Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Richard John Neuhaus

2009-06-12T12:50:15Z

RobbieKray: Rephrase poorly worded statement which makes me think of boxing.

'''Richard John Neuhaus''' (1936-2009) was the editor of the conservative monthly magazine ''First Things'', which also founded in 1990. He became a Catholic priest in 1991 and was an important spokesman for mainstream religious conservatism.

==Career==
In 1990 he also converted to Catholicism. Before then he was [[Lutheran]] pastor for some 30 years. He has written several books<ref>http://orlabs.oclc.org/identities/lccn-n50-3021 His Worldcat identity</ref>. His book ''The Naked Public Square: Religion and Democracy in America'' (1984) was widely reviewed. On January 8, 2009 he died, having struggled with with cancer.<ref>http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=31452&wf=rsscol</ref>

[[Image:Neuhaus.jpg|thumb|200px]]

==Natural law==
Neuhaus emphasized the central importance of "natural law". The concept originated with [[Aristotle]] and shaped Scholastic philosophy during the Middle Ages; it remains the mainstay of Catholic moral teaching. The basis of natural-law models is that the "oughts" come from "out there," that is, from God. [[Thomas Jefferson]] captured it well: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

==Evaluations==

*America v. 151 (Oct. 13 1984). <blockquote>
"{Neuhaus} here displays wide knowledge and incisive criticism regarding contemporary religious currents in the United States. . . . I learned a great deal from the book about the Protestant churches and their role in American society over the past two decades. . . . At the beginning of the book, Neuhaus had located himself politically in the 'vital center' of liberal democracy. However, because of his vagueness on specific issues, he might well give further reflection to his own perceptive comment: 'The center is usually not a viewpoint but an expedient place to be in the absence of viewpoints.'"
</blockquote>
*The American Enterprise v. 14 no. 6 (Sept. 2003).
*Choice v. 22 (Nov. 1984).
*Christianity Today v. 28 (Sept. 7 1984).
*Commentary v. 79 (Jan. 1985).
*Commonweal v. 111 (Aug. 10 1984).
<blockquote>
"{This} is an important book, coming onto the scene at a moment when the problems of democracy, public life, and religion are receiving a great deal of searching scrutiny. Neuhaus's argument deserves to be taken seriously, although the book does not present a sustained argument so much as a series of interconnected analyses, some of great import, such as the [[linkage]] of fundamentalists with secularists and the liberal churches. Yet the book is also flawed by too many fringe issues. It is not always logically consistent, especially in the section discussing some form of Communism as a likely candidate for filling the empty square, and certainly the extreme closeness of fit between religion and public philosophy in American history can and will be challenged. But, overall, this is a book worth reading, and more, worth thinking about."
</blockquote>
*National Review v. 36 (July 27 1984).
<blockquote>
"{This book} is a model of taking-everything-into-account. Neuhaus has read Cuddihy and John Courtney Murray, among many others, and he has conversed with both Jerry Falwell and Norman Lear. He is fair to everyone even as he is decisive. And his decisions are, as far as I can see, right. If this book is read as widely as it deserves to be, secular humanists (or whatever they're calling themselves these days) will henceforth have a hard time imposing their values while pretending they're morally neutral. The book's only fault is a sort of excess of fairness. . . . Neuhaus takes pains not to identify himself with the Right, but--intending no disrespect--I say he belongs with us. He certainly deserves our attention."
</blockquote>
*The Christian Century v. 102 (Mar. 13 1985).
*The New Republic v. 192 (June 10 1985).
*The New York Review of Books v. 31 (Oct. 11 1984).
*The New York Times Book Review (Aug. 26 1984).
<blockquote>
"Mr. Neuhaus is a Lutheran pastor, a gifted theologian and an experienced activist. His was a leading voice in the religious community's opposition to the Vietnam War. He also knows politics at first hand. . . . {This} is a substantial book. It should be read by anyone concerned with the current debates over the emergence of the 'new Christian right,' which Mr. Neuhaus believes may help restore genuine democracy in America--albeit inadvertently--by including more people, more interests and more modes of discourse. I strongly agree with what I take to be the book's main thesis. . . . I sometimes find Mr. Neuhaus's applications of this thesis so questionable as to mar a case that desperately needs to be heard."
</blockquote>
*Christianity and Crisis v. 44 (Oct. 29 1984).
*Commonweal v. 115 (Mar. 11 1988).
*Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review v. 21 (Wint 1986).
*Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion v. 24 (Sept. 1985).
*Journal of Law and Religion v. 8 (1990).
*Missouri Law Review v. 50 (Wint 1985).
*Society v. 23 (Nov./Dec. 1985).
*The Humanist v. 45 (May/June 1985).
*The Review of Politics v. 47 (Jan. 1985).
*The Western Political Quarterly v. 41 (Dec. 1988).
*Theology Today v. 42 (July 1985).
*Zygon v. 20 (June 1985).</ref> and has been influential.
==Books by Neuhaus==
* ''American Babylon: Notes of a Christian Exile'' (2009) 270 pp.
* ''Catholic Matters: Confusion, Controversy, And the Splendor of Truth'' (2007)
* ''The Best of "The Public Square" Book 3'' (2007), collected columns
** ''The Best of the Public Square: Book 2'' (2001)
** ''The Best of The Public square: Selections from Richard John Neuhaus' celebrated column in First Things'' (1997)
* ''As I Lay Dying: Meditations Upon Returning'' (2003)
* ''To Empower People: From State to Civil Society'' (1996) - Co-authored with Peter Berger.
* ''America Against Itself: Moral Vision and the Public Order'' (1992)
* ''The Catholic Moment: The Paradox of the Church in the Postmodern World'' (1987)
* ''The Naked Public Square: Religion and Democracy in America'' (1986)

==External links==
* [http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1650 "C. S. Lewis in the Public Square"], December 1, 1998, ''First Things''
* [http://richardjneuhaus.blogspot.com/ obituaries]
* [http://richardjneuhaus.blogspot.com/2009/01/books-by-father-richard-john-neuhaus.html Notes on his books]
==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Conservatism]]

Essay:Conservapedia's Law

2009-06-12T12:47:06Z

RobbieKray:

'''Conservapedia's Law''' is the observation that [[conservative]] insights increase over time at a [[geometric progression|geometric rate]], as in 1-2-4-8-16-etc.

For example, there is a doubling in effective [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|new conservative terms]] per century.

'''Conservapedia's Law''' is analogous to [[Moore's Law]], which holds that the rate of increase in the number of transistors per chip roughly doubles every two years.

== Implications ==

The implications of '''Conservapedia's Law''' are striking. Over the long term, politics and culture cannot withstand the more powerful forces of logic and language. Conservapedia's Law ensures that a free society will, over time, inevitably become more conservative regardless of the best efforts of [[liberals]]. Of course [[liberal deceit]] can cause much suffering during that process.

Another implication is that [[Wikipedia]], in order to survive, will inevitably feel compelled to adopt principles similar to [[Conservapedia]]'s. The [[liberal]] practices and rules underlying Wikipedia will either be abandoned or lead it to inevitable ruin.

A third implication concerns how best to promote progress through conservative values. Historically conservatives have tended to rely on control and tradition, as in emphasizing what has proven to work in the past. But if conservative insights increase geometrically over time, then a better approach may be to welcome and promote new wisdom in addition to established understandings.

A fourth implication concerns the rate of the discovery of truth. How quickly is truth discovered in a free society? Conservapedia's Law suggests that truth is discovered at a geometric rate, much faster than an [[arithmetic progression|arithmetic rate]].

== See also ==
*[[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]]

[[Category:Essays]]
[[Category:Conservatism]]

Talk:Essay:Conservapedia's Law

2009-06-12T12:05:52Z

RobbieKray:

While this an interesting entry, I think it needs some clarification. I'm not entirely sure what the argument is and I think if it included some sources to back up its claims, it would be a strong essay. Furthermore, the one assertion that societies will inevitably adopt conservative ideologies needs to be backed up with sources and examples. Looking historically, we can see liberal ideologies and policies becoming much more prominent in many societies, such as environmental movements, same-sex marriage rights, gun control and so on. So if things are to continue in this way, wouldn't that point to societies becoming more liberal in the future? I think these issues could be cleared up with more clarification and more support. - Cjohnston.

:The entry is just as clear as [[Moore's Law]] is, which you seem to understand without difficulty. Why the difficulty here? It's not due to any ambiguity in the entry. By the way, you're wrong about [[gun control]]: the nation is far more conservative on that issue now than 5, 10, 15, or 20 years ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:42, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

::I'm not sure if it is as clear as Moore's Law. But my main concern deals more with its lack of support. You make some pretty strong claims, but you need to back them up with concrete examples or sources that prove your argument to be correct. Right now, your essay is lacking this, it is merely an argument without support. It is like an essay that only has an introduction but not a body or a conclusion, so the reader is left thinking: where's the rest? I am very interested in hearing some examples or more proof of what you are arguing as I think it would be rather intriguing. And my mistake on the gun control part - Cjohnston.

:::I gave over 150 examples: see [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]] and the geometric pattern it displays.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:04, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

::::I don’t understand the connection between the argument you present in the essay with that of the Best New Conservative Words. Looking at the extensive list of conservative words, many of them are not distinctly conservative, nor does the list demonstrate how societies will become conservative over time. Some of the terms presented in the list do not point to strengthening conservative though, ie. Anti-Christian, tax and spend, or tree huggers that appear to be liberal terms, as well as the many general terms that are not necessarily attached to any ideological thinking. I think you need to establish this connection more clearly in order to clarify how new conservative words displays the geometric pattern. I think this will allow for a stronger argument to your essay. - Cjohnston

:::::You could provide only three examples to support your objection, but all three of your examples represent conservative insights about liberal behavior.

:::::More than 150 terms in [[Essay:Best New Conservatives Words]] demonstrate that conservative insights increase geometrically, and that has strong implications. I did not expect that rapid increase, by the way; it was the result of looking at the evidence with an open mind. Sometimes when the curve departed from the geometric fit, the correction of a mistake would unexpectedly bring it closer to the fit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:45, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

::::::There are more than just three examples from the list of new conservative words that are not distinctly conservative. Also, I’m not sure if making the argument that conservative insights increase geometrically based on the word list is all that quantifiable. Words and language evolve and develop for a variety of reasons and it would be difficult if not impossible to attribute a words creation or popular use, for example, productivity, altruism, incompleteness, initiative, insightful, elitism, deflation, accountability, hysteria, leverage, local, motivation, optimism, phonics, potential, quantify, self-reliant, self-defence, vandalism, veracity, victimization, work ethic, etc, to conservative thought. However, it would be an interesting project to undertake, albeit a time consuming one. My point is that you need to develop a stronger argument for the theory that these conservative words are increasing geometrically with proof that they are developed because of conservative thought, and that conservative thought will continue to grow. Stating that they increase geometrically with no support to back it up, besides the observation that the number of terms increases from century to century is not a strong enough argument, for me anyway. I want there to be the support and sources to back it up. I’d be willing to assist in developing this argument further. - Cjohnston

:::::::Your long-winded reply was unresponsive. You denied that Anti-Christian, tax and spend, and tree huggers are conservative terms. Obviously you were wrong about that, but rather than admit it, you now claim that other terms (e.g., self-defense, note my spelling) are not conservative. I don't have time to explain each of these concepts to you, and you don't seem to have an open-mind about this issue anyway. If you want "support and sources" for an original insight, you're not going to find them. Try Wikipedia if you prefer liberal regurgitation of what is in the newspaper.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:54, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

== Did I do something wrong? ==

Why was my expansion on moores law reverted? --[[User:CJHallock|CJHallock]] 22:37, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

:I didn't revert it, but I see why it was reverted. You introduced unhelpful complexity to a simple analogy. Your edit obscured rather than clarified, and earned a reversion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:41, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

== Essay? ==

Do you mind if I ask what "Essay:X" means? I just saw a page similar to this which had no "Essay:" in the title, so I'm wondering if this page has been misnamed and the essay part should be taken out. --[[User:RobbieKray|RobbieKray]] 08:05, 12 June 2009 (EDT)