is something about credibility as this has little to do with political views or country of origin. And what I said was that a picture as provocative as this one somehow ruins your own credibility. This is just some European advice, I know, and you certainly do not have to follow it, I just thought that it could be useful for your encyclopedia. -[[User:Shakleton|Shakleton]] 16:06, 9 February 2010 (EST)

It ruins our credibility (perhaps) with liberals. Who cares? They are full of hate, deceit and vituperation for anyone who dares to disagree with them. Around here, we wear that as a badge of honor. The diagram is far more correct than it is satire, if you ask me. I repositioned it to be more prominent in the article, in light of your thoughts. Godspeed to you. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:34, 9 February 2010 (EST)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==List at top==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Recent changes ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::: Can we really make up a definition like this. I would consider that the definition you are proposing here Mr. Shlafly better describes... anti-Christian which can be part of a liberal position but do not describe the broad concept of what liberals think. I think the intro of the article should be more general instead of going right away to the many flaws of liberals. I feel that the article explains the problems of liberals without identifying them as a group as if those problems were the essence instead of the consequence the liberal way of thinking. I agree that the dictionary doesn't suit what we are talking about but maybe a derivation from the biased Webster and the Oxford American could turn into something like: A liberal is someone who reject traditional and religious values toward a secular and relatively socialist worldview.
::::You've just described either an anarchist or a communist by your definition. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:13, 18 April 2010 (EDT)
:::::Schlafly said that liberals are far more than just anti-Christian. He said that they favor taxpayer-funded abortion as well. In addition, the definition from the top of the article states that liberals don't care about logical standards. That is far beyond merely anti-Christian, and is actually a very good definition of liberal. [[User:SamuelC|SamuelC]] 02:20, 18 April 2010 (EDT)

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

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

== The philosophy of Liberalism ==

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

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

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

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

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

== Free Market ==

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

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

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

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

That's just the thing. The article is written this way (and with the cartoon) because anybody who disagrees with it can be painted as a liberal, and the painting is indeed a portrayal of a rather despicable sort of person (liberal, as per conservapedians' definition of what that is (and most of the bullet points contain a fair degree of truth, with some spin)). The best part is that doing something tantamount on the opposite end of the spectrum will result in a block for [[liberal namecalling]]. I would like to see a couple more citations here and there in the article, like with the criticism of President Obama for being uncharitable (I don't doubt that there has been criticism; I'd just like to know from whom). [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 13:26, 14 December 2009 (EST)

== Problems With the Article ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Application ==

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

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

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

== Question about the article ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== First few sentences ==
I'm not arguing with the political views of Conservapedia at all, but wouldn't it look a little nicer not to have the first few sentences be an editorial against liberals? Wouldn't a dictionary definition or something similar be a better introduction, and then the article can discuss the flaws of liberal views after that? - [[User:Trajork|Trajork]] 13:34, 11 November 2009 (EST)
:A definition is included in the first few sentences, "A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons.". It so happens that the definition of a liberal can be used against them. [[User:NP|NP]] 13:32, 13 December 2009 (EST)
::My problem with that is that not all people who reject logical and Biblical standards are liberals. I think it needs a more specific definition in its first sentence or two. Also, the second sentence, "There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing." either needs to cite a source showing that many liberals say what they're saying just to get attention, or be removed. Such a sentence, unless sourced, doesn't really set a good tone for an encyclopedia. We can present liberalism as is and use that to show why it's flawed, rather than editorializing at the beginning. - [[User:Trajork|Trajork]] 13:55, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:::You write, "My problem with that is that not all people who reject logical and Biblical standards are liberals." What other label do you have in mind? Such people are not conservatives, and I wouldn't call them "moderates". Definitions are the rule, and need not (and should not) address every unusual exception.

:::On your second point, I'll find and add some cites. There are plenty of examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:26, 13 December 2009 (EST)

::::Webster's dictionary defines a liberal as "1) a person who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways 2) a member or supporter of a liberal political party or c) an advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights". Just thought it would be a helpful, unbiased, and credible definition. -- Gtc216

The following people would appear to fit the definition of 'liberal' as it currently stands: "someone who rejects logical and biblical standards":
*An Islamic terrorist
*a paranoid schizophrenic (even if they vote Republican)
*A member of the Fundamentalist Church of Latter-Day Saints.
*An Ultra-Orthodox Jew
*J Edgar Hoover
*A member of the Flat Earth Society
*A member of the Ku Klux Klan
*Adolf Hitler
*Robert Mugabe
*General Francisco Franco

Is that the defintition we want? [[User:Cantaloupe|Cantaloupe]] 19:24, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:First of all, terrorists, the KKK, and Hitler WERE liberal. Second, a paranoid shcizophrenic is incapable of accepting or rejecting anything, so they don't count. Third, Mormons accept the bible, they just ALSO accept an additional book. What you're talking about with J Edgar Hoover, I don't even know, but Flat Earthers certainly are attention seeking and making ludicrous claims - sounds pretty liberal to me. Maybe you should re-think your objection. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:30, 3 January 2010 (EST)
::OK, if you think Islamic terrorists and Hitler are liberal, then I guess the definition stands. Can I go and add Hitler's liberalism to his article? The Fundamentalist LDS are the polygamous ones, by the way. Is polygamy a Biblical standard? How about the Ultra-Orthodox Jew? But maybe we should see what Mr Schlafly thinks about this. [[User:Cantaloupe|Cantaloupe]] 19:36, 3 January 2010 (EST)
I don't think anybody denies that Hitler was an evolutionist and an anti-capitalist, so yeah, he was very liberal. Liberal doesn't just mean "universal healthcare," it refers to a whole network of beliefs. Hitler certainly differed in some important ways from modern American liberals, but the underlying philosophies are surprisingly similar.
While Mormons and Jews do not believe exactly what we believe, they are, for the most part, undoubtedly conservative. I don't think anybody is calling Mitt Romney liberal - that would be silly and wouldn't make any sense. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:40, 3 January 2010 (EST)
:My challenge to you is to go to the articles [[Adolf Hitler]], [[Ku Klux Klan]] and [[terrorist]] and add the fact that they are liberal. Let's see what happens. [[User:Cantaloupe|Cantaloupe]] 19:47, 3 January 2010 (EST)
::I'm not going be goaded into action by a liberal user. This conversation is over. Go make substantive edits.[[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:50, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:::Liberals don't have the market cornered on evil, but they are a major political focus of evil. We can help our readers by distinguishing between the evils of liberalism and some of the world's other evils.

:::Taking potshots at us while we're trying to do this, won't help, so stop or I'll have to ban the lot of you. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:01, 3 January 2010 (EST)

::::As a totally sincere question: What is the difference "between the evils of liberalism and some of the world's other evils"? Right now, the article defines a liberal as "someone who rejects logical and biblical standards"; wouldn't pretty much every evil or misguided person (except for heretics who think they are following Biblical standards) fit that definition? Thanks. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 20:06, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:::That doesn't sound like a good definition, although it does provide a partial description. I'll see what I can dig up. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:15, 3 January 2010 (EST)

We welcome concise improvements, but not dilutions. The five-word definition quoted by Evan seems to be generally true, but we would certainly welcome non-dilutive, concise suggestions. Evan, did you have something in mind? And no, not everyone who is evil or misguided rejects logical and biblical standards as liberals do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:26, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:I don't have anything definite in mind yet; right now I'm trying to figure out what it means. Andy, are you saying that (1) other evil or misguided people reject logical and Biblical standards ''in a different way than'' liberals, or (2) that other evil or misguided people do ''not'' reject logical and Biblical standards, but only liberals do? If (1), then it would seem the current definition of "liberal" needs to be made more precise. If (2), then I'd appreciate if you could explain to me how people become evil or misguided without rejecting logical and Biblical standards.
:Just off the top of my head, I'd favor option (1) and define "liberal" more precisely as (something like) someone who rejects logical and Biblical standards in favor of greater liberty/licentiousness - there are plenty of other ways to reject them. However, I haven't really thought about this; I'd appreciate your comments. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 22:10, 3 January 2010 (EST)

::Most people recognize evil and even repent after doing evil deeds. [[Liberals]], in contrast, really do reject logical and Biblical standards and refuse to repent. Liberals are also unique in trying to keep others away from the Bible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:42, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:::I just found [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09212a.htm an interesting article] about theological liberalism which defines it as "partial or total emancipation of man from the supernatural, moral, and Divine order." I think this changes my viewpoint tremendously: theological liberalism ''is'' a much broader term than political liberalism: only people like this would want to keep others away from the Bible. Is this the sort of liberalism you're talking about? If so, I think we should expand the article to talk about things like the condemnation of liberalism by the Roman Catholic Church and show how political liberalism follows from theological liberalism; if not, I think we should distinguish the two sorts. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 10:01, 4 January 2010 (EST)

Here's my favorite website, distinguishing between liberals and conservatives. [http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/other/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:16, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:Let's not get bogged down by one of the liberals' favorite tactics: exploiting the ambiguity of terminology. Recall that the Soviets and their [[fellow travelers]] said they were for "peace", while the [[peace movement]] of the 1960s was devoted mostly to unilateral [[nuclear disarmament]] and getting the US out of [[Vietnam]]. The latter move caused over two million civilian deaths and extended North Vietnam's anti-religious tyranny to the South. The former would have been an even greater disaster.

:We are talking here about a particular kind of evil: American political liberalism. US liberals will not give up an argument if one of their premises is proved false (even to their own satisfaction!) because they simply want what they want - it is not related to reality; that's why they won't budge on [[global warming]]; they don't care about [[science]] but have an ulterior motive. They reject faith in God and compliance with Biblical moral standards, because they want to keep engaging in premarital sex; they only way they can justify that is to give approval to [[homosexuality|deviant sexual practices]] as well. (They do use logic, when it furthers their cause.)

:You can help us, Evan, by exploring the borders of US liberalism. Not everyone who commits adultery is a liberal; not everyone who wants to end third world poverty is a Communist. Just be careful as you "expand" that you do not dilute. At some point, you will be talking about a distinct topic. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:23, 4 January 2010 (EST)

::That's what I was thinking originally. I agree with everything you just said. The problem I think I'm seeing is that the article's current definition appears to lump a number of things together with American political liberalism. Actually, it seems to be a pretty good definition of theological liberalism. If it's this hard to define political liberalism - I can't think of a single good definition, just some "tendencies" - maybe we shouldn't offer it as a definition at all and just start the article out with, "A '''liberal''' (also '''leftist''') is someone on the left of the [[political spectrum]]. While there are no clear liberal standards, liberals unite in rejecting logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons." --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 11:33, 4 January 2010 (EST)

:::Your suggestion is a dilution, in addition to being a circular definition. Here we strive to be clear, direct and concise. Also, there's nothing special or different about "American liberalism."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:58, 4 January 2010 (EST)

::::I know it's circular; I know it's less specific. What I'm trying to say is that there seems to be a disconnect between the definition, which seems to define [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09212a.htm theological liberalism]; and the rest of the article, which seems to talk about political liberalism. You said above that the distinct thing about liberals is that they refuse to repent after sinning - well, I can name any number of medieval monarchs who refused to repent of adultery, tyranny, et cetera; while they were definitely theological liberals, they weren't political liberals in that they opposed virtually all of the liberal political positions you name! So, the article's current definition lumps theological liberalism together with political liberalism. If you want to talk about both concepts here, I'm certainly fine with that, but we'll have to expand the article. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 10:31, 5 January 2010 (EST)

== First few sentences (Edit Break) ==

I admit that I have my own bias, but we all do; it is almost impossible to be completely unbiased. But never in my life have I seen a site that is a trusted site for information as ridiculous as this one. You obviously do not know who I am, considering we have never met before, and I'm sure we never will but you take a few things I believe and assume these things about me:

"Tools:
Censorship • Hate speech • Lies • Liberal logic • Mainstream Media • Myths • Network abuse • Obfuscation • Redefinition • Biased grading • Traps • Tricks • Vandalism
Traits:
Bias • Bigotry • Bullying • Deceit • Denial • Hypocrisy • Style • Uncharitableness • Whining"

You describe liberals as "uncharitable" but when I personally believe that it is our duty to help those in need around us, I get called a socialist. So who really is the uncharitable one? The one wanting to help or calling the other one things they aren't? Jesus himself wanted people to clothe the naked and feed the hungry, is that not socialistic also? Contrary to what you may believe I do not bully, I do not whine. And I am completely against censorship, which most liberals are in fact. Banning books? Does that not count as censorship?

Also I suggest finding a correct definition of liberal.

The problem with the current definition of liberal is that it encompasses viewpoints that are completely at odds. One can't say that Hitler or Islamic Terrorists are liberal because these groups tend toward right wing policies (I don't mean that they were conservative, but that they were right wing). You can tell in the case of Hitler, because Hitler vehemently opposed communism; in fact he hated communism. Hitler believed in patriotism to a fault, which puts him at odds with most liberals (who have globalist tendencies). Both fascists and islamist terrorists tend to support their own national, moral, or religious traditions before individual rights, which puts them in the right wing, like (but not identical to) conservatives who support patriotism, enforced moral standards, prayer in schools, ect....
It's incorrect to say that liberals have no coherent philosophy. The article itself states that liberalism began as a philosophy of protecting individual rights, which provides it with a coherent background. Clearly it has degenerated for the worse, but it still maintains a coherent ideology (not that everyone follows it perfectly, that would be nearly impossible). The philosophy is that of fairness, because you can link almost every liberal policy decision to the pursuit of fairness. John Rawls' philosophy of justice as fairness represents a coherent ideology behind liberal positions and policy decisions. If liberalism is truly incoherent, give reasons why their positions contradict each other.
On the subject of ulterior motive, what ulterior motive is there? None that I can see. The only reason why many people would favor liberalism is for ideological reasons, which implies that they do in fact believe in what they preach. On the subject of biblical standards, many liberals would see biblical standards as the reason why they act. A misinterpretation perhaps, but at least this proves that they're philosophy is not imply based on rejecting biblical standards. For example, Steven Colbert in his book, writes that the bible is the foundation of moral belief, meaning that he bases his philosophy on what he reads in the bible.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 16:43, 31 May 2010 (EDT)

On a final note, the citation for the existing definition is hardly credible (it comes from a liberal website) and completely non-topical (it harps about Barack Obama, not about liberal philosophy or even liberals in general).
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 16:54, 31 May 2010 (EDT)

: This entry defines a liberal '''''today'''''. Hitler rose to power more than 70 years ago, and his beliefs (if he had any) are not as relevant to this entry as the views of pro-[[abortion]] liberals now. Note that a good, concise definition does not focus on the exceptions at the margin, but on the general rule.

: Liberals support [[Barack Obama]], so "harping" on his views (which are designed to maximize liberal support) is an appropriate starting point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:02, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

Still, if it's about Obama, then it should be on the Obama page. It's true that liberals supported Obama, but this is a page about liberalism, not Obama. Rejection of biblical standards does not make sense as a concise definition of liberalism. Saying that they reject biblical standards could mean they're serial killers or facist dictators. You must then explain, which biblical standards do they reject? And why do they reject them?
You have to admit that most liberal positions, can be linked to a moral need for fairness. Few other definitions for the ideology are as concise as fairness.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 21:32, 3 June 2010 (EDT)
:Fair? What's fair about forcing people to buy healthcare they don't want or need? What's fair about holding a pregnant womans whim over the life of an infant? What's fair about condemning the men who risk their lives for our safety? What's fair about forbidding a man to have a gun, but going easy on the criminal who kills that now-defenseless man? What's fair about collecting money from citizens, and distributing it to illegal immigrants who come here and need foodstamps or healthcare? What's fair about giving a job to a black man, when a more qualified white man applies for the same job?
:The mere fact that you think "liberal=fair" pretty much gives you away as a liberal. After all, everybody likes to think they're fair, so if you think "liberal=fair," then for you to say you're not a liberal would be the same as you saying you don't like fairness. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]](admin)[[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 21:39, 3 June 2010 (EDT)
:: Double Edge, like a typical liberal you'll write a lot but say very little. You are deep in [[Liberal denial]]. Liberalism has nothing to do with fairness. It's about denying the Bible, getting girls to have abortions and keeping prayers from public schools. That's practically a definition. Obama is currently the most powerful liberal, so it makes sense to focus on him. You really should open your mind. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 22:04, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

:: The "fair" approach would be for an abortion clinic to show a pregnant woman her ultrasound and only afterward ask her if she still wants to have an abortion. 80% of women decide against having an abortion after viewing their ultrasound. But liberals are certainly not "fair" in this situation, because they try to conceal that ultrasound and even seek legislation prohibiting crisis pregnancy centers from providing ultrasounds! Alternatively, the fair approach to a class that wants to begin with a prayer would be to allow it. Yet liberals insist on censoring that prayer even if everyone in the class favors it. How can that be considered fair?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:11, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

By fairness I mean the motto of the french revolution that all people are equal. My claim is that most (not all) liberal positions can be linked to the pursuit of equality. Abortion has been advocated as a means of equalizing men and women, affirmative action is designed to promote equality among the races (that much is obvious), universal healthcare is intended to ensure that all people can access to healthcare, whether they work for it or not. Political correctness is obviously designed to protect equality. Globalism wants to treat everyone from every nation as if they're same. Restriction on prayer in schools is designed to promote equality of religions. You say that it's based on rejection of biblical standards, but which biblical standards and why? Don't be so quick to assume that an ideology can just pop up out of nothing. An ideology as successful as liberalism could only be maintained if it had some degree of coherency. I feel quite insulted that you think I'm a liberal. When have I ever advocated liberal beliefs? Liberal denial? If I'm a liberal then explain how I support the liberal agenda. I'm simply purposing a definition, no need to get heated.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 09:30, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

: You make good points, and your view is one that is often taught in defense of liberals. But I don't think it describes the evidence. Sure, liberals will try to portray their anti-Christian and anti-freedom ideology in a deceptive way. "Equality" is often their [[liberal trick]] of choice. But it does not explain how liberals insist on censoring conservative and Christian statements. The more liberal a group is (e.g., college campuses), the more suffocating the censorship of conservative and Christian truths. That's not equality.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:42, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

:: Double Edge, you exhibit many characteristics of [http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Liberal_Traits Liberal traits] and [[Liberal style]]. You trying to equate fairness with liberalism is classic [[Liberal deceit]]. Liberals are about fairness only in rhetoric. In practice it's anything but. Just look at the examples you gave: abortion, healthcare, and political correctness. What's fair about murdering babies, the gov't telling you what you can do with your body or censoring? How can you look at the country under Obama and call liberalism "succesful"? You're either a liberal or a someone tricked by them into believing lies. Please read the article on so-called [[Liberal fairness]]. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 12:02, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

==Reversion==

Why was my contribution removed? It was a fact and a great contribution I dont see any reason for it to be removed? (Unless it was edited by a liberal fool)

:I undid your contribution because I could not find one shred of evidence that '''anybody''', including liberals, support lesser jail sentences for rapists and child molestors. Also, please sign your posts with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> - [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 13:02, 6 March 2010 (EST)

== Small change to reflect trends in American liberalism? ==

At the end of the first paragraph, the article states "and in Europe even socialistic." While I don't believe that [[America]] is as close to a socialistic perversion as Europe, I think our ''liberals'' are. Does anyone object if I add this or make this sentence emphasize that? I don't want to remove "in Europe" because I feel that makes it too general; any suggestions on how we could make this reflect that American liberals are increasingly socialistic as well? Thank you! [[User:Tzoran|Tzoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 21:57, 12 April 2010 (EDT)

:How is that, Tyler? That what you had in mind? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:04, 12 April 2010 (EDT)
::That looks great! (Well, I added a comma, but still great). Sorry about the duplicate edit too; I'm trying to work on one of my routers so my internet has been a bit flaky recently. Thanks! [[User:Tzoran|Tzoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 22:07, 12 April 2010 (EDT)

== References ==

<references/>

Talk:Liberal

2010-06-04T02:04:47Z

ReligiousRight: /* First few sentences */

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Using the term liberal and conervative is misleading. Conservative thought historically believes that human beings are unable to govern themselves and must have a strong ruler. Liberal thought is responsible for the American State as a whole. Assuming the Bible is concrete fact is a mistake. Since the bible is translated the only way to insure that it has not been corrupted would be to read it in the original language. Most conservatives are also economic liberals making these terms too broad to describe the political thought in this article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Picture ==

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

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

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

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

::Which doesn't change a thing about the fact that a 'trustworthy encyclopedia' should not let satire dominate such an important article (it's linked on the main page if I remember correctly). After all, this is the first picture people see and is hence in some way a discription or a resume for the whole article. If you want to be taken seriously, better take another picture up first. (You can still have the picture later in the article like you have in the article about atheism.) A picture of your favourite liberal would probably be better. You might even consider to cut the picture altogether. -[[User:Shakleton|Shakleton]] 16:04, 8 February 2010 (EST)

:::Odd that a "new" editor here would remember the Main Page linkage so far back, Shakleton. I am happy you so well note and remember our topical and thought-provoking news items! But try to remember that a European Socialist, such as yourself, will have little of value to contribute to our American, conservative encyclopedia project, or agree with much of what we say. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:15, 8 February 2010 (EST)

:::: You may be right in me not agreeing with everything you say but what I can indeed say is something about credibility as this has little to do with political views or country of origin. And what I said was that a picture as provocative as this one somehow ruins your own credibility. This is just some European advice, I know, and you certainly do not have to follow it, I just thought that it could be useful for your encyclopedia. -[[User:Shakleton|Shakleton]] 16:06, 9 February 2010 (EST)

It ruins our credibility (perhaps) with liberals. Who cares? They are full of hate, deceit and vituperation for anyone who dares to disagree with them. Around here, we wear that as a badge of honor. The diagram is far more correct than it is satire, if you ask me. I repositioned it to be more prominent in the article, in light of your thoughts. Godspeed to you. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:34, 9 February 2010 (EST)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==List at top==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Recent changes ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::: Can we really make up a definition like this. I would consider that the definition you are proposing here Mr. Shlafly better describes... anti-Christian which can be part of a liberal position but do not describe the broad concept of what liberals think. I think the intro of the article should be more general instead of going right away to the many flaws of liberals. I feel that the article explains the problems of liberals without identifying them as a group as if those problems were the essence instead of the consequence the liberal way of thinking. I agree that the dictionary doesn't suit what we are talking about but maybe a derivation from the biased Webster and the Oxford American could turn into something like: A liberal is someone who reject traditional and religious values toward a secular and relatively socialist worldview.
::::You've just described either an anarchist or a communist by your definition. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:13, 18 April 2010 (EDT)
:::::Schlafly said that liberals are far more than just anti-Christian. He said that they favor taxpayer-funded abortion as well. In addition, the definition from the top of the article states that liberals don't care about logical standards. That is far beyond merely anti-Christian, and is actually a very good definition of liberal. [[User:SamuelC|SamuelC]] 02:20, 18 April 2010 (EDT)

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

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

== The philosophy of Liberalism ==

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

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

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

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

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

== Free Market ==

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

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

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

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

That's just the thing. The article is written this way (and with the cartoon) because anybody who disagrees with it can be painted as a liberal, and the painting is indeed a portrayal of a rather despicable sort of person (liberal, as per conservapedians' definition of what that is (and most of the bullet points contain a fair degree of truth, with some spin)). The best part is that doing something tantamount on the opposite end of the spectrum will result in a block for [[liberal namecalling]]. I would like to see a couple more citations here and there in the article, like with the criticism of President Obama for being uncharitable (I don't doubt that there has been criticism; I'd just like to know from whom). [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 13:26, 14 December 2009 (EST)

== Problems With the Article ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Application ==

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

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

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

== Question about the article ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== First few sentences ==
I'm not arguing with the political views of Conservapedia at all, but wouldn't it look a little nicer not to have the first few sentences be an editorial against liberals? Wouldn't a dictionary definition or something similar be a better introduction, and then the article can discuss the flaws of liberal views after that? - [[User:Trajork|Trajork]] 13:34, 11 November 2009 (EST)
:A definition is included in the first few sentences, "A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons.". It so happens that the definition of a liberal can be used against them. [[User:NP|NP]] 13:32, 13 December 2009 (EST)
::My problem with that is that not all people who reject logical and Biblical standards are liberals. I think it needs a more specific definition in its first sentence or two. Also, the second sentence, "There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing." either needs to cite a source showing that many liberals say what they're saying just to get attention, or be removed. Such a sentence, unless sourced, doesn't really set a good tone for an encyclopedia. We can present liberalism as is and use that to show why it's flawed, rather than editorializing at the beginning. - [[User:Trajork|Trajork]] 13:55, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:::You write, "My problem with that is that not all people who reject logical and Biblical standards are liberals." What other label do you have in mind? Such people are not conservatives, and I wouldn't call them "moderates". Definitions are the rule, and need not (and should not) address every unusual exception.

:::On your second point, I'll find and add some cites. There are plenty of examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:26, 13 December 2009 (EST)

::::Webster's dictionary defines a liberal as "1) a person who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways 2) a member or supporter of a liberal political party or c) an advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights". Just thought it would be a helpful, unbiased, and credible definition. -- Gtc216

The following people would appear to fit the definition of 'liberal' as it currently stands: "someone who rejects logical and biblical standards":
*An Islamic terrorist
*a paranoid schizophrenic (even if they vote Republican)
*A member of the Fundamentalist Church of Latter-Day Saints.
*An Ultra-Orthodox Jew
*J Edgar Hoover
*A member of the Flat Earth Society
*A member of the Ku Klux Klan
*Adolf Hitler
*Robert Mugabe
*General Francisco Franco

Is that the defintition we want? [[User:Cantaloupe|Cantaloupe]] 19:24, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:First of all, terrorists, the KKK, and Hitler WERE liberal. Second, a paranoid shcizophrenic is incapable of accepting or rejecting anything, so they don't count. Third, Mormons accept the bible, they just ALSO accept an additional book. What you're talking about with J Edgar Hoover, I don't even know, but Flat Earthers certainly are attention seeking and making ludicrous claims - sounds pretty liberal to me. Maybe you should re-think your objection. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:30, 3 January 2010 (EST)
::OK, if you think Islamic terrorists and Hitler are liberal, then I guess the definition stands. Can I go and add Hitler's liberalism to his article? The Fundamentalist LDS are the polygamous ones, by the way. Is polygamy a Biblical standard? How about the Ultra-Orthodox Jew? But maybe we should see what Mr Schlafly thinks about this. [[User:Cantaloupe|Cantaloupe]] 19:36, 3 January 2010 (EST)
I don't think anybody denies that Hitler was an evolutionist and an anti-capitalist, so yeah, he was very liberal. Liberal doesn't just mean "universal healthcare," it refers to a whole network of beliefs. Hitler certainly differed in some important ways from modern American liberals, but the underlying philosophies are surprisingly similar.
While Mormons and Jews do not believe exactly what we believe, they are, for the most part, undoubtedly conservative. I don't think anybody is calling Mitt Romney liberal - that would be silly and wouldn't make any sense. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:40, 3 January 2010 (EST)
:My challenge to you is to go to the articles [[Adolf Hitler]], [[Ku Klux Klan]] and [[terrorist]] and add the fact that they are liberal. Let's see what happens. [[User:Cantaloupe|Cantaloupe]] 19:47, 3 January 2010 (EST)
::I'm not going be goaded into action by a liberal user. This conversation is over. Go make substantive edits.[[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:50, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:::Liberals don't have the market cornered on evil, but they are a major political focus of evil. We can help our readers by distinguishing between the evils of liberalism and some of the world's other evils.

:::Taking potshots at us while we're trying to do this, won't help, so stop or I'll have to ban the lot of you. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:01, 3 January 2010 (EST)

::::As a totally sincere question: What is the difference "between the evils of liberalism and some of the world's other evils"? Right now, the article defines a liberal as "someone who rejects logical and biblical standards"; wouldn't pretty much every evil or misguided person (except for heretics who think they are following Biblical standards) fit that definition? Thanks. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 20:06, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:::That doesn't sound like a good definition, although it does provide a partial description. I'll see what I can dig up. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:15, 3 January 2010 (EST)

We welcome concise improvements, but not dilutions. The five-word definition quoted by Evan seems to be generally true, but we would certainly welcome non-dilutive, concise suggestions. Evan, did you have something in mind? And no, not everyone who is evil or misguided rejects logical and biblical standards as liberals do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:26, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:I don't have anything definite in mind yet; right now I'm trying to figure out what it means. Andy, are you saying that (1) other evil or misguided people reject logical and Biblical standards ''in a different way than'' liberals, or (2) that other evil or misguided people do ''not'' reject logical and Biblical standards, but only liberals do? If (1), then it would seem the current definition of "liberal" needs to be made more precise. If (2), then I'd appreciate if you could explain to me how people become evil or misguided without rejecting logical and Biblical standards.
:Just off the top of my head, I'd favor option (1) and define "liberal" more precisely as (something like) someone who rejects logical and Biblical standards in favor of greater liberty/licentiousness - there are plenty of other ways to reject them. However, I haven't really thought about this; I'd appreciate your comments. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 22:10, 3 January 2010 (EST)

::Most people recognize evil and even repent after doing evil deeds. [[Liberals]], in contrast, really do reject logical and Biblical standards and refuse to repent. Liberals are also unique in trying to keep others away from the Bible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:42, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:::I just found [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09212a.htm an interesting article] about theological liberalism which defines it as "partial or total emancipation of man from the supernatural, moral, and Divine order." I think this changes my viewpoint tremendously: theological liberalism ''is'' a much broader term than political liberalism: only people like this would want to keep others away from the Bible. Is this the sort of liberalism you're talking about? If so, I think we should expand the article to talk about things like the condemnation of liberalism by the Roman Catholic Church and show how political liberalism follows from theological liberalism; if not, I think we should distinguish the two sorts. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 10:01, 4 January 2010 (EST)

Here's my favorite website, distinguishing between liberals and conservatives. [http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/other/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:16, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:Let's not get bogged down by one of the liberals' favorite tactics: exploiting the ambiguity of terminology. Recall that the Soviets and their [[fellow travelers]] said they were for "peace", while the [[peace movement]] of the 1960s was devoted mostly to unilateral [[nuclear disarmament]] and getting the US out of [[Vietnam]]. The latter move caused over two million civilian deaths and extended North Vietnam's anti-religious tyranny to the South. The former would have been an even greater disaster.

:We are talking here about a particular kind of evil: American political liberalism. US liberals will not give up an argument if one of their premises is proved false (even to their own satisfaction!) because they simply want what they want - it is not related to reality; that's why they won't budge on [[global warming]]; they don't care about [[science]] but have an ulterior motive. They reject faith in God and compliance with Biblical moral standards, because they want to keep engaging in premarital sex; they only way they can justify that is to give approval to [[homosexuality|deviant sexual practices]] as well. (They do use logic, when it furthers their cause.)

:You can help us, Evan, by exploring the borders of US liberalism. Not everyone who commits adultery is a liberal; not everyone who wants to end third world poverty is a Communist. Just be careful as you "expand" that you do not dilute. At some point, you will be talking about a distinct topic. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:23, 4 January 2010 (EST)

::That's what I was thinking originally. I agree with everything you just said. The problem I think I'm seeing is that the article's current definition appears to lump a number of things together with American political liberalism. Actually, it seems to be a pretty good definition of theological liberalism. If it's this hard to define political liberalism - I can't think of a single good definition, just some "tendencies" - maybe we shouldn't offer it as a definition at all and just start the article out with, "A '''liberal''' (also '''leftist''') is someone on the left of the [[political spectrum]]. While there are no clear liberal standards, liberals unite in rejecting logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons." --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 11:33, 4 January 2010 (EST)

:::Your suggestion is a dilution, in addition to being a circular definition. Here we strive to be clear, direct and concise. Also, there's nothing special or different about "American liberalism."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:58, 4 January 2010 (EST)

::::I know it's circular; I know it's less specific. What I'm trying to say is that there seems to be a disconnect between the definition, which seems to define [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09212a.htm theological liberalism]; and the rest of the article, which seems to talk about political liberalism. You said above that the distinct thing about liberals is that they refuse to repent after sinning - well, I can name any number of medieval monarchs who refused to repent of adultery, tyranny, et cetera; while they were definitely theological liberals, they weren't political liberals in that they opposed virtually all of the liberal political positions you name! So, the article's current definition lumps theological liberalism together with political liberalism. If you want to talk about both concepts here, I'm certainly fine with that, but we'll have to expand the article. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 10:31, 5 January 2010 (EST)

I admit that I have my own bias, but we all do; it is almost impossible to be completely unbiased. But never in my life have I seen a site that is a trusted site for information as ridiculous as this one. You obviously do not know who I am, considering we have never met before, and I'm sure we never will but you take a few things I believe and assume these things about me:

"Tools:
Censorship • Hate speech • Lies • Liberal logic • Mainstream Media • Myths • Network abuse • Obfuscation • Redefinition • Biased grading • Traps • Tricks • Vandalism
Traits:
Bias • Bigotry • Bullying • Deceit • Denial • Hypocrisy • Style • Uncharitableness • Whining"

You describe liberals as "uncharitable" but when I personally believe that it is our duty to help those in need around us, I get called a socialist. So who really is the uncharitable one? The one wanting to help or calling the other one things they aren't? Jesus himself wanted people to clothe the naked and feed the hungry, is that not socialistic also? Contrary to what you may believe I do not bully, I do not whine. And I am completely against censorship, which most liberals are in fact. Banning books? Does that not count as censorship?

Also I suggest finding a correct definition of liberal.

The problem with the current definition of liberal is that it encompasses viewpoints that are completely at odds. One can't say that Hitler or Islamic Terrorists are liberal because these groups tend toward right wing policies (I don't mean that they were conservative, but that they were right wing). You can tell in the case of Hitler, because Hitler vehemently opposed communism; in fact he hated communism. Hitler believed in patriotism to a fault, which puts him at odds with most liberals (who have globalist tendencies). Both fascists and islamist terrorists tend to support their own national, moral, or religious traditions before individual rights, which puts them in the right wing, like (but not identical to) conservatives who support patriotism, enforced moral standards, prayer in schools, ect....
It's incorrect to say that liberals have no coherent philosophy. The article itself states that liberalism began as a philosophy of protecting individual rights, which provides it with a coherent background. Clearly it has degenerated for the worse, but it still maintains a coherent ideology (not that everyone follows it perfectly, that would be nearly impossible). The philosophy is that of fairness, because you can link almost every liberal policy decision to the pursuit of fairness. John Rawls' philosophy of justice as fairness represents a coherent ideology behind liberal positions and policy decisions. If liberalism is truly incoherent, give reasons why their positions contradict each other.
On the subject of ulterior motive, what ulterior motive is there? None that I can see. The only reason why many people would favor liberalism is for ideological reasons, which implies that they do in fact believe in what they preach. On the subject of biblical standards, many liberals would see biblical standards as the reason why they act. A misinterpretation perhaps, but at least this proves that they're philosophy is not imply based on rejecting biblical standards. For example, Steven Colbert in his book, writes that the bible is the foundation of moral belief, meaning that he bases his philosophy on what he reads in the bible.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 16:43, 31 May 2010 (EDT)

On a final note, the citation for the existing definition is hardly credible (it comes from a liberal website) and completely non-topical (it harps about Barack Obama, not about liberal philosophy or even liberals in general).
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 16:54, 31 May 2010 (EDT)

: This entry defines a liberal '''''today'''''. Hitler rose to power more than 70 years ago, and his beliefs (if he had any) are not as relevant to this entry as the views of pro-[[abortion]] liberals now. Note that a good, concise definition does not focus on the exceptions at the margin, but on the general rule.

: Liberals support [[Barack Obama]], so "harping" on his views (which are designed to maximize liberal support) is an appropriate starting point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:02, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

Still, if it's about Obama, then it should be on the Obama page. It's true that liberals supported Obama, but this is a page about liberalism, not Obama. Rejection of biblical standards does not make sense as a concise definition of liberalism. Saying that they reject biblical standards could mean they're serial killers or facist dictators. You must then explain, which biblical standards do they reject? And why do they reject them?
You have to admit that most liberal positions, can be linked to a moral need for fairness. Few other definitions for the ideology are as concise as fairness.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 21:32, 3 June 2010 (EDT)
:Fair? What's fair about forcing people to buy healthcare they don't want or need? What's fair about holding a pregnant womans whim over the life of an infant? What's fair about condemning the men who risk their lives for our safety? What's fair about forbidding a man to have a gun, but going easy on the criminal who kills that now-defenseless man? What's fair about collecting money from citizens, and distributing it to illegal immigrants who come here and need foodstamps or healthcare? What's fair about giving a job to a black man, when a more qualified white man applies for the same job?
:The mere fact that you think "liberal=fair" pretty much gives you away as a liberal. After all, everybody likes to think they're fair, so if you think "liberal=fair," then for you to say you're not a liberal would be the same as you saying you don't like fairness. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]](admin)[[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 21:39, 3 June 2010 (EDT)
:: Double Edge, like a typical liberal you'll write a lot but say very little. You are deep in [[Liberal denial]]. Liberalism has nothing to do with fairness. It's about denying the Bible, getting girls to have abortions and keeping prayers from public schools. That's practically a definition. Obama is currently the most powerful liberal, so it makes sense to focus on him. You really should open your mind. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 22:04, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

==Reversion==

Why was my contribution removed? It was a fact and a great contribution I dont see any reason for it to be removed? (Unless it was edited by a liberal fool)

:I undid your contribution because I could not find one shred of evidence that '''anybody''', including liberals, support lesser jail sentences for rapists and child molestors. Also, please sign your posts with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> - [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 13:02, 6 March 2010 (EST)

== Small change to reflect trends in American liberalism? ==

At the end of the first paragraph, the article states "and in Europe even socialistic." While I don't believe that [[America]] is as close to a socialistic perversion as Europe, I think our ''liberals'' are. Does anyone object if I add this or make this sentence emphasize that? I don't want to remove "in Europe" because I feel that makes it too general; any suggestions on how we could make this reflect that American liberals are increasingly socialistic as well? Thank you! [[User:Tzoran|Tzoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 21:57, 12 April 2010 (EDT)

:How is that, Tyler? That what you had in mind? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:04, 12 April 2010 (EDT)
::That looks great! (Well, I added a comma, but still great). Sorry about the duplicate edit too; I'm trying to work on one of my routers so my internet has been a bit flaky recently. Thanks! [[User:Tzoran|Tzoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 22:07, 12 April 2010 (EDT)

== References ==

<references/>

Leviticus 1-9 (Translated)

2010-06-03T21:05:15Z

ReligiousRight:

==Chapter 1==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|And the LORD called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying,
|God called on Moses and spoke to him out of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying:
|
|-
|2
|"Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man of you bring an offering unto the LORD, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd, and of the flock.
|"Speak to the children of Israel and tell them 'If any of you bring an offering to God, bring the offering of cattle from the herd and the flock.
|
|-
|3
|If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD.
|If his offering is a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without any defects. He will offer it voluntarily at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before God.
|
|-
|4
|And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.
|He will put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering and it will be accpeted for him to make atonement.
|
|-
|5
|And he shall kill the bullock before the LORD: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar that is by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
|He will kill the young bull before God and the priests, Aaron's sons, will bring the blood and sprinkle it around the altar that is by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
|
|-
|6
|And he shall flay the burnt offering, and cut it into his pieces.
|He will flay the burnt offering and cut it into pieces.
|
|-
|7
|And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar, and lay the wood in order upon the fire:
|The sons of Aaron the priest will fire up the altar and put wood in order to keep it going.
|
|-
|8
|And the priests, Aaron's sons, shall lay the parts, the head, and the fat, in order upon the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar:
| The priests, Aaron's sons, will lay the parts, the head and the fat in order on the firewood which is on the altar.
|
|-
|9
|But his inwards and his legs shall he wash in water: and the priest shall burn all on the altar, to be a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD.
|However, its internal organs and legs will be washed in water and the priest will burn all of it on the altar, to be a burnt sarcrifice, an offering made of fire and sweet smell for God.
|
|-
|10
|And if his offering be of the flocks, namely, of the sheep, or of the goats, for a burnt sacrifice; he shall bring it a male without blemish.
|If his offering is of the flocks, namely the sheep or the goats, for a burnt sacrifice he will bring a male without defects.
|
|-
|11
|And he shall kill it on the side of the altar northward before the LORD: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall sprinkle his blood round about upon the altar.
|He'll kill it on side of the altar northward before God and the priests, Aaron's sons, will sprinkle its blood around the altar.
|
|-
|12
|And he shall cut it into his pieces, with his head and his fat: and the priest shall lay them in order on the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar:
|He will cut it into pieces, with its head and its fat. The priest will lay them in order on the wood that is on the fire which is on the altar.
|
|-
|13
|But he shall wash the inwards and the legs with water: and the priest shall bring it all, and burn it upon the altar: it is a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD.
|However, he will wash the internal organs and the legs with water. The priests will bring it all and burn it on the alter. It is a sarcrifice, an offering made by fire, and smells sweet to God.
|
|-
|14
|And if the burnt sacrifice for his offering to the LORD be of fowls, then he shall bring his offering of turtledoves, or of young pigeons.
|If the burnt sacrfice for his offering to God is a bird of any kid, then his offering will be turtledoves or young pigeons.
|
|-
|15
|And the priest shall bring it unto the altar, and wring off his head, and burn it on the altar; and the blood thereof shall be wrung out at the side of the altar:
|The priest will bring it to the altar, twist off its neck, and burn it on the altar. The blood will be squeezed out at the side of the altar.
|
|-
|16
|And he shall pluck away his crop with his feathers, and cast it beside the altar on the east part, by the place of the ashes:
|He will pluck away the crop with his feathers and put it beside the altar's eastern part, by the ashes.
|
|-
|17
|And he shall cleave it with the wings thereof, but shall not divide it asunder: and the priest shall burn it upon the altar, upon the wood that is upon the fire: it is a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD.
| He will cut the wings but will not divide it into pieces. The priest will burn it on the altar where the firewood is. It is a burnt sacrifice, an offering by fire that smells sweet to God.'"
|
|-
|}

==Chapter 2==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|And when any will offer a meat offering unto the LORD, his offering shall be of fine flour; and he shall pour oil upon it, and put frankincense thereon:
|
|
|-
|2
|And he shall bring it to Aaron's sons the priests: and he shall take thereout his handful of the flour thereof, and of the oil thereof, with all the frankincense thereof; and the priest shall burn the memorial of it upon the altar, to be an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD:
|
|
|-
|3
|And the remnant of the meat offering shall be Aaron's and his sons': it is a thing most holy of the offerings of the LORD made by fire.
|
|
|-
|4
|And if thou bring an oblation of a meat offering baken in the oven, it shall be unleavened cakes of fine flour mingled with oil, or unleavened wafers anointed with oil.
|
|
|-
|5
|And if thy oblation be a meat offering baken in a pan, it shall be of fine flour unleavened, mingled with oil.
|
|
|-
|6
|Thou shalt part it in pieces, and pour oil thereon: it is a meat offering.
|
|
|-
|7
|And if thy oblation be a meat offering baken in the fryingpan, it shall be made of fine flour with oil.
|
|
|-
|8
|And thou shalt bring the meat offering that is made of these things unto the LORD: and when it is presented unto the priest, he shall bring it unto the altar.
|
|
|-
|9
|And the priest shall take from the meat offering a memorial thereof, and shall burn it upon the altar: it is an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD.
|
|
|-
|10
|And that which is left of the meat offering shall be Aaron's and his sons': it is a thing most holy of the offerings of the LORD made by fire.
|
|
|-
|11
|No meat offering, which ye shall bring unto the LORD, shall be made with leaven: for ye shall burn no leaven, nor any honey, in any offering of the LORD made by fire.
|
|
|-
|12
|As for the oblation of the firstfruits, ye shall offer them unto the LORD: but they shall not be burnt on the altar for a sweet savour.
|
|
|-
|13
|And every oblation of thy meat offering shalt thou season with salt; neither shalt thou suffer the salt of the covenant of thy God to be lacking from thy meat offering: with all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt.
|
|
|-
|14
|And if thou offer a meat offering of thy firstfruits unto the LORD, thou shalt offer for the meat offering of thy firstfruits green ears of corn dried by the fire, even corn beaten out of full ears.
|
|
|-
|15
|And thou shalt put oil upon it, and lay frankincense thereon: it is a meat offering.
|
|
|-
|16
|And the priest shall burn the memorial of it, part of the beaten corn thereof, and part of the oil thereof, with all the frankincense thereof: it is an offering made by fire unto the LORD.
|
|
|-
|}

==Chapter 3==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|And if his oblation be a sacrifice of peace offering, if he offer it of the herd; whether it be a male or female, he shall offer it without blemish before the LORD.
|
|
|-
|2
|And he shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering, and kill it at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation: and Aaron's sons the priests shall sprinkle the blood upon the altar round about.
|
|
|-
|3
|And he shall offer of the sacrifice of the peace offering an offering made by fire unto the LORD; the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat that is upon the inwards,
|
|
|-
|4
|And the two kidneys, and the fat that is on them, which is by the flanks, and the caul above the liver, with the kidneys, it shall he take away.
|
|
|-
|5
|And Aaron's sons shall burn it on the altar upon the burnt sacrifice, which is upon the wood that is on the fire: it is an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD.
|
|
|-
|6
|And if his offering for a sacrifice of peace offering unto the LORD be of the flock; male or female, he shall offer it without blemish.
|
|
|-
|7
|If he offer a lamb for his offering, then shall he offer it before the LORD.
|
|
|-
|8
|And he shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering, and kill it before the tabernacle of the congregation: and Aaron's sons shall sprinkle the blood thereof round about upon the altar.
|
|
|-
|9
|And he shall offer of the sacrifice of the peace offering an offering made by fire unto the LORD; the fat thereof, and the whole rump, it shall he take off hard by the backbone; and the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat that is upon the inwards,
|
|
|-
|10
|And the two kidneys, and the fat that is upon them, which is by the flanks, and the caul above the liver, with the kidneys, it shall he take away.
|
|
|-
|11
|And the priest shall burn it upon the altar: it is the food of the offering made by fire unto the LORD.
|
|
|-
|12
|And if his offering be a goat, then he shall offer it before the LORD.
|
|
|-
|13
|And he shall lay his hand upon the head of it, and kill it before the tabernacle of the congregation: and the sons of Aaron shall sprinkle the blood thereof upon the altar round about.
|
|
|-
|14
|And he shall offer thereof his offering, even an offering made by fire unto the LORD; the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat that is upon the inwards,
|
|
|-
|15
|And the two kidneys, and the fat that is upon them, which is by the flanks, and the caul above the liver, with the kidneys, it shall he take away.
|
|
|-
|16
|And the priest shall burn them upon the altar: it is the food of the offering made by fire for a sweet savour: all the fat is the LORD's.
|
|
|-
|17
|It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood.
|
|
|-
|}

==Chapter 4==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
|
|
|-
|2
|Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and shall do against any of them:
|
|
|-
|3
|If the priest that is anointed do sin according to the sin of the people; then let him bring for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto the LORD for a sin offering.
|
|
|-
|4
|And he shall bring the bullock unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD; and shall lay his hand upon the bullock's head, and kill the bullock before the LORD.
|
|
|-
|5
|And the priest that is anointed shall take of the bullock's blood, and bring it to the tabernacle of the congregation:
|
|
|-
|6
|And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood seven times before the LORD, before the vail of the sanctuary.
|
|
|-
|7
|And the priest shall put some of the blood upon the horns of the altar of sweet incense before the LORD, which is in the tabernacle of the congregation: and shall pour all the blood of the bullock at the bottom of the altar of the burnt offering, which is at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
|
|
|-
|8
|And he shall take off from it all the fat of the bullock for the sin offering; the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat that is upon the inwards,
|
|
|-
|9
|And the two kidneys, and the fat that is upon them, which is by the flanks, and the caul above the liver, with the kidneys, it shall he take away,
|
|
|-
|10
|As it was taken off from the bullock of the sacrifice of peace offerings: and the priest shall burn them upon the altar of the burnt offering.
|
|
|-
|11
|And the skin of the bullock, and all his flesh, with his head, and with his legs, and his inwards, and his dung,
|
|
|-
|12
|Even the whole bullock shall he carry forth without the camp unto a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn him on the wood with fire: where the ashes are poured out shall he be burnt.
|
|
|-
|13
|And if the whole congregation of Israel sin through ignorance, and the thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly, and they have done somewhat against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which should not be done, and are guilty;
|
|
|-
|14
|When the sin, which they have sinned against it, is known, then the congregation shall offer a young bullock for the sin, and bring him before the tabernacle of the congregation.
|
|
|-
|15
|And the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands upon the head of the bullock before the LORD: and the bullock shall be killed before the LORD.
|
|
|-
|16
|And the priest that is anointed shall bring of the bullock's blood to the tabernacle of the congregation:
|
|
|-
|17
|And the priest shall dip his finger in some of the blood, and sprinkle it seven times before the LORD, even before the vail.
|
|
|-
|18
|And he shall put some of the blood upon the horns of the altar which is before the LORD, that is in the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall pour out all the blood at the bottom of the altar of the burnt offering, which is at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
|
|
|-
|19
|And he shall take all his fat from him, and burn it upon the altar.
|
|
|-
|20
|And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin offering, so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them.
|
|
|-
|21
|And he shall carry forth the bullock without the camp, and burn him as he burned the first bullock: it is a sin offering for the congregation.
|
|
|-
|22
|When a ruler hath sinned, and done somewhat through ignorance against any of the commandments of the LORD his God concerning things which should not be done, and is guilty;
|
|
|-
|23
|Or if his sin, wherein he hath sinned, come to his knowledge; he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a male without blemish:
|
|
|-
|24
|And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the goat, and kill it in the place where they kill the burnt offering before the LORD: it is a sin offering.
|
|
|-
|25
|And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out his blood at the bottom of the altar of burnt offering.
|
|
|-
|26
|And he shall burn all his fat upon the altar, as the fat of the sacrifice of peace offerings: and the priest shall make an atonement for him as concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven him.
|
|
|-
|27
|And if any one of the common people sin through ignorance, while he doeth somewhat against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and be guilty;
|
|
|-
|28
|Or if his sin, which he hath sinned, come to his knowledge: then he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned.
|
|
|-
|29
|And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering.
|
|
|-
|30
|And the priest shall take of the blood thereof with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out all the blood thereof at the bottom of the altar.
|
|
|-
|31
|And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat is taken away from off the sacrifice of peace offerings; and the priest shall burn it upon the altar for a sweet savour unto the LORD; and the priest shall make an atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him.
|
|
|-
|32
|And if he bring a lamb for a sin offering, he shall bring it a female without blemish.
|
|
|-
|33
|And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay it for a sin offering in the place where they kill the burnt offering
|
|
|-
|34
|And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out all the blood thereof at the bottom of the altar:
|
|
|-
|35
|And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat of the lamb is taken away from the sacrifice of the peace offerings; and the priest shall burn them upon the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the LORD: and the priest shall make an atonement for his sin that he hath committed, and it shall be forgiven him.
|
|
|-
|}

==Chapter 5==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|And if a soul sin, and hear the voice of swearing, and is a witness, whether he hath seen or known of it; if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity.
|
|
|-
|2
|Or if a soul touch any unclean thing, whether it be a carcase of an unclean beast, or a carcase of unclean cattle, or the carcase of unclean creeping things, and if it be hidden from him; he also shall be unclean, and guilty.
|
|
|-
|3
|Or if he touch the uncleanness of man, whatsoever uncleanness it be that a man shall be defiled withal, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty.
|
|
|-
|4
|Or if a soul swear, pronouncing with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatsoever it be that a man shall pronounce with an oath, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty in one of these.
|
|
|-
|5
|And it shall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these things, that he shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing:
|
|
|-
|6
|And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD for his sin which he hath sinned, a female from the flock, a lamb or a kid of the goats, for a sin offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his sin.
|
|
|-
|7
|And if he be not able to bring a lamb, then he shall bring for his trespass, which he hath committed, two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, unto the LORD; one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering.
|
|
|-
|8
|And he shall bring them unto the priest, who shall offer that which is for the sin offering first, and wring off his head from his neck, but shall not divide it asunder:
|
|
|-
|9
|And he shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin offering upon the side of the altar; and the rest of the blood shall be wrung out at the bottom of the altar: it is a sin offering.
|
|
|-
|10
|And he shall offer the second for a burnt offering, according to the manner: and the priest shall make an atonement for him for his sin which he hath sinned, and it shall be forgiven him.
|
|
|-
|11
|But if he be not able to bring two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he that sinned shall bring for his offering the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon: for it is a sin offering.
|
|
|-
|12
|Then shall he bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it, even a memorial thereof, and burn it on the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the LORD: it is a sin offering.
|
|
|-
|13
|And the priest shall make an atonement for him as touching his sin that he hath sinned in one of these, and it shall be forgiven him: and the remnant shall be the priest's, as a meat offering.
|
|
|-
|14
|And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
|
|
|-
|15
|If a soul commit a trespass, and sin through ignorance, in the holy things of the LORD; then he shall bring for his trespass unto the LORD a ram without blemish out of the flocks, with thy estimation by shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary, for a trespass offering:
|
|
|-
|16
|And he shall make amends for the harm that he hath done in the holy thing, and shall add the fifth part thereto, and give it unto the priest: and the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering, and it shall be forgiven him.
|
|
|-
|17
|And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the LORD; though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.
|
|
|-
|18
|And he shall bring a ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation, for a trespass offering, unto the priest: and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his ignorance wherein he erred and wist it not, and it shall be forgiven him.
|
|
|-
|19
|It is a trespass offering: he hath certainly trespassed against the LORD.
|
|
|-
|}

==Chapter 6==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
|
|
|-
|2
|If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the LORD, and lie unto his neighbour in that which was delivered him to keep, or in fellowship, or in a thing taken away by violence, or hath deceived his neighbour;
|
|
|-
|3
|Or have found that which was lost, and lieth concerning it, and sweareth falsely; in any of all these that a man doeth, sinning therein:
|
|
|-
|4
|Then it shall be, because he hath sinned, and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he took violently away, or the thing which he hath deceitfully gotten, or that which was delivered him to keep, or the lost thing which he found,
|
|
|-
|5
|Or all that about which he hath sworn falsely; he shall even restore it in the principal, and shall add the fifth part more thereto, and give it unto him to whom it appertaineth, in the day of his trespass offering.
|
|
|-
|6
|And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, a ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation, for a trespass offering, unto the priest:
|
|
|-
|7
|And the priest shall make an atonement for him before the LORD: and it shall be forgiven him for any thing of all that he hath done in trespassing therein.
|
|
|-
|8
|And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
|
|
|-
|9
|Command Aaron and his sons, saying, This is the law of the burnt offering: It is the burnt offering, because of the burning upon the altar all night unto the morning, and the fire of the altar shall be burning in it.
|
|
|-
|10
|And the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen breeches shall he put upon his flesh, and take up the ashes which the fire hath consumed with the burnt offering on the altar, and he shall put them beside the altar.
|
|
|-
|11
|And he shall put off his garments, and put on other garments, and carry forth the ashes without the camp unto a clean place.
|
|
|-
|12
|And the fire upon the altar shall be burning in it; it shall not be put out: and the priest shall burn wood on it every morning, and lay the burnt offering in order upon it; and he shall burn thereon the fat of the peace offerings.
|
|
|-
|13
|The fire shall ever be burning upon the altar; it shall never go out.
|
|
|-
|14
|And this is the law of the meat offering: the sons of Aaron shall offer it before the LORD, before the altar.
|
|
|-
|15
|And he shall take of it his handful, of the flour of the meat offering, and of the oil thereof, and all the frankincense which is upon the meat offering, and shall burn it upon the altar for a sweet savour, even the memorial of it, unto the LORD.
|
|
|-
|16
|And the remainder thereof shall Aaron and his sons eat: with unleavened bread shall it be eaten in the holy place; in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation they shall eat it.
|
|
|-
|17
|It shall not be baken with leaven. I have given it unto them for their portion of my offerings made by fire; it is most holy, as is the sin offering, and as the trespass offering.
|
|
|-
|18
|All the males among the children of Aaron shall eat of it. It shall be a statute for ever in your generations concerning the offerings of the LORD made by fire: every one that toucheth them shall be holy.
|
|
|-
|19
|And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
|
|
|-
|20
|This is the offering of Aaron and of his sons, which they shall offer unto the LORD in the day when he is anointed; the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a meat offering perpetual, half of it in the morning, and half thereof at night.
|
|
|-
|21
|In a pan it shall be made with oil; and when it is baken, thou shalt bring it in: and the baken pieces of the meat offering shalt thou offer for a sweet savour unto the LORD.
|
|
|-
|22
|And the priest of his sons that is anointed in his stead shall offer it: it is a statute for ever unto the LORD, it shall be wholly burnt.
|
|
|-
|23
|For every meat offering for the priest shall be wholly burnt: it shall not be eaten.
|
|
|-
|24
|And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
|
|
|-
|25
|Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, saying, This is the law of the sin offering: In the place where the burnt offering is killed shall the sin offering be killed before the LORD: it is most holy.
|
|
|-
|26
|The priest that offereth it for sin shall eat it: in the holy place shall it be eaten, in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation.
|
|
|-
|27
|Whatsoever shall touch the flesh thereof shall be holy: and when there is sprinkled of the blood thereof upon any garment, thou shalt wash that whereon it was sprinkled in the holy place.
|
|
|-
|28
|But the earthen vessel wherein it is sodden shall be broken: and if it be sodden in a brasen pot, it shall be both scoured, and rinsed in water.
|
|
|-
|29
|All the males among the priests shall eat thereof: it is most holy.
|
|
|-
|30
|And no sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the tabernacle of the congregation to reconcile withal in the holy place, shall be eaten: it shall be burnt in the fire.
|
|
|-
|}

==Chapter 7==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Likewise this is the law of the trespass offering: it is most holy.
|
|
|-
|2
|In the place where they kill the burnt offering shall they kill the trespass offering: and the blood thereof shall he sprinkle round about upon the altar.
|
|
|-
|3
|And he shall offer of it all the fat thereof; the rump, and the fat that covereth the inwards,
|
|
|-
|4
|And the two kidneys, and the fat that is on them, which is by the flanks, and the caul that is above the liver, with the kidneys, it shall he take away:
|
|
|-
|5
|And the priest shall burn them upon the altar for an offering made by fire unto the LORD: it is a trespass offering.
|
|
|-
|6
|Every male among the priests shall eat thereof: it shall be eaten in the holy place: it is most holy.
|
|
|-
|7
|As the sin offering is, so is the trespass offering: there is one law for them: the priest that maketh atonement therewith shall have it.
|
|
|-
|8
|And the priest that offereth any man's burnt offering, even the priest shall have to himself the skin of the burnt offering which he hath offered.
|
|
|-
|9
|And all the meat offering that is baken in the oven, and all that is dressed in the fryingpan, and in the pan, shall be the priest's that offereth it.
|
|
|-
|10
|And every meat offering, mingled with oil, and dry, shall all the sons of Aaron have, one as much as another.
|
|
|-
|11
|And this is the law of the sacrifice of peace offerings, which he shall offer unto the LORD.
|
|
|-
|12
|If he offer it for a thanksgiving, then he shall offer with the sacrifice of thanksgiving unleavened cakes mingled with oil, and unleavened wafers anointed with oil, and cakes mingled with oil, of fine flour, fried.
|
|
|-
|13
|Besides the cakes, he shall offer for his offering leavened bread with the sacrifice of thanksgiving of his peace offerings.
|
|
|-
|14
|And of it he shall offer one out of the whole oblation for an heave offering unto the LORD, and it shall be the priest's that sprinkleth the blood of the peace offerings.
|
|
|-
|15
|And the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving shall be eaten the same day that it is offered; he shall not leave any of it until the morning.
|
|
|-
|16
|But if the sacrifice of his offering be a vow, or a voluntary offering, it shall be eaten the same day that he offereth his sacrifice: and on the morrow also the remainder of it shall be eaten:
|
|
|-
|17
|But the remainder of the flesh of the sacrifice on the third day shall be burnt with fire.
|
|
|-
|18
|And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings be eaten at all on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed unto him that offereth it: it shall be an abomination, and the soul that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity.
|
|
|-
|19
|And the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire: and as for the flesh, all that be clean shall eat thereof.
|
|
|-
|20
|But the soul that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings, that pertain unto the LORD, having his uncleanness upon him, even that soul shall be cut off from his people.
|
|
|-
|21
|Moreover the soul that shall touch any unclean thing, as the uncleanness of man, or any unclean beast, or any abominable unclean thing, and eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings, which pertain unto the LORD, even that soul shall be cut off from his people.
|
|
|-
|22
|And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
|
|
|-
|23
|Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Ye shall eat no manner of fat, of ox, or of sheep, or of goat.
|
|
|-
|24
|And the fat of the beast that dieth of itself, and the fat of that which is torn with beasts, may be used in any other use: but ye shall in no wise eat of it.
|
|
|-
|25
|For whosoever eateth the fat of the beast, of which men offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD, even the soul that eateth it shall be cut off from his people.
|
|
|-
|26
|Moreover ye shall eat no manner of blood, whether it be of fowl or of beast, in any of your dwellings.
|
|
|-
|27
|Whatsoever soul it be that eateth any manner of blood, even that soul shall be cut off from his people.
|
|
|-
|28
|And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
|
|
|-
|29
|Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, He that offereth the sacrifice of his peace offerings unto the LORD shall bring his oblation unto the LORD of the sacrifice of his peace offerings.
|
|
|-
|30
|His own hands shall bring the offerings of the LORD made by fire, the fat with the breast, it shall he bring, that the breast may be waved for a wave offering before the LORD.
|
|
|-
|31
|And the priest shall burn the fat upon the altar: but the breast shall be Aaron's and his sons'.
|
|
|-
|32
|And the right shoulder shall ye give unto the priest for an heave offering of the sacrifices of your peace offerings.
|
|
|-
|33
|He among the sons of Aaron, that offereth the blood of the peace offerings, and the fat, shall have the right shoulder for his part.
|
|
|-
|34
|For the wave breast and the heave shoulder have I taken of the children of Israel from off the sacrifices of their peace offerings, and have given them unto Aaron the priest and unto his sons by a statute for ever from among the children of Israel.
|
|
|-
|35
|This is the portion of the anointing of Aaron, and of the anointing of his sons, out of the offerings of the LORD made by fire, in the day when he presented them to minister unto the LORD in the priest's office;
|
|
|-
|36
|Which the LORD commanded to be given them of the children of Israel, in the day that he anointed them, by a statute for ever throughout their generations.
|
|
|-
|37
|This is the law of the burnt offering, of the meat offering, and of the sin offering, and of the trespass offering, and of the consecrations, and of the sacrifice of the peace offerings;
|
|
|-
|38
|Which the LORD commanded Moses in mount Sinai, in the day that he commanded the children of Israel to offer their oblations unto the LORD, in the wilderness of Sinai.
|
|
|-
|}

==Chapter 8==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
|
|
|-
|2
|Take Aaron and his sons with him, and the garments, and the anointing oil, and a bullock for the sin offering, and two rams, and a basket of unleavened bread;
|
|
|-
|3
|And gather thou all the congregation together unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
|
|
|-
|4
|And Moses did as the LORD commanded him; and the assembly was gathered together unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
|
|
|-
|5
|And Moses said unto the congregation, This is the thing which the LORD commanded to be done.
|
|
|-
|6
|And Moses brought Aaron and his sons, and washed them with water.
|
|
|-
|7
|And he put upon him the coat, and girded him with the girdle, and clothed him with the robe, and put the ephod upon him, and he girded him with the curious girdle of the ephod, and bound it unto him therewith.
|
|
|-
|8
|And he put the breastplate upon him: also he put in the breastplate the Urim and the Thummim.
|
|
|-
|9
|And he put the mitre upon his head; also upon the mitre, even upon his forefront, did he put the golden plate, the holy crown; as the LORD commanded Moses.
|
|
|-
|10
|And Moses took the anointing oil, and anointed the tabernacle and all that was therein, and sanctified them.
|
|
|-
|11
|And he sprinkled thereof upon the altar seven times, and anointed the altar and all his vessels, both the laver and his foot, to sanctify them.
|
|
|-
|12
|And he poured of the anointing oil upon Aaron's head, and anointed him, to sanctify him.
|
|
|-
|13
|And Moses brought Aaron's sons, and put coats upon them, and girded them with girdles, and put bonnets upon them; as the LORD commanded Moses.
|
|
|-
|14
|And he brought the bullock for the sin offering: and Aaron and his sons laid their hands upon the head of the bullock for the sin offering.
|
|
|-
|15
|And he slew it; and Moses took the blood, and put it upon the horns of the altar round about with his finger, and purified the altar, and poured the blood at the bottom of the altar, and sanctified it, to make reconciliation upon it.
|
|
|-
|16
|And he took all the fat that was upon the inwards, and caul above the liver, and the two kidneys, and their fat, and Moses burned it upon the altar.
|
|
|-
|17
|But the bullock, and his hide, his flesh, and his dung, he burnt with fire without the camp; as the LORD commanded Moses.
|
|
|-
|18
|And he brought the ram for the burnt offering: and Aaron and his sons laid their hands upon the head of the ram.
|
|
|-
|19
|And he killed it; and Moses sprinkled the blood upon the altar round about.
|
|
|-
|20
|And he cut the ram into pieces; and Moses burnt the head, and the pieces, and the fat.
|
|
|-
|21
|And he washed the inwards and the legs in water; and Moses burnt the whole ram upon the altar: it was a burnt sacrifice for a sweet savour, and an offering made by fire unto the LORD; as the LORD commanded Moses.
|
|
|-
|22
|And he brought the other ram, the ram of consecration: and Aaron and his sons laid their hands upon the head of the ram.
|
|
|-
|23
|And he slew it; and Moses took of the blood of it, and put it upon the tip of Aaron's right ear, and upon the thumb of his right hand, and upon the great toe of his right foot.
|
|
|-
|24
|And he brought Aaron's sons, and Moses put of the blood upon the tip of their right ear, and upon the thumbs of their right hands, and upon the great toes of their right feet: and Moses sprinkled the blood upon the altar round about.
|
|
|-
|25
|And he took the fat, and the rump, and all the fat that was upon the inwards, and the caul above the liver, and the two kidneys, and their fat, and the right shoulder:
|
|
|-
|26
|And out of the basket of unleavened bread, that was before the LORD, he took one unleavened cake, and a cake of oiled bread, and one wafer, and put them on the fat, and upon the right shoulder:
|
|
|-
|27
|And he put all upon Aaron's hands, and upon his sons' hands, and waved them for a wave offering before the LORD.
|
|
|-
|28
|And Moses took them from off their hands, and burnt them on the altar upon the burnt offering: they were consecrations for a sweet savour: it is an offering made by fire unto the LORD.
|
|
|-
|29
|And Moses took the breast, and waved it for a wave offering before the LORD: for of the ram of consecration it was Moses' part; as the LORD commanded Moses.
|
|
|-
|30
|And Moses took of the anointing oil, and of the blood which was upon the altar, and sprinkled it upon Aaron, and upon his garments, and upon his sons, and upon his sons' garments with him; and sanctified Aaron, and his garments, and his sons, and his sons' garments with him.
|
|
|-
|31
|And Moses said unto Aaron and to his sons, Boil the flesh at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation: and there eat it with the bread that is in the basket of consecrations, as I commanded, saying, Aaron and his sons shall eat it.
|
|
|-
|32
|And that which remaineth of the flesh and of the bread shall ye burn with fire.
|
|
|-
|33
|And ye shall not go out of the door of the tabernacle of the congregation in seven days, until the days of your consecration be at an end: for seven days shall he consecrate you.
|
|
|-
|34
|As he hath done this day, so the LORD hath commanded to do, to make an atonement for you.
|
|
|-
|35
|Therefore shall ye abide at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation day and night seven days, and keep the charge of the LORD, that ye die not: for so I am commanded.
|
|
|-
|36
|So Aaron and his sons did all things which the LORD commanded by the hand of Moses.
|
|
|-
|}

==Chapter 9==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|And it came to pass on the eighth day, that Moses called Aaron and his sons, and the elders of Israel;
|
|
|-
|2
|And he said unto Aaron, Take thee a young calf for a sin offering, and a ram for a burnt offering, without blemish, and offer them before the LORD.
|
|
|-
|3
|And unto the children of Israel thou shalt speak, saying, Take ye a kid of the goats for a sin offering; and a calf and a lamb, both of the first year, without blemish, for a burnt offering;
|
|
|-
|4
|Also a bullock and a ram for peace offerings, to sacrifice before the LORD; and a meat offering mingled with oil: for to day the LORD will appear unto you.
|
|
|-
|5
|And they brought that which Moses commanded before the tabernacle of the congregation: and all the congregation drew near and stood before the LORD.
|
|
|-
|6
|And Moses said, This is the thing which the LORD commanded that ye should do: and the glory of the LORD shall appear unto you.
|
|
|-
|7
|And Moses said unto Aaron, Go unto the altar, and offer thy sin offering, and thy burnt offering, and make an atonement for thyself, and for the people: and offer the offering of the people, and make an atonement for them; as the LORD commanded.
|
|
|-
|8
|Aaron therefore went unto the altar, and slew the calf of the sin offering, which was for himself.
|
|
|-
|9
|And the sons of Aaron brought the blood unto him: and he dipped his finger in the blood, and put it upon the horns of the altar, and poured out the blood at the bottom of the altar:
|
|
|-
|10
|But the fat, and the kidneys, and the caul above the liver of the sin offering, he burnt upon the altar; as the LORD commanded Moses.
|
|
|-
|11
|And the flesh and the hide he burnt with fire without the camp.
|
|
|-
|12
|And he slew the burnt offering; and Aaron's sons presented unto him the blood, which he sprinkled round about upon the altar.
|
|
|-
|13
|And they presented the burnt offering unto him, with the pieces thereof, and the head: and he burnt them upon the altar.
|
|
|-
|14
|And he did wash the inwards and the legs, and burnt them upon the burnt offering on the altar.
|
|
|-
|15
|And he brought the people's offering, and took the goat, which was the sin offering for the people, and slew it, and offered it for sin, as the first.
|
|
|-
|16
|And he brought the burnt offering, and offered it according to the manner.
|
|
|-
|17
|And he brought the meat offering, and took an handful thereof, and burnt it upon the altar, beside the burnt sacrifice of the morning.
|
|
|-
|18
|He slew also the bullock and the ram for a sacrifice of peace offerings, which was for the people: and Aaron's sons presented unto him the blood, which he sprinkled upon the altar round about,
|
|
|-
|19
|And the fat of the bullock and of the ram, the rump, and that which covereth the inwards, and the kidneys, and the caul above the liver:
|
|
|-
|20
|And they put the fat upon the breasts, and he burnt the fat upon the altar:
|
|
|-
|21
|And the breasts and the right shoulder Aaron waved for a wave offering before the LORD; as Moses commanded.
|
|
|-
|22
|And Aaron lifted up his hand toward the people, and blessed them, and came down from offering of the sin offering, and the burnt offering, and peace offerings.
|
|
|-
|23
|And Moses and Aaron went into the tabernacle of the congregation, and came out, and blessed the people: and the glory of the LORD appeared unto all the people.
|
|
|-
|24
|And there came a fire out from before the LORD, and consumed upon the altar the burnt offering and the fat: which when all the people saw, they shouted, and fell on their faces.
|
|
|-
|}

[[Category:Conservative Bible]]

Pascal's triangle

2010-06-03T19:51:54Z

ReligiousRight: /* Applications */

[[Image:Pascal.jpg|thumb|289px|right|Pascal's triangle up to row six]]

'''Pascal's triangle''' is a triangular arrangement of the coefficients of a binomial expansion. Although the it was discovered in the eleventh century, the triangle's full significance was first understood by 17th century mathematician and religious scholar [[Blaise Pascal]].<ref>http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kazimir/history.html</ref> Pascal's triangle is constructed by starting with a single 1, and then moving downward and out so that each new element is the sum of the two numbers diagonally above it. (Elements outside the triangle are considered to be zero.)

The top row of the triangle (containing just a single 1) is the 0th row, with rows below it being 1st, 2nd, and so on. The left-most element in each row (which will always be a 1) is the 0th element of that row, with the following elements continuing as 1st, 2nd, and so forth.

==Applications==
Pascal's triangle has numerous applications and properties, some of which are beyond the scope of this article.<ref>http://ptri1.tripod.com/</ref> Some are useful, others are merely interesting. Only a few of the more well-known applications of Pascal's triangle are described below.

===Binomial Expansion===
For the binomial <math>(a+b)^n</math>, the coefficients of the expansion are found in the nth row of Pascal's triangle. (Remember the top row is row 0.) For example, the binomial coefficients for <math>(a+b)^4</math> are the numbers in row 4 of the triangle.
<math>(a+b)^4=1a^4 + 4a^3b + 6a^2b^2 + 4ab^3 + 1b^4</math>

===Combinations===
For a [[Combinatorics#Combinations|mathematical combination]] of the form nCr, the solution can be found at row n, element r of Pascal's triangle. For the combination 5C3, the solution is the number at the 3rd element of the 5th row.
<math>5C3 = 10</math>

===Pascal's Rule===

Pascal's rule states that:
:<math> {n \choose r} = {n-1 \choose r-1} + {n-1 \choose r}</math>
In terms of the triangle, this simply means that an entry is the sum of two diagonal entries above it. It is easy to prove:
:<math> {n-1 \choose r-1} + {n-1 \choose r}</math>
:<math> = \frac{(n-1)!}{(r-1)!(n-1-(r-1)!}+ \frac{(n-1)!}{r!(n-1-r)!}</math>
:<math> = \frac{ (n-1)!r + (n-1)!(n-r)}{r!(n-r)!}</math>
:<math> = \frac{ (n-1)!( r + (n-r)}{r!(n-r)!}</math>
:<math> = \frac{n!}{r!(n-r)!} = {n \choose r}.</math>

==Further Reading==

*[http://ptri1.tripod.com/ All You Ever Wanted to Know About Pascal's Triangle and more]


==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Mathematics]]

Falsifiable

2010-06-02T17:01:01Z

ReligiousRight:

A proposition or theory is '''falsifiable''' if it is hypothetically possible for a test or observation to prove it false, regardless of the accuracy of the proposition.<ref>[http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O87-falsifiability.html Definition] A Dictionary of Psychology, Andrew M. Colman, via encyclopedia.com</ref> A proposal or theory that can never be shown to be false is not falsifiable.

To be considered [[scientific]], a [[hypothesis]] must be "[[falsifiable]]", i.e., capable of being proven false. If no one, not even the supporters of the hypothesis, can think of a way the hypothesis might be proven false, then most scientists would agree that it is not part of science (see [[pseudoscience]]). However, the [[history of science]] is full of examples whereby supporters of various theories refused to consider the prospect that someone might prove them wrong. Supporters of the [[evolution]] and [[global warming]] theories are like this.

For example, the suggestion that I would be very happy if I were ten years younger is not falsifiable, because it is impossible to test the hypothesis by making myself ten years younger and seeing how I feel.

Falsifiability is commonly used as a criterion for whether a particular proposition is "scientific." Philosopher [[Karl Popper]] popularized this criterion, arguing that science progresses through the process of "Observation, speculation, falsification;" That is, we observe the universe, we develop a speculative hypothesis about the universe, and we test our hypothesis. If our hypothesis is proven false, we discard it. If our hypothesis is not proven false, we can consider it provisionally true. According to Popper, there is no such thing as ''scientific certainty;'' on the contrary, all our beliefs are properly held ''provisionally,'' and always subject to the possibility that they will someday be disproven by experiment.

Popper, and those who agree with him, categorize many types of ideas as unfalsifiable, particularly in psychology and religion. For example, the proposition "Joe beats his children because his father beat him" is unfalsifiable, because we cannot perform a test in which Joe was ''not'' beaten by his father, and see if Joe still beats his children. Because the proposition is not testable, according to falsificationism, it is no better than any other hypothesis, and therefore not useful, and not scientific.

A good example of an unfalsiable concept is [[Black hole|black holes]]. By definition, they cannot be seen and thus are unfalsifiable.

==Carl Sagan==

In his book, ''Demon-Haunted World'' [[Carl Sagan]], a noted [[astronomer]], gives an example of a statement with this sort of premise saying: "There is a dragon in my garage." In order for one to prove or disprove the statement they are allowed to ask questions.

*''Q. Can I see the dragon?''
*A. No, the dragon is invisible.

*''Q. Can I touch the dragon?''
*A. No, my dragon is incorporeal.

*''Q. Can I hear the dragon?''
*A. No, my dragon is silent.

and so on...

In this way, every question can be answered and therefore the existence of the dragon is unfalsifiable. However, in the absence of physical or other evidence of its existence, whether the dragon actually exists or not is a matter of faith.

== G.K. Chesterton ==
[[G.K. Chesterton]], a Christian [[Christian apologetics|apologist]] of the early 20th century, articulated the problem of falsifiability several years before Popper. He wrote:<ref>G.K. Chesterton, ''Everlasting Man'', II.</ref>

{{QuoteBox|Science is weak about these prehistoric things in a way that has hardly been noticed. The science whose modern marvels we all admire succeeds by incessantly adding to its data. In all practical inventions, in most natural discoveries, it can always increase evidence by experiment. But it cannot experiment in making men; or even in watching to see what the first men make. An inventor can advance step by step in the construction of an aeroplane, even if he is only experimenting with sticks and scraps of metal in his own back-yard. But he cannot watch the Missing Link evolving in his own back-yard. If he has made a mistake in his calculations, the aeroplane will correct it by crashing to the ground. But if he has made a mistake about the arboreal habitat of his ancestor, he cannot see his arboreal ancestor falling off the tree. He cannot keep a cave-man like a cat in the back-yard and watch him to see whether he does really practice cannibalism or carry off his mate on the principles of marriage by capture. He cannot keep a tribe of primitive men like a pack of hounds and notice how far they are influenced by the herd instinct. If he sees a particular bird behave in a particular way, he can get other birds and see if they behave in that way; but if he finds a skull, or the scrap of a skull, in the hollow of a hill, he cannot multiply it into a vision of the valley of dry bones. In dealing with a past that has almost entirely perished, he can only go by evidence and not by experiment. And there is hardly enough evidence to be even evidential. Thus while most science moves in a sort of curve, being constantly corrected by new evidence, this science flies off into space in a straight line uncorrected by anything. But the habit of forming conclusions, as they can really be formed in more fruitful fields, is so fixed in the scientific mind that it cannot resist talking like this. It talks about the idea suggested by one scrap of bone as if it were something like the aeroplane which is constructed at last out of whole scrapheaps of scraps of metal. The trouble with the professor of the prehistoric is that he cannot scrap his scrap. The marvellous and triumphant aeroplane is made out of a hundred mistakes. The student of origins can only make one mistake and stick to it.}}

== See also ==
*[[Falsifiability of evolution]]
*[[Deduction]]
*[[Induction]]
[[category:science]]
[[category:philosophy]]
== Reference ==
<references />
<ref>addref</ref>

Evolution syndrome

2010-06-02T16:46:18Z

ReligiousRight:

'''Evolution [[syndrome]]''' is the tendency of some people to insist compulsively that human [[evolution]] from animals ''must'' somehow be true, and to spend nearly all of their time pushing that belief on others. It is reflected on the [[internet]] by people who devote over 90% of their edits and postings to pushing their belief in evolution and insisting on [[censoring]] or demonizing alternative views of the issue. They are particularly against teaching any alternative theories to children in school, sometimes claiming that this will harm children's critical thinking. A childish insistence on [[last wordism]] is a common characteristic of evolution syndrome.

Sufferers of evolution syndrome tend to be college students or graduates who wanted to excel in math or physics, but lacked the ability or work ethic to do so. They are frustrated "wannabees" with respect to academic recognition. But they find that [[liberals]] will praise their intelligence if they promote evolution. This is analogous to a struggling ball player deceitfully turning to steroids to enhance his performance, and thereby make it to the "Big Leagues."

Evolution syndrome blinds its victims to the logical fallacy of their [[materialism]]: if human senses have merely evolved, then it is to be expected that human senses have not developed to the point of being able to detect all of reality. Much of reality would still be "unseen" to an evolving human. Yet victims of evolution syndrome insist that there is nothing unseen, and no [[God]].

The primary effect of evolution syndrome is to keep its victims away from learning the [[Bible]]. Victims of this syndrome claim to be educated, yet justify their complete ignorance about the Bible in their slavish commitment to their evolution belief system.

Characteristics of evolution syndrome include:

*jargon like "[[quote mining]]," "moving the goalposts," and "fundie"
*easily amused by [[deceit]]
*an utter lack of [[open-mindedness]]
*a superficiality or pseudo-intellectualism
*a lack of critical thinking
*over-reliance on name-calling
*ruthlessly demanding "provable fact" by the other side while themselves insisting on unproven theories
*utter intolerance for [[Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed|other positions in science]]
*a complete lack of curiosity and knowledge about anything that might contradict [[materialism]], such as [[migration]] and [[homing]]
*a complete ignorance about the [[Bible]], even for its historical value, and even though evolutionists pretend to be learned
*tend to be irrational atheists

Evolution syndrome particularly afflicts people who have some educational background without having the intellectual depth of more accomplished peers. They are like minor league baseball players who take steroids to try to get to the major leagues: they think that harping on evolution will gain them credibility they lack based on their intellect. Evolution syndrome can be seen on [[wiki]]s, [[Usenet]] groups, faculty positions below full professorships, and some less selective doctoral programs.

There is a high incidence of [[atheism]] among this group and indeed, many if not most atheists suffer from evolution syndrome. Whether atheism is a cause of evolution syndrome or vice-versa is still to be discovered, but the number of [[Theistic_evolution|theistic Evolutionists]] suggest that the link is not absolute.

Keeping an open mind, not obsessing about one's own views, and avoiding the insistence that others should share in one's view are key to avoiding evolution syndrome.

== See Also ==

*[[Richard Dawkins]]

*[[Evolution]]

*[[Atheism]]

[[category: Syndromes]]
[[Category:Conservapedia Terms]]
[[Category:Liberal Traits]]

Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth

2010-06-02T16:36:25Z

ReligiousRight: /* Implausibility of the Ice Age Theory */

Equivalence relation

2010-06-02T02:24:40Z

ReligiousRight:

An '''equivalence relation''' is a mathematical [[relation]] (denoted by ~) which is [[Reflexivity|reflexive]], [[Symmetry|symmetric]], and [[Transitivity|transitive]].

1. Reflexive: a~a.

2. Symmetric: if a~b then b~a.

3. Transitive: if a~b and b~c, then a~c.

[[Equality]] and set [[Member|membership]] are the most basic equivalence relations, which is why they are often called trivial equivalence relations. Every equivalence relation is constructed from [[Irreducibility|irreducible]] equivalences.

[[Congruence|Congruence relations]] are examples of equivalence relations, as is the j-invariant of [[Elliptic_curve|elliptic curves]].

An equivalence relation on a set S [[Partition|partitions]] S into [[disjoint]] subsets, known as '''equivalence classes'''. Two objects in the same equivalence class are said to be '''equivalent'''.

Equivalence relations are the mathematical foundation for forming [[Quotient|quotients]].

[[Category:Mathematics]]

Velocity

2010-06-02T02:12:24Z

ReligiousRight:

The '''velocity''' of an object is a combination of both speed and direction: in formal terms, it is the rate of change of its [[displacement]] and direction of that change. If the position of an object is some [[function]] of [[time]], then the velocity is the [[derivative]] of that function:

:<math>\vec v(t)={\mathrm{d}\vec x \over \mathrm{d}t}</math>

where <math>\vec x</math> is the position and <math>\vec v</math> is the velocity. The velocity is a [[vector]], and its length or absolute value is called the ''[[speed]]''. The velocity has dimensions of length / time, and may thus be expressed in meters per seconds (in scientific usage), or miles per hour in more common usage.

For an object moving along a straight trajectory, if [[acceleration]] and velocity have the same sign, the object is gaining [[speed]]. If acceleration and velocity have different signs, the object is losing speed.

If velocity is [[zero]], [[acceleration]] is not necessarily zero. If acceleration is zero, velocity is constant, but not necessarily zero.

[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Mechanics]]

Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth

2010-06-02T02:03:28Z

ReligiousRight: /* Lakes again */

Intersect

2010-05-31T19:22:38Z

ReligiousRight:

Mathematical objects '''intersect''' when they have something in common. For example, the sets {1,2,3,4} and {2,4,6} intersect as {2,4}.

For two sets A and B, their '''intersection''' is written as A∩B and is formally defined as A∩B = {x|xϵA AND xϵB}.

From geometry we have another example. [[Euclid]] postulated that:
<blockquote>
When two lines are not parallel, they must intersect.
</blockquote>
[[Non-Euclidean geometry]] concerns [[Geometry|geometries]] where the conclusion need not hold.

[[category:mathematics]]

Gravitation

2010-05-31T18:49:26Z

ReligiousRight: /* Newtonian Gravitation */

'''Gravitation''' is the tendency for every object with [[mass]] to attract every other object with [[mass]]. Gravitation is what gives everyday objects [[Weight|weight]], and what causes objects that are dropped from a height to fall to the ground. Gravitation also keeps the [[Moon|moon]] in orbit around the [[Earth]] and the Earth in orbit around the [[Sun|sun]].

The attraction depends on the mass of the objects and the distance between them. The gravitational force between two persons is minuscule; however, the gravitational force between a person and the [[earth]] is quite significant. However, if the person gets in a spacecraft and flies halfway to the moon, the gravitational force between him and the earth will significantly decrease because they are farther apart. The force will never becomes zero no matter how far he goes from the earth; however, if he goes far enough away, it will be counterbalanced by other masses' gravitational force.

The mechanism which transports gravity has never been observed. [[Isaac Newton]] famously said about gravity, ''"Hypotheses non fingo,"'' or, "I make no hypotheses" about how it works. More recently, [[Albert Einstein]] hypothesized as part of [[general relativity]] that gravity is a fictitious force caused by masses distorting [[spacetime]] itself. [[Quantum mechanics]] denies this and hypothesizes instead that gravity is transmitted by a hypothetical particle, the [[graviton]], similar to how the electromagnetic force is transmitted by the [[photon]]. The debate continues as scientists try to reconcile general relativity with quantum mechanics.

== Scientific Theories of Gravitation ==

Over the past four centuries, many scientific [[Theory|theories]] of gravitation have been proposed. Three of these theories have gained sufficient widespread acceptance to be considered, for a time, "correct" theories.

=== Galilean Gravitation ===

Gravitation has been the subject of modern scientific study for about 400 years, beginning with the work of [[Galileo Galilei]] in the late 16th century. According to a biography written by his pupil, Vincenzo Viviani, Galileo dropped objects from the Leaning Tower of Pisa to demonstrate that objects fall at the same rate regardless of mass.<ref>Drake, Stillman. Galileo At Work. (1978)</ref> (Historians now disagree as to whether this experiment actually took place in the way Viviani described.) These results were in contradiction to the ancient Aristotelian conception of gravity, which stated that the speed of an object's fall was proportional to its weight.

Galileo also described a mathematical formula for the distance an object will fall in a given time, though his description was geometric rather than algebraic.<ref>Sharratt, Michael. Galileo: Decisive Innovator. (1994)</ref> His formula, that the distance fallen is proportional to the square of the elapsed time, or d ∝ t2, remains valid for many approximations today. However, Galileo's theory that the acceleration of gravity is independent on an object's height above the ground could not stand the test of time.

=== Newtonian Gravitation ===

In 1687, [[Sir Isaac Newton]] published his [[Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica|''Principia Mathematica'']], an exhaustive work that laid the foundation for what we know today as classical mechanics. In this work, Newton advanced his [[Law of Universal Gravitation|law of universal gravitation]]. Whereas Galileo described gravitation in terms of motion, Newton described it in terms of a [[Force|force]]. Gravitation itself went from the natural tendency of objects to fall to a vector [[Field theory|field theory]] in which the force between two objects was inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

Newton's vector equation for gravitation states that each particle in the [[universe]] attracts another particle with a force directly [[proportion]]al to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the [[exponentiation|square]] of the distance between them<ref>Serway and Beichner, Physics for Scientists and Engineers, Fifth Edition</ref>, or:

:<math>\mathbf{F} = -G \frac{m_1 m_2}{\vert {\mathbf{r}} \vert ^2} \mathbf{\hat{r}}</math>

Where:

*''F'' is the gravitational force vector.

*''m''1 and ''m''2 are the object's masses.

*''r'' is the vector that separates the objects' centers of mass.

* <math>\mathbf{\hat{r}}</math> is the unit vector of ''r''.

*''G'' is the [[gravitational constant]]: <math>\frac{6.67428 \times 10^{-11} N m^2}{kg^2}</math>

Near the surface of the Earth, where the difference in gravitational acceleration at different heights is very small, Newtonian gravitation "reduces" to, or is mathematically equivalent to within a known margin of error, Galilean gravitation. That is, both Galilean gravitation and Newtonian gravitation can reasonably describe the motion of falling apples and artillery shells. But further from the surface of the Earth, the errors in Galileo's approximation become too great, and Newton's model is required.

Newton's theory of gravitation stood, refined and reformulated, but essentially unchanged, for more than two centuries.

=== Einsteinian Gravitation ===

In 1915, [[Albert Einstein]] published his [[general theory of relativity]], a radical reinterpretation of the phenomenon of gravitation. Whereas Galileo described gravity in terms of motion, and Newton described gravity in terms of force, Einstein described gravity in terms of inertial motion in curved spacetime, such curvature being a function of the matter and fields in a given region. In the famous words of physicist John Wheeler, "Matter tells space how to curve, and space tells matter how to move."<ref>Misner, Thorne & Wheeler. Gravitation. (1973)</ref>

Just as the Newtonian theory reduced to Galilean gravitation near the surface of the Earth, Einstein's theory of gravitation reduces to Newtonian gravity where gravitational fields are relatively weak. Only when gravitational fields are strong, such as the field around the sun within the orbit of [[Mercury]], do Newton's equations fail to produce a good approximation of reality.

=== The Possibility of Quantum Gravitation ===

During the era when Newtonian gravity was preeminent, gravitation was considered to be one of the "fundamental forces of nature," along with electricity, magnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces. Over the years, this interpretation has fallen out of favor, for a variety of reasons. Research into [[electrodynamics]] revealed the electric and magnetic forces to be two aspects of the same thing, and [[quantum mechanics]] described the strong and weak forces in terms of interactions mediated by [[Boson|bosons]]. Further research into [[quantum chromodynamics]] and the [[Standard Model]] increased our understanding of how electromagnetism and the nuclear forces work, but gravitation remained a thing apart.

Over the past few decades, attention has been turned toward formulating a [[Quantum gravity|quantum field theory of gravity]] which would describe the gravitational interaction in terms of a mechanism similar to the electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear interactions.

Physicists do not universally agree that a quantum theory of gravity is inevitable, or even possible. Einstein's theory of gravitation described gravity in a way that is so fundamentally different from the other interactions in nature that many physicists no longer gravity to be a force at all. Rather, under the Einsteinian interpretation, gravitation is an inherent property of spacetime and has no analogue at the quantum level at all. Other physicists believe that the Einsteinian interpretation is merely a useful large-scale approximation of an interaction which we have not yet detected on the subatomic scale.

To date, no satisfactory theory of quantum gravity has been advanced, but research continues.

==External Links==
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i3/gravity.asp   Gravity: The Mystery Force]
*[http://www.relativitycalculator.com/Newton_Universal_Gravity_Law.shtml   Newton's Universal Law of Gravitational Force]

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:physics]]

Cross product

2010-05-31T18:38:29Z

ReligiousRight:

{{math-h}}

The '''cross product''' (or vector product) of two [[vector|vectors]] in 3-space is itself a vector in 3-space and is written <math>a\times b</math>. The magnitude of the resulting vector is

<math>
|a\times b|=|a| |b| \sin\theta
</math>

where <math>\theta</math> is the angle between the two vectors.

For two vectors <math>a=(a_1,a_2,a_3)</math> and <math>b=(b_1,b_2,b_3)</math>,

<math>a\times b = (a_2b_3-a_3b_2, a_3b_1-a_1b_3, a_1b_2-a_2b_1)</math>.

The direction of the cross product is normal to both of the vectors '''a''' and '''b'''. Since there are two such directions the chosen one is defined by the [[right hand rule]]: with your right hand, point your fingers along the direction of the first vector and curl them towards the second vector. The direction your thumb points gives the direction of the cross product. The cross product is a convenient way to find the volume of a [[parallelepiped]]. One may simply take the cross product of two legs and then find the dot product of that vector with the remaining leg (assuming that the legs are vectors). So, a [[parallelepiped]] with sides <math>a,b</math> and <math>c</math> will have a volume,<math>V</math>, of:

:<math>V = |a \cdot (b\times c)|.</math>

== Application ==

The cross product is used to find the torque and other parameters in physics, and is a clever way of finding the perpendicular vector to a plane.

Two of [[Maxwell's Equations]] make use of the cross product.

==See also==
*[[Dot product]]

[[Category:vector analysis]]
[[Category:calculus]]
[[Category:Linear algebra]]
[[Category:mathematics]]