Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Atheism

2013-08-11T22:14:07Z

RonaldV: /* Politics */

{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Atheism/Archive_Set_1|List of Archives]]
|}
__TOC__


== global atheism is shrinking - newest data ==

Global atheism is shrinking - newest data:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/global-study-atheists-decline-only-18-world-population-2020

http://www.christianpost.com/news/study-world-is-turning-more-religious-atheism-declining-100518/

Incorporate into article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:59, 9 August 2013 (EDT)

==Politics==
Cons, why is it that we only have an "[[Atheism and communism]]" Section here? Remember the page Atheism and Politics? Surely we should have a section here that redirects to that ( and that section affirms that Atheists are in all variety of political colors) or we include "Atheism and Liberalism" and "Atheism and Conservatism" into this page. Though I was thinking of creating a page for the Latter two...thoughts? [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 15:34, 10 August 2013 (GMT)
:Why are you asking me something you already know the answer to? I am assuming that you are intelligent to know that [[communism]] is a subset of politics.

:And it was and is a very significant subset. For example, according to the [[University of Cambridge]], historically, the "most notable spread of atheism was achieved through the success of the 1917 Russian Revolution, which brought the [[Marxism-Leninism|Marxist-Leninists]] to power."[http://www.investigatingatheism.info/marxism.html] And atheistic communist China/Korea have a significant amount of people under atheist leaders who still persecute people (including Christians) of religions other than the [[Atheism is a religion|religion of atheism]].[http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/february-web-only/persecution-in-china-is-very-real.html][http://www.persecution.org/2013/06/24/china-still-persecuting-christians-just-better-at-hiding-it/]

:Your complaint helps illustrate that many atheists have a penchant for engaging in the [[fallacy of exclusion]]. Please stop engaging in childish and unwarranted gamesmanship. It confirms in people's minds that atheism is a illegitimate and false religion practiced by unreasonable and deceitful people. See: [[Atheism and deception]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:49, 10 August 2013 (EDT)

::Ever hear of the term "swing and a miss"? You have completely ignored my point and have somehow made your own. My point was about the fallacy of exclusion as you have excluded all evidence that does not fit into your personal vendetta against atheism. Now onto your point, I am not denying that Marxism/Leninism proponents were Atheists. I am denying the claim that All Atheists are on the left or that everything you say is true of all Atheists. I am living proof that Atheists can be on the right wing as is David Hume and Ayn Rand. (and I know what you are about to say about David Hume and let me stop you there. Atheism and Agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Personally I am an Agnostic-Atheist). Now, on a more personal note, I find it farcical that you would call Atheism childish and then instantly start name-calling and mud-slinging. Now, I am not about to go down the line of you calling me an "unreasonable and deceitful" person because I'll just see the benefit of the doubt and hope that you didn't mean me. If you did, then you have just proven yourself to be unreasonable and almost insecure because you can't seem to be secure in your own belief unless everyone else around you believes it. You know, an original tenet of the Republican Party (In the USA) was a policy called Pluralism, also known as "let the people have their faith" (and lack of it). You seem to be defying old conservative tenets with your insistence of trying to stamp out or omit anyone who does not think exactly like you. There is a difference between logical debate with reasoned argument and your policy of mud-slinging. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 18:52, 10 August 2013 (GMT)
Ryancsh, first, do you hold to [[social conservatism]]? Are you pro-life? What are your thoughts on [[homosexuality]]? Setting aside the issue of whether or not there should be public schools. as far as religious freedom, do you think that school prayer should be allowed in public schools? Should public school valedictorians be allowed to speak about their Christian faith at high school commencements? Do you think that the teaching of evolution should be mandatory in public schools? In private schools?

Next, at the apex of the [[New Atheism]], the [[User: Conservative]] account did largely create the extensive Conservapedia article on atheism. Yet, this does not necessarily mean that I have a vendetta against atheism. Currently, [[global atheism]] is shrinking and there is sound scholarship indicating that this shrinking will accelerate. I regard the [[Atheism is a religion|atheist religion]] somewhat similar to other errant religions in the past which waned such as Baal worship or ancient Roman religions with the caveat that it probably will not completely die out as far as adherents until the Second Coming of Christ due to doubt being a part of the human condition since the [[Fall of man]]. Atheism is intellectually dead though. For example, prominent atheists/evolutionists unwilling to debate evolution and previously losing their series of debates in the 1970s (see: [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]]).

In addition, in order to have a vendetta against something you have to think about it often. And as of late, although there is a persistent atheist who wants to garner my attention (who is afraid to debate [[VivaYehshua]]) and other atheists who want to grab my attention, I am spending less and less time thinking about the topic atheism. Not only is the religion of atheism foolish and errant, but I am agreeing more and more with the sentiments of [[John Updike]] who remarked that "Among the repulsions of atheism for me has been its drastic un-interestingness as an intellectual position. Where was the ingenuity, the ambiguity, the humanity of saying that the universe just happened to happen and that when we're dead we're dead?". However, there were recently a few matters that wanted to add to Conservapedia's content about atheism as I thought they were germane (incorporation a politics section into the atheism article which I promised someone that I would do and the [[Atheist hypocrisy]] article). In short, why think much about a religion that is foolish, dying at an increasing rate and uninteresting (and the atheist religion has all three attributes)?

By the way, it seems as if [[Shockofgod]] is less interested in the topic of atheism as well. He is doing less videos on atheism as of late. Also, although [[Mariano Grinbank]], the author of [http://creation.com/atheism this extensive online article on atheism] featured at [[Creation Ministries International]], still writes about atheism, he may be writing about it less often relative to other [[Christian apologetics]] topics he writes about it. See: [http://www.examiner.com/worldview-and-science-in-national/mariano-grinbank?page=1 Worldview and science Examiner]. So it seems as if many people are less interested in atheism since the apex of the [[New Atheism]] (interest in the New Atheism and [[Richard Dawkins]] is a shadow of its former self).[http://www.conservapedia.com/Richard_Dawkins%27_loss_of_influence]

Lastly, I made a suggestion that you create an article on the [[secular right]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:24, 10 August 2013 (EDT)

:To Answer your first point, I do hold many values that would be socially conservative. My work on the [[Abortion and adoption]] article and my interest in pro-life campaigns within the Conservative Party would indicate that I am Pro-Life. On the topic of School Prayer, I have always thought that it should be at a schools discretion or that the parents in a public-school's catchment area should decide. Having said that, I support an op-out system for students who are not Christian (i.e. Jewish, Muslim, Atheist) but that the minority should not rule over the rights of the majority. (Pluralism, which I hold, agrees with a dominate culture and religion so long as it allows other cultures and religions to exist peacefully). I am actually in favor of not teaching anything that is not scientific fact. Natural selection should be taught and students should be made aware that Evolution the origin of species is a theory based of the idea of natural selection over millions of years. Apart from that, I really don't care. As I have mentioned before, evolution is not my subject. My position (in terms of Atheism) is "You have not convinced me that your claim of a God is true. As such, I will not believe it as I have seen no good evidence for such an extraordinary claim." Private schools should reserve the right to teach what they wish so long as they can get their pupils to pass exams.

:Now, I think that the fact that the vast majority of Articles with the Title "Atheism And____" are either created by you or are severely edited by your or are only ever edited by you (one of the three) kind of shows that you have a fixation on Atheism. For what reason, I do not know. Now, I would highly dispute the claim that Atheism is a religion, but I do not think this is the place to do it. What I would advise you to do, would be to stop trying to pigeon-hole all Atheists. That is severe generalization (which in the UK is seen as trait of the Socialist Labour Party)and should be stopped. I am not sure how it works in the USA, but in the UK, Conservatives believe in setting out a well-defined argument with well-defined logical reasoning ( not overly-quoting or using arguments from authority) so that those who are listen arive to their own conclusion rather than us having to force-feed it. I think that if you applied that to Atheism Articles, they would seem a lot more intellectly rounded. I say this because, from my perspective at least, the current Article seems more like a highly aggravated rant on Atheism in general.

:Also, I will write that Article when I have time...assuming Conservapedia doesn't lock me out again. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 20:25, 10 August 2013 (GMT)
::Ryancsh, true conservatives believe in liberty and because you believe that Darwinism, an unsupported tenet of your religion of agnosticism/atheism, should be mandatory and paid for by taxpayers, this helps show me that you are not a true conservative. And I strongly believe that you are unwilling and afraid to debate [[VivaYehshua]] on the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions] for evolutionists.

::Lastly, like many atheist criticisms of [[User: Conservative]] account material on atheism, you were vague and were not specific. You certainly did not point out a single factual error in the [[atheism]] article! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:16, 10 August 2013 (EDT)
:::Ryancsh, one other thing, how many people have edited using the [[User: Conservative]] account? How many people have edited atheism related content using the User: Conservative account? No true skeptic would insist that [[User: Conservative]] account editing was merely the work of one person. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:20, 10 August 2013 (EDT)

Okay let's get this straightened out right now. Because I am sick and tired of your farcical accusations of Atheism being a religion with Darwinism as a tenet. Atheism and Darwinism have nothing in common other than the fact that certain high profile Atheists ( like Richard Dawkins) accept Darwinism as true. I find it almost repulsive that you would label me as a Darwinist when I am not. It shows the lack of logic in your argument if you have to resort to calling me things which I am not. and I said that it should be said as a theory, the same way how creationism is said as a theory. And I am afraid? Do you not get the fact that I am not a Darwinist? I mean, discrediting your opposition is one thing, but completely ignoring their argument and resorting to "go-to" lines is naive and shows that you can't debate properly. If you wanted an intellectual debate, actually address my points rather than just ignore them and make up your own. That is a Liberal tactic. I know I am being overly-harsh, but I have a pet-peeve against being labeled things which I am not. Now, you want me to be specific, I was addressing the whole article in general. It has the tone of a rant. There is no reasoned or balanced argument. You complain that Atheists are Liberals, well I have to say that I don't blame American Atheists if they have to put up with the ridicule of this article. There is not a single reference to any positive aspect of Atheism, nor is there any reference to Conservative Atheists apart from a slight reference to Ayn Rand. The reason why Atheists on the right are more common in other countries (such as South Korea where the leader of the Conservative Party was an Atheist) is because the religious right, which I make an educated guess that you are a part of, do not have the same hatred of Atheism that you possess. I have to quote Plato's Republic (p89 of Wordsworth's edition)

:"To hurt one's natural friends is to invite unnatural enemies stronger than oneself." Atheists on the right are your natural Allies because we are both on the right, yet you have shown no comradeship to your natural allies but rather have turned your back on us for some motive that I do not understand. Now let me ask you a question Conservative, since you are so fond of them, When you say there is a God, I say I don't believe since you have not proved it. I do not offer any other argument just that I find your argument faulty and cannot believe it simply because you said so. As such, I do not believe in a god, yet I do not accept the Anti-theist belief that there is no god. Just that I do not know and I do not believe based on the lack of evidence provided. By your standard, What am I? I call myself Atheist from the lack of belief, but you seem to have perverted the meaning into a religious context. So what would you call someone who refuses to believe an extraordinary claim based on the lack of evidence? [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 2:26, 11 August 2013 (GMT)

::Ryancsh, are you a creationist then? If not, what third position do you hold if you are not an evolutionist? I have found that so-called atheists/agnostics are awful silent when I ask them what is the third position. By the way, just when I thought I was pretty much done with the atheism article, you inspired [http://conservapedia.com/Atheism#Denials_that_atheists_exist this section]. Do you like the Japanese picture I chose and the caption under it?

::Second, if you are against socialism, I think that is excellent. By the way, socialism appears to be a causal factor for atheism. See: [[Causes of atheism]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:33, 10 August 2013 (EDT)
:::By the way, I did notice that you were silent on my question about homosexuality. For someone who is supposedly a true conservative and social conservative, your silence is most conspicuous. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:48, 10 August 2013 (EDT)

::::I thought we had already went over this. I am not a creationist or an evolutionist. Have you heard of the Gumball analogy? I'll shorten it down for you. If I have a gumball machine on my desk, and you are in my room and I tell you that the number of Gumballs in the machine is even. Do you believe me based on just what I have said? You have no evidence that the number of gumballs is even and I have not given you sufficient evidence to prove it. If you do not believe me, then you are taking an Atheist approach. Now, just because you do not believe that the number is even...does that mean that you must believe that it is odd? No. It just means that the claim you have been given does not have enough evidence to make you believe it to be true. In fact, the opposite claim would have the same problem of lack of evidence. By rejecting one, you are not automatically agreeing with another. The same can be said for evolution vs creationism. Neither side has proven to be scientific fact and, after consulting the evidence, I am not going to say that I believe either side to be true without conclusive proof. I treat everything with the same decree of Falsifiability (a trait of a theory where it can be shown to be false if some conceivable observation were true). Falsificationism questions theories instead of proving them or others.

::::Now I have read you causes of atheism article, and I have to say that not a single one fits me. You don't have a very comprehensive article if you don't even mention the cause which I always saw as most prominent (and almost certainly applies to me) : Lack of belief due to the lack of evidence presented.

:::: Onto the question on Homosexuality, my position has always been against same-sex marriage. I believe that marriage is a tradition of one man, one woman, one life. For that reason I am also against divorce except for cases with exceptional circumstances (mainly being domestic abuse). I quite like Ann Coulter's idea of "Don't ask Don't tell for all of society" because I don't think that sexual orientation should even be an issue. I have always took the line of "What you do behind closed doors is not my concern, but try to shove it down my throat and you will soon have me as an opponent." Oh an on the issue of school prayer, as you are a Christian, should you not be against school prayer? I am pretty sure it says in the bible:

"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen [do]: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him". Matthew 6:5-8.

Which essentially says don't pray in public but pray in private and not to have repeated prayer. Now, I have made my view clear that I think it should be up to either the School or the Parents with an Op-out system for those who do. I am just curious that you would support something that your own bible condemns. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 13:52, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
:Ryancsh, atheists typically do a poor job at [[Bible exegesis]]. The Bible is against ostentatious prayer used to gain attention and as a means to foist on others the notion that you are godly, but it is not against group prayer.[http://www.openbible.info/topics/praying_together]

:Second, none of those [[causes of atheism]] apply to you? Have you ever told a lie? Can you pass this good person test? See: [http://www.livingwaters.com/good/ Good person test]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:21, 11 August 2013 (EDT)

::Okay are we going to have to go through these? Oh fun: 1. Moral Depravity: I think that we have both agreed that I have the morals of a social conservative on the vast majority of matters. 2.Hatred towards God: How can I hate what I do not think exists?. 3.Atheistic Upbringing: My mother was a fundamentalist Catholic, My father a Methodist so no. 4.Rebellion: to "ignore the reality" God's existence would first have to be proved to be reality, which it is not and so I am not rebelling against reality. 5.Hedonism: I am not a hedonist and certainly no materialist, considering that I am a Conservative Ideologue. Hedonism has "the idea that pleasure is the highest good"...I think Loyalty is the highest good. 6. Gullibility: this is a logical paradox. Atheists are skeptics of an extravagant claim by Christians. Skepticism is an Antonym of gullibility. 7. Irrational Thinking: I don't believe in the supernatural and, considering I am a conservative, my ideological tenets are highly rational. 8.Superficiality: I am a member of a political party which is dominated by Anglicans. It would be more superficial for me to be an Anglican than an Atheist. Also, there is no superficial reason for me to be an Atheist. 9. Error: I have considered the facts, just we arrived at different conclusions. You do realize it is possible to know something just as much as you and still not agree with you. 10. State churches: How is this even a cause? I think this is unrelated correlation, a bit like saying "100% of people who die have drank water in their lives, as such water is responsible for the majority of deaths." 11.Decline of family in a culture: I had a very strong family culture and still believe in the traditional family unit. 12.Socialism: did we not just define that I hate Socialism? 13.Self Deception and 14. Satanic Deception: No and no. I checked the reference and found nothing on that site that had anything to do with me. 15. Poor relationship with Father: My relationship with my father was brilliant actually. He's the one who got me interested in politics and gave me my Conservative realist reasoning. 16:Division in religion: How is this even a cause? I have never heard of someone becoming an Atheist because religion was divided, and if there was someone who did I would tell them to wise up, get a grip and to not over-react to religious theological debate. 17.Ignorance: I managed to get good enough grades (an A, the highest grade for the exam, in the entrance exam) to get into a private school (at the time the Catholic Church funded the School, those with good enough grades got in for free) and maintained those grades throughout my time. 18.Indoctrination and ease of life: Catholic School was not secularized. The only indoctrination there was them attempting to indoctrinate me into being a Catholic. 19. Lack Of Knowledge: this is the same as the Ignorance argument. I don't know what you decided to put it in twice. 20. Negative experiences with Theists: In the UK people are very accepting of Atheism and most don't care. The only negative interaction I have ever experienced has been with you and your rants.21.Scientism: I reject through lack of logical evidence, not through replacing religious theology with scientific theory.[[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 16:05, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
:::Ryancsh, you didn't answer my two simple questions. Did you ever tell a lie? Can you pass this good person test? See: [http://www.livingwaters.com/good/ Good person test]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:03, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
::::Have I ever told A lie? Of course. Last time I told a lie would depend on your definition of a lie, be is Platonic, Socratic, Militius ect. Can I pass that test, after doing that test (which is a heavily loaded test and I disagree with the name. It should be "are you a good christian test") I found that there is not a pass at the end, just a christian rant about how I will burn in hell for my sins, nothing which I haven't heard before. I still do not see how this applies to causes of Atheism. If you are going to use that test as the sole indicator, then everyone not part of the Judeo-Christian religion would be an Atheist. and that would be the majority of earth.

And you didn't answer my Question. Would you see me as an Atheist even though I do not follow the supposed "tenets" of the "religion". You effectively avoided any reference to what I am considering my mere existence defies this article and your idea that all atheists are Liberal-commie-Darwinists. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 19:36, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
[[Image:Cherry Blossom Japan.jpg|thumb|250px|Even in atheistic [[Japan]], researchers found that Japanese children see the world [[Intelligent design|as designed]].[http://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed] ]]
::Why don't you tell me what your third option is so we can all judge its merit. We have creationism which advocates supernatural origins and evolutionism which advocates naturalistic origins. So tell us your third option. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:27, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
:::I answered this. I do not bring forward a third option, I simply say that neither have enough evidence to convince me of their validity. Re-read the gumball analogy, I think you missed the point of it. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 20:30, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
Ryancsh, you said, "I simply say that neither have enough evidence to convince me of their validity". You have admitted to lying before. Have you lied multiple times? The reason I ask is the even in atheistic [[Japan]], researchers found that Japanese children see the world [[Intelligent design|as designed]].[http://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed] I have I hard time believing you can't see it too - especially since you told me that you lied before. “The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?" - [[Jeremiah]] 17:9 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:07, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
:::: Firstly, Children believe whatever they are told. The fact that a child believes in Santa does not make Santa real the same way how a child seeing the world to be designed does not make it so. Onto the lying, I really do not know what you are trying to say. I guarantee that at sometime in your life, you have lied on an occasion. It's a logical impossibility that you have not. Yet I do not treat everything you say to be a lie. Now, are you seriously suggestion that I am not an Atheist? Cons, I find it hard to believe that you know what intellectual forum and debate is. Not only do you refuse to acknowledge the points of your opposition, you have just attempted to claim that your opposition doesn't even exist. You claim that Atheists are gullible but if you truly believe that you have no opposition and that everyone thinks the same way you do, then I suggest you have a self-diagnosis of yourself. I remember in the last debate we had, you ended it per-maturely without acknowledging most of my points and skipping to go-to responses. Oh and Cons, the fact that you can't argue without a captioned picture or a hyperlink to some other section or website, says a large about the strength of your argument. I am really trying not to be overly harsh, but you are being purposefully antagonistic and it is actually reminding me of Labour Leader Gorden Brown when he was on televised debate.[[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 21:30, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
Ryancsh, You wrote: "Firstly, Children believe whatever they are told." Children in atheistic Japan are not told the world is designed, but nevertheless researchers found they see the world as designed.[http://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed] Your argument broke down from the gitgo. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:46, 11 August 2013 (EDT)

:See that is exactly what I am talking about, you refuse to even look at the opposition's points or even consider them. How can you possibly call yourself a conservative when you display such Liberal, bordering communist, tactics is beyond me. How about actually acting like a conservative and having an intellectual conversation like the rest of the right-wing world? and on your point, I don't think you can exactly call children the fore-runners in metaphysical philosophy. If they believe that a magical man can fit down a chimney then I don't argue that they could believe that a magical man could create the world and then send people to hell simply because they do not worship his every trait (which in my mind is egotistical but whatever)[[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 21:58, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
::When I was a kid I also thought the Earth was flat and I staunchly believed grandpa was only sleeping (in a coffin) and would have woken back, eventually. That said, Conservative is like the Soviet Union in the '80s, when questioned about the famine. He keeps shifting from topic to topic evading the main question, proposing particular answers instead of the general ones ("As you can see, in this neighborhood in Moscow everybody eats to satiety!"), suppressing or ignoring evidence against his cause as heretical or burgeoise, and attacking the asker ("What about the famine in Africa, what has the West done?") with stereotyped unrelated rebuttals - I'm surprised he hasn't mentioned Vivayeshua yet. His debating tactics are indeed very communis and liberal.
:Conservative, have you ever heard about Mark Twain's saying, "He who fight monsters must take care lest he himself becomes a monster"? --[[User:RonaldV|RonaldV]] 17:10, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
:::Gentlemen, you picked a poor place to try to start the first atheist revival. Try wearing white shirts and knocking on people's doors and telling them about atheism/agnosticism. I think it would be more effective. But before you knock on people's doors, please prepare [[Essay: The question atheists fear|some proof and evidence why atheism is true]]. That should not take long to do. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:40, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
::::I'm not atheist at all: I'm Catholic! And a conservative, too. It's you who are a liability to the cause of Christianity and conservatism because evidently you can't debate and rely on communist, liberal, weak inefficient tactics! Face what Ryansch told and answer with pertinent arguments, instead of fearingly backing like a bunny in its hole! --[[User:RonaldV|RonaldV]] 17:43, 11 August 2013 (EDT)

::::Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. Ergo to prove it to be true you must prove there is a lack of believe in a god. Ask me if I believe in God and we shall have proof.[[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 22:48, 11 August 2013 (GMT)

:::::Ryansch said this, above: ''"See that is exactly what I am talking about, you refuse to even look at the opposition's points or even consider them."'' Unfortunately, it is you, Ryan, and you, Ronald, who refuse to even look at our points or even consider them. Since 2007 others have tried to engage in the same tactics, up to an including threats and bullying; never-mind the answers that we have posted in response. This "debate" is over and done with. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:51, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
:All right, as you wish, but I'll note this as a win against Conservative, assuming now he'll learn some debating skills. Now I go back editing about Switzerland. See you! --[[User:RonaldV|RonaldV]] 17:55, 11 August 2013 (EDT)

:::::Karajou, I have looked at every point given to me. Even when Markman called me a parodist I addressed the point even though it was false. Conservative has addressed few of my points and refuses to do so. I will Help User Conservative by showing him the points that he missed and looked over, (maybe he didn't mean to), But karajou, I want to know...what point has Conservative or anyone else said that I have not considered or discussed?

1."I do hold many values that would be socially conservative." I have made this point and Conservative refuses to even discuss it.
2."I find it almost repulsive that you would label me as a Darwinist when I am not" throughout our last debate, Conservative repeatedly labeled me a Darwinist and attempted to do so again.
3. The gumball Analogy which defined my position, which Conservative refuses to even acknowledge as a position. (actually, he effectively ignored the whole paragraph)
4. The idea that not all Atheists are on the left (I am living proof that they are not)
5. The accusation of sweeping generalization I have made.
6. What I am called, according to his own standard.

Karajou I have always held high respect for you in the past as you tend to actually answer any points raised to you. Of course we disagree on religious matters but surely you know that I have went down every irrelevant route he opened, even the link to the good person test. Tell me any point that I refuse to look at and consider and I will do so now, right here. If I did so, it was not my intention. You have treated me fairly in the past, especially when Markman attempted to ban me for my name, I ask that you do so again. To be honest, I would rather have this discussion with you. Then it would be an intellectual discussion and not the barrage of mud-slinging that this has descended to. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 23:04, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
:Ryancsh, also,your gumball analogy failed. Scientific proof/arguments is not the only kind of evidence/arguments (for example, historical evidence/arguments, logical arguments, etc.). Biblical creation belief [http://creation.com/creation-answers has sound historical evidence and arguments].

:Second, if you only made decisions based on conclusive proof, you wouldn't eat/drink food at restaurants unless you had a food taster lest the food/drinks were poisoned, etc. etc. Historical arguments are probabilistic. I know you don't live your life's decisions solely on conclusive proof. Your atheistic/agnostic argumentation is weak. I am glad I have the [http://www.conservapedia.com/Christian_apologetics_website_resources strong proofs and evidence of Christianity] and I am not reliant on weak argumentation.

:Lastly, you still have dodged this: "Children in atheistic Japan are not told the world is designed, but nevertheless researchers found they see the world as designed.[http://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed]" Your argument still failed from the gitgo.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:10, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
::Karajou, it is now apparent that Conservative wants to keep debating! May we answer him. His arguments can be easily disproved and his communist-like, liberal and inefficient tactics rebuked. May I? --[[User:RonaldV|RonaldV]] 18:14, 11 August 2013 (EDT)

Zurich

2013-08-11T21:58:55Z

RonaldV:

'''Zurich''' (German spelling: ''Zürich''; French spelling: ''Zurich''; Romansch spelling ''Turitg''; Italian spelling: ''Zurigo'') is the largest city in [[Switzerland]] and is a cultural hub of business and commerce within the nation.

Zurich is situated in the relatively flat Swiss plateau, north of the Alps. It is on Lake Zurich (German: ''Zürichsee'') at the point where the river Limmat exits the lake. Zurich also has Switzerland's largest and main international airport, and the largest rail station in Switzerland (''Zürich Hauptbahnhof'', abbreviated as: ''Zürich HB'') which has 2900 departures daily.
Zurich has an extensive public transport network of suburban trains ("''S-Bahn''"), trams and buses. Over half of commuting journeys within the city use public transport and only 17% using cars.

Zurich is a common stop for international travelers.

The population of Zürich is approximately 390 000, of which 30% are not Swiss citizens<ref>http://www.stadt-zuerich.ch/content/prd/de/index/ueber_das_departement/medien/medienmitteilungen/2012/maerz/120301.html "The city of Zurich has grown to 390 000 inhabitants". Press release from the city of Zurich, March 2012.</ref>.

==References==
<References/>

[[Category:Swiss Cities and Towns]]

Talk:Atheism

2013-08-11T21:55:34Z

RonaldV: /* Politics */

Talk:Atheism

2013-08-11T21:43:28Z

RonaldV: /* Politics */

{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Atheism/Archive_Set_1|List of Archives]]
|}
__TOC__


== global atheism is shrinking - newest data ==

Global atheism is shrinking - newest data:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/global-study-atheists-decline-only-18-world-population-2020

http://www.christianpost.com/news/study-world-is-turning-more-religious-atheism-declining-100518/

Incorporate into article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:59, 9 August 2013 (EDT)

==Politics==
Cons, why is it that we only have an "[[Atheism and communism]]" Section here? Remember the page Atheism and Politics? Surely we should have a section here that redirects to that ( and that section affirms that Atheists are in all variety of political colors) or we include "Atheism and Liberalism" and "Atheism and Conservatism" into this page. Though I was thinking of creating a page for the Latter two...thoughts? [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 15:34, 10 August 2013 (GMT)
:Why are you asking me something you already know the answer to? I am assuming that you are intelligent to know that [[communism]] is a subset of politics.

:And it was and is a very significant subset. For example, according to the [[University of Cambridge]], historically, the "most notable spread of atheism was achieved through the success of the 1917 Russian Revolution, which brought the [[Marxism-Leninism|Marxist-Leninists]] to power."[http://www.investigatingatheism.info/marxism.html] And atheistic communist China/Korea have a significant amount of people under atheist leaders who still persecute people (including Christians) of religions other than the [[Atheism is a religion|religion of atheism]].[http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/february-web-only/persecution-in-china-is-very-real.html][http://www.persecution.org/2013/06/24/china-still-persecuting-christians-just-better-at-hiding-it/]

:Your complaint helps illustrate that many atheists have a penchant for engaging in the [[fallacy of exclusion]]. Please stop engaging in childish and unwarranted gamesmanship. It confirms in people's minds that atheism is a illegitimate and false religion practiced by unreasonable and deceitful people. See: [[Atheism and deception]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:49, 10 August 2013 (EDT)

::Ever hear of the term "swing and a miss"? You have completely ignored my point and have somehow made your own. My point was about the fallacy of exclusion as you have excluded all evidence that does not fit into your personal vendetta against atheism. Now onto your point, I am not denying that Marxism/Leninism proponents were Atheists. I am denying the claim that All Atheists are on the left or that everything you say is true of all Atheists. I am living proof that Atheists can be on the right wing as is David Hume and Ayn Rand. (and I know what you are about to say about David Hume and let me stop you there. Atheism and Agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Personally I am an Agnostic-Atheist). Now, on a more personal note, I find it farcical that you would call Atheism childish and then instantly start name-calling and mud-slinging. Now, I am not about to go down the line of you calling me an "unreasonable and deceitful" person because I'll just see the benefit of the doubt and hope that you didn't mean me. If you did, then you have just proven yourself to be unreasonable and almost insecure because you can't seem to be secure in your own belief unless everyone else around you believes it. You know, an original tenet of the Republican Party (In the USA) was a policy called Pluralism, also known as "let the people have their faith" (and lack of it). You seem to be defying old conservative tenets with your insistence of trying to stamp out or omit anyone who does not think exactly like you. There is a difference between logical debate with reasoned argument and your policy of mud-slinging. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 18:52, 10 August 2013 (GMT)
Ryancsh, first, do you hold to [[social conservatism]]? Are you pro-life? What are your thoughts on [[homosexuality]]? Setting aside the issue of whether or not there should be public schools. as far as religious freedom, do you think that school prayer should be allowed in public schools? Should public school valedictorians be allowed to speak about their Christian faith at high school commencements? Do you think that the teaching of evolution should be mandatory in public schools? In private schools?

Next, at the apex of the [[New Atheism]], the [[User: Conservative]] account did largely create the extensive Conservapedia article on atheism. Yet, this does not necessarily mean that I have a vendetta against atheism. Currently, [[global atheism]] is shrinking and there is sound scholarship indicating that this shrinking will accelerate. I regard the [[Atheism is a religion|atheist religion]] somewhat similar to other errant religions in the past which waned such as Baal worship or ancient Roman religions with the caveat that it probably will not completely die out as far as adherents until the Second Coming of Christ due to doubt being a part of the human condition since the [[Fall of man]]. Atheism is intellectually dead though. For example, prominent atheists/evolutionists unwilling to debate evolution and previously losing their series of debates in the 1970s (see: [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]]).

In addition, in order to have a vendetta against something you have to think about it often. And as of late, although there is a persistent atheist who wants to garner my attention (who is afraid to debate [[VivaYehshua]]) and other atheists who want to grab my attention, I am spending less and less time thinking about the topic atheism. Not only is the religion of atheism foolish and errant, but I am agreeing more and more with the sentiments of [[John Updike]] who remarked that "Among the repulsions of atheism for me has been its drastic un-interestingness as an intellectual position. Where was the ingenuity, the ambiguity, the humanity of saying that the universe just happened to happen and that when we're dead we're dead?". However, there were recently a few matters that wanted to add to Conservapedia's content about atheism as I thought they were germane (incorporation a politics section into the atheism article which I promised someone that I would do and the [[Atheist hypocrisy]] article). In short, why think much about a religion that is foolish, dying at an increasing rate and uninteresting (and the atheist religion has all three attributes)?

By the way, it seems as if [[Shockofgod]] is less interested in the topic of atheism as well. He is doing less videos on atheism as of late. Also, although [[Mariano Grinbank]], the author of [http://creation.com/atheism this extensive online article on atheism] featured at [[Creation Ministries International]], still writes about atheism, he may be writing about it less often relative to other [[Christian apologetics]] topics he writes about it. See: [http://www.examiner.com/worldview-and-science-in-national/mariano-grinbank?page=1 Worldview and science Examiner]. So it seems as if many people are less interested in atheism since the apex of the [[New Atheism]] (interest in the New Atheism and [[Richard Dawkins]] is a shadow of its former self).[http://www.conservapedia.com/Richard_Dawkins%27_loss_of_influence]

Lastly, I made a suggestion that you create an article on the [[secular right]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:24, 10 August 2013 (EDT)

:To Answer your first point, I do hold many values that would be socially conservative. My work on the [[Abortion and adoption]] article and my interest in pro-life campaigns within the Conservative Party would indicate that I am Pro-Life. On the topic of School Prayer, I have always thought that it should be at a schools discretion or that the parents in a public-school's catchment area should decide. Having said that, I support an op-out system for students who are not Christian (i.e. Jewish, Muslim, Atheist) but that the minority should not rule over the rights of the majority. (Pluralism, which I hold, agrees with a dominate culture and religion so long as it allows other cultures and religions to exist peacefully). I am actually in favor of not teaching anything that is not scientific fact. Natural selection should be taught and students should be made aware that Evolution the origin of species is a theory based of the idea of natural selection over millions of years. Apart from that, I really don't care. As I have mentioned before, evolution is not my subject. My position (in terms of Atheism) is "You have not convinced me that your claim of a God is true. As such, I will not believe it as I have seen no good evidence for such an extraordinary claim." Private schools should reserve the right to teach what they wish so long as they can get their pupils to pass exams.

:Now, I think that the fact that the vast majority of Articles with the Title "Atheism And____" are either created by you or are severely edited by your or are only ever edited by you (one of the three) kind of shows that you have a fixation on Atheism. For what reason, I do not know. Now, I would highly dispute the claim that Atheism is a religion, but I do not think this is the place to do it. What I would advise you to do, would be to stop trying to pigeon-hole all Atheists. That is severe generalization (which in the UK is seen as trait of the Socialist Labour Party)and should be stopped. I am not sure how it works in the USA, but in the UK, Conservatives believe in setting out a well-defined argument with well-defined logical reasoning ( not overly-quoting or using arguments from authority) so that those who are listen arive to their own conclusion rather than us having to force-feed it. I think that if you applied that to Atheism Articles, they would seem a lot more intellectly rounded. I say this because, from my perspective at least, the current Article seems more like a highly aggravated rant on Atheism in general.

:Also, I will write that Article when I have time...assuming Conservapedia doesn't lock me out again. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 20:25, 10 August 2013 (GMT)
::Ryancsh, true conservatives believe in liberty and because you believe that Darwinism, an unsupported tenet of your religion of agnosticism/atheism, should be mandatory and paid for by taxpayers, this helps show me that you are not a true conservative. And I strongly believe that you are unwilling and afraid to debate [[VivaYehshua]] on the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions] for evolutionists.

::Lastly, like many atheist criticisms of [[User: Conservative]] account material on atheism, you were vague and were not specific. You certainly did not point out a single factual error in the [[atheism]] article! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:16, 10 August 2013 (EDT)
:::Ryancsh, one other thing, how many people have edited using the [[User: Conservative]] account? How many people have edited atheism related content using the User: Conservative account? No true skeptic would insist that [[User: Conservative]] account editing was merely the work of one person. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:20, 10 August 2013 (EDT)

Okay let's get this straightened out right now. Because I am sick and tired of your farcical accusations of Atheism being a religion with Darwinism as a tenet. Atheism and Darwinism have nothing in common other than the fact that certain high profile Atheists ( like Richard Dawkins) accept Darwinism as true. I find it almost repulsive that you would label me as a Darwinist when I am not. It shows the lack of logic in your argument if you have to resort to calling me things which I am not. and I said that it should be said as a theory, the same way how creationism is said as a theory. And I am afraid? Do you not get the fact that I am not a Darwinist? I mean, discrediting your opposition is one thing, but completely ignoring their argument and resorting to "go-to" lines is naive and shows that you can't debate properly. If you wanted an intellectual debate, actually address my points rather than just ignore them and make up your own. That is a Liberal tactic. I know I am being overly-harsh, but I have a pet-peeve against being labeled things which I am not. Now, you want me to be specific, I was addressing the whole article in general. It has the tone of a rant. There is no reasoned or balanced argument. You complain that Atheists are Liberals, well I have to say that I don't blame American Atheists if they have to put up with the ridicule of this article. There is not a single reference to any positive aspect of Atheism, nor is there any reference to Conservative Atheists apart from a slight reference to Ayn Rand. The reason why Atheists on the right are more common in other countries (such as South Korea where the leader of the Conservative Party was an Atheist) is because the religious right, which I make an educated guess that you are a part of, do not have the same hatred of Atheism that you possess. I have to quote Plato's Republic (p89 of Wordsworth's edition)

:"To hurt one's natural friends is to invite unnatural enemies stronger than oneself." Atheists on the right are your natural Allies because we are both on the right, yet you have shown no comradeship to your natural allies but rather have turned your back on us for some motive that I do not understand. Now let me ask you a question Conservative, since you are so fond of them, When you say there is a God, I say I don't believe since you have not proved it. I do not offer any other argument just that I find your argument faulty and cannot believe it simply because you said so. As such, I do not believe in a god, yet I do not accept the Anti-theist belief that there is no god. Just that I do not know and I do not believe based on the lack of evidence provided. By your standard, What am I? I call myself Atheist from the lack of belief, but you seem to have perverted the meaning into a religious context. So what would you call someone who refuses to believe an extraordinary claim based on the lack of evidence? [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 2:26, 11 August 2013 (GMT)

::Ryancsh, are you a creationist then? If not, what third position do you hold if you are not an evolutionist? I have found that so-called atheists/agnostics are awful silent when I ask them what is the third position. By the way, just when I thought I was pretty much done with the atheism article, you inspired [http://conservapedia.com/Atheism#Denials_that_atheists_exist this section]. Do you like the Japanese picture I chose and the caption under it?

::Second, if you are against socialism, I think that is excellent. By the way, socialism appears to be a causal factor for atheism. See: [[Causes of atheism]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:33, 10 August 2013 (EDT)
:::By the way, I did notice that you were silent on my question about homosexuality. For someone who is supposedly a true conservative and social conservative, your silence is most conspicuous. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:48, 10 August 2013 (EDT)

::::I thought we had already went over this. I am not a creationist or an evolutionist. Have you heard of the Gumball analogy? I'll shorten it down for you. If I have a gumball machine on my desk, and you are in my room and I tell you that the number of Gumballs in the machine is even. Do you believe me based on just what I have said? You have no evidence that the number of gumballs is even and I have not given you sufficient evidence to prove it. If you do not believe me, then you are taking an Atheist approach. Now, just because you do not believe that the number is even...does that mean that you must believe that it is odd? No. It just means that the claim you have been given does not have enough evidence to make you believe it to be true. In fact, the opposite claim would have the same problem of lack of evidence. By rejecting one, you are not automatically agreeing with another. The same can be said for evolution vs creationism. Neither side has proven to be scientific fact and, after consulting the evidence, I am not going to say that I believe either side to be true without conclusive proof. I treat everything with the same decree of Falsifiability (a trait of a theory where it can be shown to be false if some conceivable observation were true). Falsificationism questions theories instead of proving them or others.

::::Now I have read you causes of atheism article, and I have to say that not a single one fits me. You don't have a very comprehensive article if you don't even mention the cause which I always saw as most prominent (and almost certainly applies to me) : Lack of belief due to the lack of evidence presented.

:::: Onto the question on Homosexuality, my position has always been against same-sex marriage. I believe that marriage is a tradition of one man, one woman, one life. For that reason I am also against divorce except for cases with exceptional circumstances (mainly being domestic abuse). I quite like Ann Coulter's idea of "Don't ask Don't tell for all of society" because I don't think that sexual orientation should even be an issue. I have always took the line of "What you do behind closed doors is not my concern, but try to shove it down my throat and you will soon have me as an opponent." Oh an on the issue of school prayer, as you are a Christian, should you not be against school prayer? I am pretty sure it says in the bible:

"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen [do]: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him". Matthew 6:5-8.

Which essentially says don't pray in public but pray in private and not to have repeated prayer. Now, I have made my view clear that I think it should be up to either the School or the Parents with an Op-out system for those who do. I am just curious that you would support something that your own bible condemns. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 13:52, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
:Ryancsh, atheists typically do a poor job at [[Bible exegesis]]. The Bible is against ostentatious prayer used to gain attention and as a means to foist on others the notion that you are godly, but it is not against group prayer.[http://www.openbible.info/topics/praying_together]

:Second, none of those [[causes of atheism]] apply to you? Have you ever told a lie? Can you pass this good person test? See: [http://www.livingwaters.com/good/ Good person test]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:21, 11 August 2013 (EDT)

::Okay are we going to have to go through these? Oh fun: 1. Moral Depravity: I think that we have both agreed that I have the morals of a social conservative on the vast majority of matters. 2.Hatred towards God: How can I hate what I do not think exists?. 3.Atheistic Upbringing: My mother was a fundamentalist Catholic, My father a Methodist so no. 4.Rebellion: to "ignore the reality" God's existence would first have to be proved to be reality, which it is not and so I am not rebelling against reality. 5.Hedonism: I am not a hedonist and certainly no materialist, considering that I am a Conservative Ideologue. Hedonism has "the idea that pleasure is the highest good"...I think Loyalty is the highest good. 6. Gullibility: this is a logical paradox. Atheists are skeptics of an extravagant claim by Christians. Skepticism is an Antonym of gullibility. 7. Irrational Thinking: I don't believe in the supernatural and, considering I am a conservative, my ideological tenets are highly rational. 8.Superficiality: I am a member of a political party which is dominated by Anglicans. It would be more superficial for me to be an Anglican than an Atheist. Also, there is no superficial reason for me to be an Atheist. 9. Error: I have considered the facts, just we arrived at different conclusions. You do realize it is possible to know something just as much as you and still not agree with you. 10. State churches: How is this even a cause? I think this is unrelated correlation, a bit like saying "100% of people who die have drank water in their lives, as such water is responsible for the majority of deaths." 11.Decline of family in a culture: I had a very strong family culture and still believe in the traditional family unit. 12.Socialism: did we not just define that I hate Socialism? 13.Self Deception and 14. Satanic Deception: No and no. I checked the reference and found nothing on that site that had anything to do with me. 15. Poor relationship with Father: My relationship with my father was brilliant actually. He's the one who got me interested in politics and gave me my Conservative realist reasoning. 16:Division in religion: How is this even a cause? I have never heard of someone becoming an Atheist because religion was divided, and if there was someone who did I would tell them to wise up, get a grip and to not over-react to religious theological debate. 17.Ignorance: I managed to get good enough grades (an A, the highest grade for the exam, in the entrance exam) to get into a private school (at the time the Catholic Church funded the School, those with good enough grades got in for free) and maintained those grades throughout my time. 18.Indoctrination and ease of life: Catholic School was not secularized. The only indoctrination there was them attempting to indoctrinate me into being a Catholic. 19. Lack Of Knowledge: this is the same as the Ignorance argument. I don't know what you decided to put it in twice. 20. Negative experiences with Theists: In the UK people are very accepting of Atheism and most don't care. The only negative interaction I have ever experienced has been with you and your rants.21.Scientism: I reject through lack of logical evidence, not through replacing religious theology with scientific theory.[[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 16:05, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
:::Ryancsh, you didn't answer my two simple questions. Did you ever tell a lie? Can you pass this good person test? See: [http://www.livingwaters.com/good/ Good person test]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:03, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
::::Have I ever told A lie? Of course. Last time I told a lie would depend on your definition of a lie, be is Platonic, Socratic, Militius ect. Can I pass that test, after doing that test (which is a heavily loaded test and I disagree with the name. It should be "are you a good christian test") I found that there is not a pass at the end, just a christian rant about how I will burn in hell for my sins, nothing which I haven't heard before. I still do not see how this applies to causes of Atheism. If you are going to use that test as the sole indicator, then everyone not part of the Judeo-Christian religion would be an Atheist. and that would be the majority of earth.

And you didn't answer my Question. Would you see me as an Atheist even though I do not follow the supposed "tenets" of the "religion". You effectively avoided any reference to what I am considering my mere existence defies this article and your idea that all atheists are Liberal-commie-Darwinists. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 19:36, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
[[Image:Cherry Blossom Japan.jpg|thumb|250px|Even in atheistic [[Japan]], researchers found that Japanese children see the world [[Intelligent design|as designed]].[http://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed] ]]
::Why don't you tell me what your third option is so we can all judge it merit. We have creationism which advocates supernatural origins and evolutionism which advocates naturalistic origins. So tell us your third option. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:27, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
:::I answered this. I do not bring forward a third option, I simply say that neither have enough evidence to convince me of their validity. Re-read the gumball analogy, I think you missed the point of it. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 20:30, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
Ryancsh, you said, "I simply say that neither have enough evidence to convince me of their validity". You have admitted to lying before. Have you lied multiple times? The reason I ask is the even in atheistic [[Japan]], researchers found that Japanese children see the world [[Intelligent design|as designed]].[http://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed] I have I hard time believing you can't see it too - especially since you told me that you lied before. “The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?" - [[Jeremiah]] 17:9 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:07, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
:::: Firstly, Children believe whatever they are told. The fact that a child believes in Santa does not make Santa real the same way how a child seeing the world to be designed does not make it so. Onto the lying, I really do not know what you are trying to say. I guarantee that at sometime in your life, you have lied on an occasion. It's a logical impossibility that you have not. Yet I do not treat everything you say to be a lie. Now, are you seriously suggestion that I am not an Atheist? Cons, I find it hard to believe that you know what intellectual forum and debate is. Not only do you refuse to acknowledge the points of your opposition, you have just attempted to claim that your opposition doesn't even exist. You claim that Atheists are gullible but if you truly believe that you have no opposition and that everyone thinks the same way you do, then I suggest you have a self-diagnosis of yourself. I remember in the last debate we had, you ended it per-maturely without acknowledging most of my points and skipping to go-to responses. Oh and Cons, the fact that you can't argue without a captioned picture or a hyperlink to some other section or website, says a large about the strength of your argument. I am really trying not to be overly harsh, but you are being purposefully antagonistic and it is actually reminding me of Labour Leader Gorden Brown when he was on televised debate.[[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 21:30, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
Ryancsh, You wrote: "Firstly, Children believe whatever they are told." Children in atheistic Japan are not told the world is designed, but nevertheless researchers found they see the world as designed.[http://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed] Your argument broke down from the gitgo. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:46, 11 August 2013 (EDT)

:See that is exactly what I am talking about, you refuse to even look at the opposition's points or even consider them. How can you possibly call yourself a conservative when you display such Liberal, bordering communist, tactics is beyond me. How about actually acting like a conservative and having an intellectual conversation like the rest of the right-wing world? and on your point, I don't think you can exactly call children the fore-runners in metaphysical philosophy. If they believe that a magical man can fit down a chimney then I don't argue that they could believe that a magical man could create the world and then send people to hell simply because they do not worship his every trait (which in my mind is egotistical but whatever)[[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 21:58, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
::When I was a kid I also thought the Earth was flat and I staunchly believed grandpa was only sleeping (in a coffin) and would have woken back, eventually. That said, Conservative is like the Soviet Union in the '80s, when questioned about the famine. He keeps shifting from topic to topic evading the main question, proposing particular answers instead of the general ones ("As you can see, in this neighborhood in Moscow everybody eats to satiety!"), suppressing or ignoring evidence against his cause as heretical or burgeoise, and attacking the asker ("What about the famine in Africa, what has the West done?") with stereotyped unrelated rebuttals - I'm surprised he hasn't mentioned Vivayeshua yet. His debating tactics are indeed very communis and liberal.
:Conservative, have you ever heard about Mark Twain's saying, "He who fight monsters must take care lest he himself becomes a monster"? --[[User:RonaldV|RonaldV]] 17:10, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
:::Gentlemen, you picked a poor place to try to start the first atheist revival. Try wearing white shirts and knocking on people's doors and telling them about atheism/agnosticism. I think it would be more effective. But before you knock on people's doors, please prepare some proof and evidence why atheism is true. That should not take long to do. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:40, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
::::I'm not atheist at all: I'm Catholic! And a conservative, too. It's you who are a liability to the cause of Christianity and conservatism because evidently you can't debate and rely on communist, liberal, weak inefficient tactics! Face what Ryansch told and answer with pertinent arguments, instead of fearingly backing like a bunny in its hole! --[[User:RonaldV|RonaldV]] 17:43, 11 August 2013 (EDT)

Talk:Atheism

2013-08-11T21:14:07Z

RonaldV: /* Politics */

{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Atheism/Archive_Set_1|List of Archives]]
|}
__TOC__


== global atheism is shrinking - newest data ==

Global atheism is shrinking - newest data:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/global-study-atheists-decline-only-18-world-population-2020

http://www.christianpost.com/news/study-world-is-turning-more-religious-atheism-declining-100518/

Incorporate into article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:59, 9 August 2013 (EDT)

==Politics==
Cons, why is it that we only have an "[[Atheism and communism]]" Section here? Remember the page Atheism and Politics? Surely we should have a section here that redirects to that ( and that section affirms that Atheists are in all variety of political colors) or we include "Atheism and Liberalism" and "Atheism and Conservatism" into this page. Though I was thinking of creating a page for the Latter two...thoughts? [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 15:34, 10 August 2013 (GMT)
:Why are you asking me something you already know the answer to? I am assuming that you are intelligent to know that [[communism]] is a subset of politics.

:And it was and is a very significant subset. For example, according to the [[University of Cambridge]], historically, the "most notable spread of atheism was achieved through the success of the 1917 Russian Revolution, which brought the [[Marxism-Leninism|Marxist-Leninists]] to power."[http://www.investigatingatheism.info/marxism.html] And atheistic communist China/Korea have a significant amount of people under atheist leaders who still persecute people (including Christians) of religions other than the [[Atheism is a religion|religion of atheism]].[http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/february-web-only/persecution-in-china-is-very-real.html][http://www.persecution.org/2013/06/24/china-still-persecuting-christians-just-better-at-hiding-it/]

:Your complaint helps illustrate that many atheists have a penchant for engaging in the [[fallacy of exclusion]]. Please stop engaging in childish and unwarranted gamesmanship. It confirms in people's minds that atheism is a illegitimate and false religion practiced by unreasonable and deceitful people. See: [[Atheism and deception]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:49, 10 August 2013 (EDT)

::Ever hear of the term "swing and a miss"? You have completely ignored my point and have somehow made your own. My point was about the fallacy of exclusion as you have excluded all evidence that does not fit into your personal vendetta against atheism. Now onto your point, I am not denying that Marxism/Leninism proponents were Atheists. I am denying the claim that All Atheists are on the left or that everything you say is true of all Atheists. I am living proof that Atheists can be on the right wing as is David Hume and Ayn Rand. (and I know what you are about to say about David Hume and let me stop you there. Atheism and Agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Personally I am an Agnostic-Atheist). Now, on a more personal note, I find it farcical that you would call Atheism childish and then instantly start name-calling and mud-slinging. Now, I am not about to go down the line of you calling me an "unreasonable and deceitful" person because I'll just see the benefit of the doubt and hope that you didn't mean me. If you did, then you have just proven yourself to be unreasonable and almost insecure because you can't seem to be secure in your own belief unless everyone else around you believes it. You know, an original tenet of the Republican Party (In the USA) was a policy called Pluralism, also known as "let the people have their faith" (and lack of it). You seem to be defying old conservative tenets with your insistence of trying to stamp out or omit anyone who does not think exactly like you. There is a difference between logical debate with reasoned argument and your policy of mud-slinging. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 18:52, 10 August 2013 (GMT)
Ryancsh, first, do you hold to [[social conservatism]]? Are you pro-life? What are your thoughts on [[homosexuality]]? Setting aside the issue of whether or not there should be public schools. as far as religious freedom, do you think that school prayer should be allowed in public schools? Should public school valedictorians be allowed to speak about their Christian faith at high school commencements? Do you think that the teaching of evolution should be mandatory in public schools? In private schools?

Next, at the apex of the [[New Atheism]], the [[User: Conservative]] account did largely create the extensive Conservapedia article on atheism. Yet, this does not necessarily mean that I have a vendetta against atheism. Currently, [[global atheism]] is shrinking and there is sound scholarship indicating that this shrinking will accelerate. I regard the [[Atheism is a religion|atheist religion]] somewhat similar to other errant religions in the past which waned such as Baal worship or ancient Roman religions with the caveat that it probably will not completely die out as far as adherents until the Second Coming of Christ due to doubt being a part of the human condition since the [[Fall of man]]. Atheism is intellectually dead though. For example, prominent atheists/evolutionists unwilling to debate evolution and previously losing their series of debates in the 1970s (see: [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]]).

In addition, in order to have a vendetta against something you have to think about it often. And as of late, although there is a persistent atheist who wants to garner my attention (who is afraid to debate [[VivaYehshua]]) and other atheists who want to grab my attention, I am spending less and less time thinking about the topic atheism. Not only is the religion of atheism foolish and errant, but I am agreeing more and more with the sentiments of [[John Updike]] who remarked that "Among the repulsions of atheism for me has been its drastic un-interestingness as an intellectual position. Where was the ingenuity, the ambiguity, the humanity of saying that the universe just happened to happen and that when we're dead we're dead?". However, there were recently a few matters that wanted to add to Conservapedia's content about atheism as I thought they were germane (incorporation a politics section into the atheism article which I promised someone that I would do and the [[Atheist hypocrisy]] article). In short, why think much about a religion that is foolish, dying at an increasing rate and uninteresting (and the atheist religion has all three attributes)?

By the way, it seems as if [[Shockofgod]] is less interested in the topic of atheism as well. He is doing less videos on atheism as of late. Also, although [[Mariano Grinbank]], the author of [http://creation.com/atheism this extensive online article on atheism] featured at [[Creation Ministries International]], still writes about atheism, he may be writing about it less often relative to other [[Christian apologetics]] topics he writes about it. See: [http://www.examiner.com/worldview-and-science-in-national/mariano-grinbank?page=1 Worldview and science Examiner]. So it seems as if many people are less interested in atheism since the apex of the [[New Atheism]] (interest in the New Atheism and [[Richard Dawkins]] is a shadow of its former self).[http://www.conservapedia.com/Richard_Dawkins%27_loss_of_influence]

Lastly, I made a suggestion that you create an article on the [[secular right]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:24, 10 August 2013 (EDT)

:To Answer your first point, I do hold many values that would be socially conservative. My work on the [[Abortion and adoption]] article and my interest in pro-life campaigns within the Conservative Party would indicate that I am Pro-Life. On the topic of School Prayer, I have always thought that it should be at a schools discretion or that the parents in a public-school's catchment area should decide. Having said that, I support an op-out system for students who are not Christian (i.e. Jewish, Muslim, Atheist) but that the minority should not rule over the rights of the majority. (Pluralism, which I hold, agrees with a dominate culture and religion so long as it allows other cultures and religions to exist peacefully). I am actually in favor of not teaching anything that is not scientific fact. Natural selection should be taught and students should be made aware that Evolution the origin of species is a theory based of the idea of natural selection over millions of years. Apart from that, I really don't care. As I have mentioned before, evolution is not my subject. My position (in terms of Atheism) is "You have not convinced me that your claim of a God is true. As such, I will not believe it as I have seen no good evidence for such an extraordinary claim." Private schools should reserve the right to teach what they wish so long as they can get their pupils to pass exams.

:Now, I think that the fact that the vast majority of Articles with the Title "Atheism And____" are either created by you or are severely edited by your or are only ever edited by you (one of the three) kind of shows that you have a fixation on Atheism. For what reason, I do not know. Now, I would highly dispute the claim that Atheism is a religion, but I do not think this is the place to do it. What I would advise you to do, would be to stop trying to pigeon-hole all Atheists. That is severe generalization (which in the UK is seen as trait of the Socialist Labour Party)and should be stopped. I am not sure how it works in the USA, but in the UK, Conservatives believe in setting out a well-defined argument with well-defined logical reasoning ( not overly-quoting or using arguments from authority) so that those who are listen arive to their own conclusion rather than us having to force-feed it. I think that if you applied that to Atheism Articles, they would seem a lot more intellectly rounded. I say this because, from my perspective at least, the current Article seems more like a highly aggravated rant on Atheism in general.

:Also, I will write that Article when I have time...assuming Conservapedia doesn't lock me out again. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 20:25, 10 August 2013 (GMT)
::Ryancsh, true conservatives believe in liberty and because you believe that Darwinism, an unsupported tenet of your religion of agnosticism/atheism, should be mandatory and paid for by taxpayers, this helps show me that you are not a true conservative. And I strongly believe that you are unwilling and afraid to debate [[VivaYehshua]] on the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions] for evolutionists.

::Lastly, like many atheist criticisms of [[User: Conservative]] account material on atheism, you were vague and were not specific. You certainly did not point out a single factual error in the [[atheism]] article! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:16, 10 August 2013 (EDT)
:::Ryancsh, one other thing, how many people have edited using the [[User: Conservative]] account? How many people have edited atheism related content using the User: Conservative account? No true skeptic would insist that [[User: Conservative]] account editing was merely the work of one person. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:20, 10 August 2013 (EDT)

Okay let's get this straightened out right now. Because I am sick and tired of your farcical accusations of Atheism being a religion with Darwinism as a tenet. Atheism and Darwinism have nothing in common other than the fact that certain high profile Atheists ( like Richard Dawkins) accept Darwinism as true. I find it almost repulsive that you would label me as a Darwinist when I am not. It shows the lack of logic in your argument if you have to resort to calling me things which I am not. and I said that it should be said as a theory, the same way how creationism is said as a theory. And I am afraid? Do you not get the fact that I am not a Darwinist? I mean, discrediting your opposition is one thing, but completely ignoring their argument and resorting to "go-to" lines is naive and shows that you can't debate properly. If you wanted an intellectual debate, actually address my points rather than just ignore them and make up your own. That is a Liberal tactic. I know I am being overly-harsh, but I have a pet-peeve against being labeled things which I am not. Now, you want me to be specific, I was addressing the whole article in general. It has the tone of a rant. There is no reasoned or balanced argument. You complain that Atheists are Liberals, well I have to say that I don't blame American Atheists if they have to put up with the ridicule of this article. There is not a single reference to any positive aspect of Atheism, nor is there any reference to Conservative Atheists apart from a slight reference to Ayn Rand. The reason why Atheists on the right are more common in other countries (such as South Korea where the leader of the Conservative Party was an Atheist) is because the religious right, which I make an educated guess that you are a part of, do not have the same hatred of Atheism that you possess. I have to quote Plato's Republic (p89 of Wordsworth's edition)

:"To hurt one's natural friends is to invite unnatural enemies stronger than oneself." Atheists on the right are your natural Allies because we are both on the right, yet you have shown no comradeship to your natural allies but rather have turned your back on us for some motive that I do not understand. Now let me ask you a question Conservative, since you are so fond of them, When you say there is a God, I say I don't believe since you have not proved it. I do not offer any other argument just that I find your argument faulty and cannot believe it simply because you said so. As such, I do not believe in a god, yet I do not accept the Anti-theist belief that there is no god. Just that I do not know and I do not believe based on the lack of evidence provided. By your standard, What am I? I call myself Atheist from the lack of belief, but you seem to have perverted the meaning into a religious context. So what would you call someone who refuses to believe an extraordinary claim based on the lack of evidence? [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 2:26, 11 August 2013 (GMT)

::Ryancsh, are you a creationist then? If not, what third position do you hold if you are not an evolutionist? I have found that so-called atheists/agnostics are awful silent when I ask them what is the third position. By the way, just when I thought I was pretty much done with the atheism article, you inspired [http://conservapedia.com/Atheism#Denials_that_atheists_exist this section]. Do you like the Japanese picture I chose and the caption under it?

::Second, if you are against socialism, I think that is excellent. By the way, socialism appears to be a causal factor for atheism. See: [[Causes of atheism]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:33, 10 August 2013 (EDT)
:::By the way, I did notice that you were silent on my question about homosexuality. For someone who is supposedly a true conservative and social conservative, your silence is most conspicuous. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:48, 10 August 2013 (EDT)

::::I thought we had already went over this. I am not a creationist or an evolutionist. Have you heard of the Gumball analogy? I'll shorten it down for you. If I have a gumball machine on my desk, and you are in my room and I tell you that the number of Gumballs in the machine is even. Do you believe me based on just what I have said? You have no evidence that the number of gumballs is even and I have not given you sufficient evidence to prove it. If you do not believe me, then you are taking an Atheist approach. Now, just because you do not believe that the number is even...does that mean that you must believe that it is odd? No. It just means that the claim you have been given does not have enough evidence to make you believe it to be true. In fact, the opposite claim would have the same problem of lack of evidence. By rejecting one, you are not automatically agreeing with another. The same can be said for evolution vs creationism. Neither side has proven to be scientific fact and, after consulting the evidence, I am not going to say that I believe either side to be true without conclusive proof. I treat everything with the same decree of Falsifiability (a trait of a theory where it can be shown to be false if some conceivable observation were true). Falsificationism questions theories instead of proving them or others.

::::Now I have read you causes of atheism article, and I have to say that not a single one fits me. You don't have a very comprehensive article if you don't even mention the cause which I always saw as most prominent (and almost certainly applies to me) : Lack of belief due to the lack of evidence presented.

:::: Onto the question on Homosexuality, my position has always been against same-sex marriage. I believe that marriage is a tradition of one man, one woman, one life. For that reason I am also against divorce except for cases with exceptional circumstances (mainly being domestic abuse). I quite like Ann Coulter's idea of "Don't ask Don't tell for all of society" because I don't think that sexual orientation should even be an issue. I have always took the line of "What you do behind closed doors is not my concern, but try to shove it down my throat and you will soon have me as an opponent." Oh an on the issue of school prayer, as you are a Christian, should you not be against school prayer? I am pretty sure it says in the bible:

"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen [do]: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him". Matthew 6:5-8.

Which essentially says don't pray in public but pray in private and not to have repeated prayer. Now, I have made my view clear that I think it should be up to either the School or the Parents with an Op-out system for those who do. I am just curious that you would support something that your own bible condemns. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 13:52, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
:Ryancsh, atheists typically do a poor job at [[Bible exegesis]]. The Bible is against ostentatious prayer used to gain attention and as a means to foist on others the notion that you are godly, but it is not against group prayer.[http://www.openbible.info/topics/praying_together]

:Second, none of those [[causes of atheism]] apply to you? Have you ever told a lie? Can you pass this good person test? See: [http://www.livingwaters.com/good/ Good person test]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:21, 11 August 2013 (EDT)

::Okay are we going to have to go through these? Oh fun: 1. Moral Depravity: I think that we have both agreed that I have the morals of a social conservative on the vast majority of matters. 2.Hatred towards God: How can I hate what I do not think exists?. 3.Atheistic Upbringing: My mother was a fundamentalist Catholic, My father a Methodist so no. 4.Rebellion: to "ignore the reality" God's existence would first have to be proved to be reality, which it is not and so I am not rebelling against reality. 5.Hedonism: I am not a hedonist and certainly no materialist, considering that I am a Conservative Ideologue. Hedonism has "the idea that pleasure is the highest good"...I think Loyalty is the highest good. 6. Gullibility: this is a logical paradox. Atheists are skeptics of an extravagant claim by Christians. Skepticism is an Antonym of gullibility. 7. Irrational Thinking: I don't believe in the supernatural and, considering I am a conservative, my ideological tenets are highly rational. 8.Superficiality: I am a member of a political party which is dominated by Anglicans. It would be more superficial for me to be an Anglican than an Atheist. Also, there is no superficial reason for me to be an Atheist. 9. Error: I have considered the facts, just we arrived at different conclusions. You do realize it is possible to know something just as much as you and still not agree with you. 10. State churches: How is this even a cause? I think this is unrelated correlation, a bit like saying "100% of people who die have drank water in their lives, as such water is responsible for the majority of deaths." 11.Decline of family in a culture: I had a very strong family culture and still believe in the traditional family unit. 12.Socialism: did we not just define that I hate Socialism? 13.Self Deception and 14. Satanic Deception: No and no. I checked the reference and found nothing on that site that had anything to do with me. 15. Poor relationship with Father: My relationship with my father was brilliant actually. He's the one who got me interested in politics and gave me my Conservative realist reasoning. 16:Division in religion: How is this even a cause? I have never heard of someone becoming an Atheist because religion was divided, and if there was someone who did I would tell them to wise up, get a grip and to not over-react to religious theological debate. 17.Ignorance: I managed to get good enough grades (an A, the highest grade for the exam, in the entrance exam) to get into a private school (at the time the Catholic Church funded the School, those with good enough grades got in for free) and maintained those grades throughout my time. 18.Indoctrination and ease of life: Catholic School was not secularized. The only indoctrination there was them attempting to indoctrinate me into being a Catholic. 19. Lack Of Knowledge: this is the same as the Ignorance argument. I don't know what you decided to put it in twice. 20. Negative experiences with Theists: In the UK people are very accepting of Atheism and most don't care. The only negative interaction I have ever experienced has been with you and your rants.21.Scientism: I reject through lack of logical evidence, not through replacing religious theology with scientific theory.[[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 16:05, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
:::Ryancsh, you didn't answer my two simple questions. Did you ever tell a lie? Can you pass this good person test? See: [http://www.livingwaters.com/good/ Good person test]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:03, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
::::Have I ever told A lie? Of course. Last time I told a lie would depend on your definition of a lie, be is Platonic, Socratic, Militius ect. Can I pass that test, after doing that test (which is a heavily loaded test and I disagree with the name. It should be "are you a good christian test") I found that there is not a pass at the end, just a christian rant about how I will burn in hell for my sins, nothing which I haven't heard before. I still do not see how this applies to causes of Atheism. If you are going to use that test as the sole indicator, then everyone not part of the Judeo-Christian religion would be an Atheist. and that would be the majority of earth.

And you didn't answer my Question. Would you see me as an Atheist even though I do not follow the supposed "tenets" of the "religion". You effectively avoided any reference to what I am considering my mere existence defies this article and your idea that all atheists are Liberal-commie-Darwinists. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 19:36, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
[[Image:Cherry Blossom Japan.jpg|thumb|250px|Even in atheistic [[Japan]], researchers found that Japanese children see the world [[Intelligent design|as designed]].[http://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed] ]]
::Why don't you tell me what your third option is so we can all judge it merit. We have creationism which advocates supernatural origins and evolutionism which advocates naturalistic origins. So tell us your third option. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:27, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
:::I answered this. I do not bring forward a third option, I simply say that neither have enough evidence to convince me of their validity. Re-read the gumball analogy, I think you missed the point of it. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 20:30, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
Ryancsh, you said, "I simply say that neither have enough evidence to convince me of their validity". You have admitted to lying before. Have you lied multiple times? The reason I ask is the even in atheistic [[Japan]], researchers found that Japanese children see the world [[Intelligent design|as designed]].[http://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed] I have I hard time believing you can't see it too - especially since you told me that you lied before. “The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?" - [[Jeremiah]] 17:9 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:07, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
:::: Firstly, Children believe whatever they are told. The fact that a child believes in Santa does not make Santa real the same way how a child seeing the world to be designed does not make it so. Onto the lying, I really do not know what you are trying to say. I guarantee that at sometime in your life, you have lied on an occasion. It's a logical impossibility that you have not. Yet I do not treat everything you say to be a lie. Now, are you seriously suggestion that I am not an Atheist? Cons, I find it hard to believe that you know what intellectual forum and debate is. Not only do you refuse to acknowledge the points of your opposition, you have just attempted to claim that your opposition doesn't even exist. You claim that Atheists are gullible but if you truly believe that you have no opposition and that everyone thinks the same way you do, then I suggest you have a self-diagnosis of yourself. I remember in the last debate we had, you ended it per-maturely without acknowledging most of my points and skipping to go-to responses. Oh and Cons, the fact that you can't argue without a captioned picture or a hyperlink to some other section or website, says a large about the strength of your argument. I am really trying not to be overly harsh, but you are being purposefully antagonistic and it is actually reminding me of Labour Leader Gorden Brown when he was on televised debate.[[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 21:30, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
Ryancsh, You wrote: "Firstly, Children believe whatever they are told." Children in atheistic Japan are not told the world is designed, but nevertheless researchers found they see the world as designed.[http://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed] Your argument broke down from the gitgo. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:46, 11 August 2013 (EDT)

See that is exactly what I am talking about, you refuse to even look at the opposition's points or even consider them. How can you possibly call yourself a conservative when you display such Liberal, bordering communist, tactics is beyond me. How about actually acting like a conservative and having an intellectual conversation like the rest of the right-wing world? and on your point, I don't think you can exactly call children the fore-runners in metaphysical philosophy. If they believe that a magical man can fit down a chimney then I don't argue that they could believe that a magical man could create the world and then send people to hell simply because they do not worship his every trait (which in my mind is egotistical but whatever)[[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 21:58, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
:When I was a kid I also thought the Earth was flat and I staunchly believed grandpa was only sleeping (in a coffin) and would have woken back, eventually. That said, Conservative is like the Soviet Union in the '80s, when questioned about the famine. He keeps shifting from topic to topic evading the main question, proposing particular answers instead of the general ones ("As you can see, in this neighborhood in Moscow everybody eats to satiety!"), suppressing or ignoring evidence against his cause as heretical or burgeoise, and attacking the asker ("What about the famine in Africa, what has the West done?") with stereotyped unrelated rebuttals - I'm surprised he hasn't mentioned Vivayeshua yet. His debating tactics are indeed very communis and liberal.
:Conservative, have you ever heard about Mark Twain's saying, "He who fight monsters must take care lest he himself becomes a monster"? --[[User:RonaldV|RonaldV]] 17:10, 11 August 2013 (EDT)

Talk:Atheism

2013-08-11T21:10:15Z

RonaldV: /* Politics */

{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Atheism/Archive_Set_1|List of Archives]]
|}
__TOC__


== global atheism is shrinking - newest data ==

Global atheism is shrinking - newest data:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/global-study-atheists-decline-only-18-world-population-2020

http://www.christianpost.com/news/study-world-is-turning-more-religious-atheism-declining-100518/

Incorporate into article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:59, 9 August 2013 (EDT)

==Politics==
Cons, why is it that we only have an "[[Atheism and communism]]" Section here? Remember the page Atheism and Politics? Surely we should have a section here that redirects to that ( and that section affirms that Atheists are in all variety of political colors) or we include "Atheism and Liberalism" and "Atheism and Conservatism" into this page. Though I was thinking of creating a page for the Latter two...thoughts? [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 15:34, 10 August 2013 (GMT)
:Why are you asking me something you already know the answer to? I am assuming that you are intelligent to know that [[communism]] is a subset of politics.

:And it was and is a very significant subset. For example, according to the [[University of Cambridge]], historically, the "most notable spread of atheism was achieved through the success of the 1917 Russian Revolution, which brought the [[Marxism-Leninism|Marxist-Leninists]] to power."[http://www.investigatingatheism.info/marxism.html] And atheistic communist China/Korea have a significant amount of people under atheist leaders who still persecute people (including Christians) of religions other than the [[Atheism is a religion|religion of atheism]].[http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/february-web-only/persecution-in-china-is-very-real.html][http://www.persecution.org/2013/06/24/china-still-persecuting-christians-just-better-at-hiding-it/]

:Your complaint helps illustrate that many atheists have a penchant for engaging in the [[fallacy of exclusion]]. Please stop engaging in childish and unwarranted gamesmanship. It confirms in people's minds that atheism is a illegitimate and false religion practiced by unreasonable and deceitful people. See: [[Atheism and deception]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:49, 10 August 2013 (EDT)

::Ever hear of the term "swing and a miss"? You have completely ignored my point and have somehow made your own. My point was about the fallacy of exclusion as you have excluded all evidence that does not fit into your personal vendetta against atheism. Now onto your point, I am not denying that Marxism/Leninism proponents were Atheists. I am denying the claim that All Atheists are on the left or that everything you say is true of all Atheists. I am living proof that Atheists can be on the right wing as is David Hume and Ayn Rand. (and I know what you are about to say about David Hume and let me stop you there. Atheism and Agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Personally I am an Agnostic-Atheist). Now, on a more personal note, I find it farcical that you would call Atheism childish and then instantly start name-calling and mud-slinging. Now, I am not about to go down the line of you calling me an "unreasonable and deceitful" person because I'll just see the benefit of the doubt and hope that you didn't mean me. If you did, then you have just proven yourself to be unreasonable and almost insecure because you can't seem to be secure in your own belief unless everyone else around you believes it. You know, an original tenet of the Republican Party (In the USA) was a policy called Pluralism, also known as "let the people have their faith" (and lack of it). You seem to be defying old conservative tenets with your insistence of trying to stamp out or omit anyone who does not think exactly like you. There is a difference between logical debate with reasoned argument and your policy of mud-slinging. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 18:52, 10 August 2013 (GMT)
Ryancsh, first, do you hold to [[social conservatism]]? Are you pro-life? What are your thoughts on [[homosexuality]]? Setting aside the issue of whether or not there should be public schools. as far as religious freedom, do you think that school prayer should be allowed in public schools? Should public school valedictorians be allowed to speak about their Christian faith at high school commencements? Do you think that the teaching of evolution should be mandatory in public schools? In private schools?

Next, at the apex of the [[New Atheism]], the [[User: Conservative]] account did largely create the extensive Conservapedia article on atheism. Yet, this does not necessarily mean that I have a vendetta against atheism. Currently, [[global atheism]] is shrinking and there is sound scholarship indicating that this shrinking will accelerate. I regard the [[Atheism is a religion|atheist religion]] somewhat similar to other errant religions in the past which waned such as Baal worship or ancient Roman religions with the caveat that it probably will not completely die out as far as adherents until the Second Coming of Christ due to doubt being a part of the human condition since the [[Fall of man]]. Atheism is intellectually dead though. For example, prominent atheists/evolutionists unwilling to debate evolution and previously losing their series of debates in the 1970s (see: [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]]).

In addition, in order to have a vendetta against something you have to think about it often. And as of late, although there is a persistent atheist who wants to garner my attention (who is afraid to debate [[VivaYehshua]]) and other atheists who want to grab my attention, I am spending less and less time thinking about the topic atheism. Not only is the religion of atheism foolish and errant, but I am agreeing more and more with the sentiments of [[John Updike]] who remarked that "Among the repulsions of atheism for me has been its drastic un-interestingness as an intellectual position. Where was the ingenuity, the ambiguity, the humanity of saying that the universe just happened to happen and that when we're dead we're dead?". However, there were recently a few matters that wanted to add to Conservapedia's content about atheism as I thought they were germane (incorporation a politics section into the atheism article which I promised someone that I would do and the [[Atheist hypocrisy]] article). In short, why think much about a religion that is foolish, dying at an increasing rate and uninteresting (and the atheist religion has all three attributes)?

By the way, it seems as if [[Shockofgod]] is less interested in the topic of atheism as well. He is doing less videos on atheism as of late. Also, although [[Mariano Grinbank]], the author of [http://creation.com/atheism this extensive online article on atheism] featured at [[Creation Ministries International]], still writes about atheism, he may be writing about it less often relative to other [[Christian apologetics]] topics he writes about it. See: [http://www.examiner.com/worldview-and-science-in-national/mariano-grinbank?page=1 Worldview and science Examiner]. So it seems as if many people are less interested in atheism since the apex of the [[New Atheism]] (interest in the New Atheism and [[Richard Dawkins]] is a shadow of its former self).[http://www.conservapedia.com/Richard_Dawkins%27_loss_of_influence]

Lastly, I made a suggestion that you create an article on the [[secular right]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:24, 10 August 2013 (EDT)

:To Answer your first point, I do hold many values that would be socially conservative. My work on the [[Abortion and adoption]] article and my interest in pro-life campaigns within the Conservative Party would indicate that I am Pro-Life. On the topic of School Prayer, I have always thought that it should be at a schools discretion or that the parents in a public-school's catchment area should decide. Having said that, I support an op-out system for students who are not Christian (i.e. Jewish, Muslim, Atheist) but that the minority should not rule over the rights of the majority. (Pluralism, which I hold, agrees with a dominate culture and religion so long as it allows other cultures and religions to exist peacefully). I am actually in favor of not teaching anything that is not scientific fact. Natural selection should be taught and students should be made aware that Evolution the origin of species is a theory based of the idea of natural selection over millions of years. Apart from that, I really don't care. As I have mentioned before, evolution is not my subject. My position (in terms of Atheism) is "You have not convinced me that your claim of a God is true. As such, I will not believe it as I have seen no good evidence for such an extraordinary claim." Private schools should reserve the right to teach what they wish so long as they can get their pupils to pass exams.

:Now, I think that the fact that the vast majority of Articles with the Title "Atheism And____" are either created by you or are severely edited by your or are only ever edited by you (one of the three) kind of shows that you have a fixation on Atheism. For what reason, I do not know. Now, I would highly dispute the claim that Atheism is a religion, but I do not think this is the place to do it. What I would advise you to do, would be to stop trying to pigeon-hole all Atheists. That is severe generalization (which in the UK is seen as trait of the Socialist Labour Party)and should be stopped. I am not sure how it works in the USA, but in the UK, Conservatives believe in setting out a well-defined argument with well-defined logical reasoning ( not overly-quoting or using arguments from authority) so that those who are listen arive to their own conclusion rather than us having to force-feed it. I think that if you applied that to Atheism Articles, they would seem a lot more intellectly rounded. I say this because, from my perspective at least, the current Article seems more like a highly aggravated rant on Atheism in general.

:Also, I will write that Article when I have time...assuming Conservapedia doesn't lock me out again. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 20:25, 10 August 2013 (GMT)
::Ryancsh, true conservatives believe in liberty and because you believe that Darwinism, an unsupported tenet of your religion of agnosticism/atheism, should be mandatory and paid for by taxpayers, this helps show me that you are not a true conservative. And I strongly believe that you are unwilling and afraid to debate [[VivaYehshua]] on the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions] for evolutionists.

::Lastly, like many atheist criticisms of [[User: Conservative]] account material on atheism, you were vague and were not specific. You certainly did not point out a single factual error in the [[atheism]] article! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:16, 10 August 2013 (EDT)
:::Ryancsh, one other thing, how many people have edited using the [[User: Conservative]] account? How many people have edited atheism related content using the User: Conservative account? No true skeptic would insist that [[User: Conservative]] account editing was merely the work of one person. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:20, 10 August 2013 (EDT)

Okay let's get this straightened out right now. Because I am sick and tired of your farcical accusations of Atheism being a religion with Darwinism as a tenet. Atheism and Darwinism have nothing in common other than the fact that certain high profile Atheists ( like Richard Dawkins) accept Darwinism as true. I find it almost repulsive that you would label me as a Darwinist when I am not. It shows the lack of logic in your argument if you have to resort to calling me things which I am not. and I said that it should be said as a theory, the same way how creationism is said as a theory. And I am afraid? Do you not get the fact that I am not a Darwinist? I mean, discrediting your opposition is one thing, but completely ignoring their argument and resorting to "go-to" lines is naive and shows that you can't debate properly. If you wanted an intellectual debate, actually address my points rather than just ignore them and make up your own. That is a Liberal tactic. I know I am being overly-harsh, but I have a pet-peeve against being labeled things which I am not. Now, you want me to be specific, I was addressing the whole article in general. It has the tone of a rant. There is no reasoned or balanced argument. You complain that Atheists are Liberals, well I have to say that I don't blame American Atheists if they have to put up with the ridicule of this article. There is not a single reference to any positive aspect of Atheism, nor is there any reference to Conservative Atheists apart from a slight reference to Ayn Rand. The reason why Atheists on the right are more common in other countries (such as South Korea where the leader of the Conservative Party was an Atheist) is because the religious right, which I make an educated guess that you are a part of, do not have the same hatred of Atheism that you possess. I have to quote Plato's Republic (p89 of Wordsworth's edition)

:"To hurt one's natural friends is to invite unnatural enemies stronger than oneself." Atheists on the right are your natural Allies because we are both on the right, yet you have shown no comradeship to your natural allies but rather have turned your back on us for some motive that I do not understand. Now let me ask you a question Conservative, since you are so fond of them, When you say there is a God, I say I don't believe since you have not proved it. I do not offer any other argument just that I find your argument faulty and cannot believe it simply because you said so. As such, I do not believe in a god, yet I do not accept the Anti-theist belief that there is no god. Just that I do not know and I do not believe based on the lack of evidence provided. By your standard, What am I? I call myself Atheist from the lack of belief, but you seem to have perverted the meaning into a religious context. So what would you call someone who refuses to believe an extraordinary claim based on the lack of evidence? [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 2:26, 11 August 2013 (GMT)

::Ryancsh, are you a creationist then? If not, what third position do you hold if you are not an evolutionist? I have found that so-called atheists/agnostics are awful silent when I ask them what is the third position. By the way, just when I thought I was pretty much done with the atheism article, you inspired [http://conservapedia.com/Atheism#Denials_that_atheists_exist this section]. Do you like the Japanese picture I chose and the caption under it?

::Second, if you are against socialism, I think that is excellent. By the way, socialism appears to be a causal factor for atheism. See: [[Causes of atheism]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:33, 10 August 2013 (EDT)
:::By the way, I did notice that you were silent on my question about homosexuality. For someone who is supposedly a true conservative and social conservative, your silence is most conspicuous. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:48, 10 August 2013 (EDT)

::::I thought we had already went over this. I am not a creationist or an evolutionist. Have you heard of the Gumball analogy? I'll shorten it down for you. If I have a gumball machine on my desk, and you are in my room and I tell you that the number of Gumballs in the machine is even. Do you believe me based on just what I have said? You have no evidence that the number of gumballs is even and I have not given you sufficient evidence to prove it. If you do not believe me, then you are taking an Atheist approach. Now, just because you do not believe that the number is even...does that mean that you must believe that it is odd? No. It just means that the claim you have been given does not have enough evidence to make you believe it to be true. In fact, the opposite claim would have the same problem of lack of evidence. By rejecting one, you are not automatically agreeing with another. The same can be said for evolution vs creationism. Neither side has proven to be scientific fact and, after consulting the evidence, I am not going to say that I believe either side to be true without conclusive proof. I treat everything with the same decree of Falsifiability (a trait of a theory where it can be shown to be false if some conceivable observation were true). Falsificationism questions theories instead of proving them or others.

::::Now I have read you causes of atheism article, and I have to say that not a single one fits me. You don't have a very comprehensive article if you don't even mention the cause which I always saw as most prominent (and almost certainly applies to me) : Lack of belief due to the lack of evidence presented.

:::: Onto the question on Homosexuality, my position has always been against same-sex marriage. I believe that marriage is a tradition of one man, one woman, one life. For that reason I am also against divorce except for cases with exceptional circumstances (mainly being domestic abuse). I quite like Ann Coulter's idea of "Don't ask Don't tell for all of society" because I don't think that sexual orientation should even be an issue. I have always took the line of "What you do behind closed doors is not my concern, but try to shove it down my throat and you will soon have me as an opponent." Oh an on the issue of school prayer, as you are a Christian, should you not be against school prayer? I am pretty sure it says in the bible:

"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen [do]: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him". Matthew 6:5-8.

Which essentially says don't pray in public but pray in private and not to have repeated prayer. Now, I have made my view clear that I think it should be up to either the School or the Parents with an Op-out system for those who do. I am just curious that you would support something that your own bible condemns. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 13:52, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
:Ryancsh, atheists typically do a poor job at [[Bible exegesis]]. The Bible is against ostentatious prayer used to gain attention and as a means to foist on others the notion that you are godly, but it is not against group prayer.[http://www.openbible.info/topics/praying_together]

:Second, none of those [[causes of atheism]] apply to you? Have you ever told a lie? Can you pass this good person test? See: [http://www.livingwaters.com/good/ Good person test]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:21, 11 August 2013 (EDT)

::Okay are we going to have to go through these? Oh fun: 1. Moral Depravity: I think that we have both agreed that I have the morals of a social conservative on the vast majority of matters. 2.Hatred towards God: How can I hate what I do not think exists?. 3.Atheistic Upbringing: My mother was a fundamentalist Catholic, My father a Methodist so no. 4.Rebellion: to "ignore the reality" God's existence would first have to be proved to be reality, which it is not and so I am not rebelling against reality. 5.Hedonism: I am not a hedonist and certainly no materialist, considering that I am a Conservative Ideologue. Hedonism has "the idea that pleasure is the highest good"...I think Loyalty is the highest good. 6. Gullibility: this is a logical paradox. Atheists are skeptics of an extravagant claim by Christians. Skepticism is an Antonym of gullibility. 7. Irrational Thinking: I don't believe in the supernatural and, considering I am a conservative, my ideological tenets are highly rational. 8.Superficiality: I am a member of a political party which is dominated by Anglicans. It would be more superficial for me to be an Anglican than an Atheist. Also, there is no superficial reason for me to be an Atheist. 9. Error: I have considered the facts, just we arrived at different conclusions. You do realize it is possible to know something just as much as you and still not agree with you. 10. State churches: How is this even a cause? I think this is unrelated correlation, a bit like saying "100% of people who die have drank water in their lives, as such water is responsible for the majority of deaths." 11.Decline of family in a culture: I had a very strong family culture and still believe in the traditional family unit. 12.Socialism: did we not just define that I hate Socialism? 13.Self Deception and 14. Satanic Deception: No and no. I checked the reference and found nothing on that site that had anything to do with me. 15. Poor relationship with Father: My relationship with my father was brilliant actually. He's the one who got me interested in politics and gave me my Conservative realist reasoning. 16:Division in religion: How is this even a cause? I have never heard of someone becoming an Atheist because religion was divided, and if there was someone who did I would tell them to wise up, get a grip and to not over-react to religious theological debate. 17.Ignorance: I managed to get good enough grades (an A, the highest grade for the exam, in the entrance exam) to get into a private school (at the time the Catholic Church funded the School, those with good enough grades got in for free) and maintained those grades throughout my time. 18.Indoctrination and ease of life: Catholic School was not secularized. The only indoctrination there was them attempting to indoctrinate me into being a Catholic. 19. Lack Of Knowledge: this is the same as the Ignorance argument. I don't know what you decided to put it in twice. 20. Negative experiences with Theists: In the UK people are very accepting of Atheism and most don't care. The only negative interaction I have ever experienced has been with you and your rants.21.Scientism: I reject through lack of logical evidence, not through replacing religious theology with scientific theory.[[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 16:05, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
:::Ryancsh, you didn't answer my two simple questions. Did you ever tell a lie? Can you pass this good person test? See: [http://www.livingwaters.com/good/ Good person test]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:03, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
::::Have I ever told A lie? Of course. Last time I told a lie would depend on your definition of a lie, be is Platonic, Socratic, Militius ect. Can I pass that test, after doing that test (which is a heavily loaded test and I disagree with the name. It should be "are you a good christian test") I found that there is not a pass at the end, just a christian rant about how I will burn in hell for my sins, nothing which I haven't heard before. I still do not see how this applies to causes of Atheism. If you are going to use that test as the sole indicator, then everyone not part of the Judeo-Christian religion would be an Atheist. and that would be the majority of earth.

And you didn't answer my Question. Would you see me as an Atheist even though I do not follow the supposed "tenets" of the "religion". You effectively avoided any reference to what I am considering my mere existence defies this article and your idea that all atheists are Liberal-commie-Darwinists. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 19:36, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
[[Image:Cherry Blossom Japan.jpg|thumb|250px|Even in atheistic [[Japan]], researchers found that Japanese children see the world [[Intelligent design|as designed]].[http://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed] ]]
::Why don't you tell me what your third option is so we can all judge it merit. We have creationism which advocates supernatural origins and evolutionism which advocates naturalistic origins. So tell us your third option. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:27, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
:::I answered this. I do not bring forward a third option, I simply say that neither have enough evidence to convince me of their validity. Re-read the gumball analogy, I think you missed the point of it. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 20:30, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
Ryancsh, you said, "I simply say that neither have enough evidence to convince me of their validity". You have admitted to lying before. Have you lied multiple times? The reason I ask is the even in atheistic [[Japan]], researchers found that Japanese children see the world [[Intelligent design|as designed]].[http://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed] I have I hard time believing you can't see it too - especially since you told me that you lied before. “The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?" - [[Jeremiah]] 17:9 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:07, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
:::: Firstly, Children believe whatever they are told. The fact that a child believes in Santa does not make Santa real the same way how a child seeing the world to be designed does not make it so. Onto the lying, I really do not know what you are trying to say. I guarantee that at sometime in your life, you have lied on an occasion. It's a logical impossibility that you have not. Yet I do not treat everything you say to be a lie. Now, are you seriously suggestion that I am not an Atheist? Cons, I find it hard to believe that you know what intellectual forum and debate is. Not only do you refuse to acknowledge the points of your opposition, you have just attempted to claim that your opposition doesn't even exist. You claim that Atheists are gullible but if you truly believe that you have no opposition and that everyone thinks the same way you do, then I suggest you have a self-diagnosis of yourself. I remember in the last debate we had, you ended it per-maturely without acknowledging most of my points and skipping to go-to responses. Oh and Cons, the fact that you can't argue without a captioned picture or a hyperlink to some other section or website, says a large about the strength of your argument. I am really trying not to be overly harsh, but you are being purposefully antagonistic and it is actually reminding me of Labour Leader Gorden Brown when he was on televised debate.[[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 21:30, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
Ryancsh, You wrote: "Firstly, Children believe whatever they are told." Children in atheistic Japan are not told the world is designed, but nevertheless researchers found they see the world as designed.[http://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed] Your argument broke down from the gitgo. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:46, 11 August 2013 (EDT)

See that is exactly what I am talking about, you refuse to even look at the opposition's points or even consider them. How can you possibly call yourself a conservative when you display such Liberal, bordering communist, tactics is beyond me. How about actually acting like a conservative and having an intellectual conversation like the rest of the right-wing world? and on your point, I don't think you can exactly call children the fore-runners in metaphysical philosophy. If they believe that a magical man can fit down a chimney then I don't argue that they could believe that a magical man could create the world and then send people to hell simply because they do not worship his every trait (which in my mind is egotistical but whatever)[[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 21:58, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
:When I was a kid I also thought the Earth was flat and I staunchly believed grandpa was only sleeping (in a coffin) and would have woken back, eventually. That said, Conservative is like the Soviet Union in the '80s, when questioned about the famine. He keeps shifting from topic to topic evading the main question, proposing particular answers instead of the general ones ("As you can see, in this neighborhood in Moscow everybody eats to satiety!") and attacking the asker ("What about the famine in Africa, what has the West done?"). His debating tactics are indeed very communis and liberal.
:Conservative, have you ever heard about Mark Twain's saying, "He who fight monsters must take care lest he himself becomes a monster"? --[[User:RonaldV|RonaldV]] 17:10, 11 August 2013 (EDT)

House, MD

2013-08-11T17:31:16Z

RonaldV:

'''House, M.D.''' is a television series on the [[Fox Network]] that runs for an hour each week. It is also known as '''House''', without the MD. The main character, House (picked because of its similarity to the last name of [[Sherlock Holmes]]) is a witty and brilliant genius of a [[doctor]], but a man with few redeeming social graces. The show mixes medical issues with moral and personal dilemmas and has become quite popular, in part because it often comes on after [[American Idol]], but it has since done well on its own even when American Idol is not on. Due to sometimes graphic scenes and adult themes, the show is not recommended for children under 14.

== Cast ==

*Dr. Gregory House: [[Hugh Laurie]]
*Dr. James Wilson: Robert Sean Leonard
*Dr. Lisa Cuddy: Lisa Edelstein

=== Team of Seasons 1-3 ===
*Dr. Allison Cameron: Jennifer Morrison
*Dr. Robert Chase: Jesse Spencer
*Dr. Eric Foreman: Omar Epps
=== Team of Season 4-5 ===
*Dr. Lawrence Kutner: Kal Penn
*Dr. Chris Taub: Peter Jacobson
*Dr. Remy "Thirteen" Hadley: Olivia Wilde
*Dr. Eric Foreman: Omar Epps
=== Team of Season 8 ===
*Dr. Chi Park: Charlyne Yi
*Dr. Jessica Adams: Odette Yustman
*Dr. Chris Taub: Peter Jacobson
*Dr. Robert Chase: Jesse Spencer

==References==
<references/>
*[http://www.tv.com/house/show/22374/cast.html House Cast and Crew]
*[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0412142/ IMDB website]

[[Category:Television Shows]]

Switzerland

2013-08-10T14:37:04Z

RonaldV: /* Defense */

{{Country
|name =''Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft (German) Confédération suisse (French) Confederazione Svizzera (Italian) Confederaziun svizra (Romansch)''
|map =Switzerland rel 2000.jpg
|map2 =Switzerland location.png
|flag =Flag of Switzerland.png
|arms =Arms of Switzerland.png
|capital =Bern
|capital-raw =
|government-raw =[[Federal|Federal State]], [[direct democracy]]
|language =German, French, Italian, Romansch
|king =
|queen =
|monarch-raw =
|president =Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =
|pm-raw =
|area =41,285 sq mi
|pop =7,508,700 (2006)
|pop-basis =
|gdp =
|gdp-year =$264.1 billion (2005)
|gdp-pc =$50,532 (2005)
|currency =Swiss franc
|idd =
|tld =
}}

'''Switzerland''' is a country located in [[Central Europe]] between [[Germany]], [[Italy]], [[France]], and [[Austria]]. Its capital is [[Bern]], and its largest city is [[Zurich]]. Four languages have been designated as official: [[German]], [[French]], [[Italian]], and [[Romansch]] (a dialect spoken by a small minority, closely related to [[Latin]]). Switzerland has been an independent country since 1291 and is a confederation of 26 cantons with elements of direct democracy in that all laws passed by parliament can be overturned by arranging a [[referendum]]. Switzerland is also well-known for having strict [[neutrality]].

==People==
Switzerland sits at the crossroads of several major European cultures, which have heavily influenced the country's languages and cultural practices. Switzerland has four official languages--German, French, Italian, and Romansch (based on Latin and spoken by a small minority in the Canton Graubunden). The [[German]] spoken is predominantly a Swiss dialect, but newspapers and some broadcasts use [[High German]]. Many Swiss speak more than one language. [[English]] is widely known, especially among professionals.
[[File:Alphorn players in Vals Switzerland.JPG|thumb|250px|left|Alphorn players in Vals.]]
More than 75% of the population lives in the central plain, which stretches between the [[Alps]] and the [[Jura]] Mountains and from [[Geneva]] in the southwest to the [[Rhine]] River and [[Lake Constance]] in the northeast. Resident foreigners and temporary foreign workers make up about 20% of the population.

According to the Swiss Federal Office of Statistics, the population in Switzerland increased to an estimated 7,523,934 by July 2006. Three-quarters of this growth was attributed to migration. Switzerland naturalized 22% more people in 2006 compared to 2005, totaling 46,700 persons. By the end of 2006, there were 850,000 foreigners working legally in Switzerland. The rise of German immigrants, as confirmed in earlier reports, increased by 10.6% (+10,000). Portuguese workers also increased by 7.4% (+7000). On the other hand, the number of the Italians continued to drop by –3.2% (-5000). The major ethnic groups are: German 65%, French 10%, and Italians 6%.

Almost all Swiss are literate. Switzerland's 13 university institutes enrolled 111,100 students in the academic year of 2004-05. About 25% of the adult population holds a diploma of higher learning.

The Constitution guarantees freedom of worship, and the different religious communities co-exist peacefully. About 40% of the population are [[Protestants]] and 46% are [[Roman Catholic Church|Roman Catholic]]s.

Switzerland consistently ranks high on quality of life indices, including highest per capita income, one of the highest concentrations of computer and Internet usage per capita, highest insurance coverage per individual, and high health care rates. For these and many other reasons, it serves as an excellent [[test market]] for businesses hoping to introduce new products into Europe.

==Government==
Switzerland is a federal state composed of 26 [[canton]]s (20 are "full" cantons and six "half" cantons for purposes of representation in the federal legislature) that retain many attributes of [[sovereignty]], such as fiscal autonomy and the right to manage internal cantonal affairs. The 1874 Constitution began, "Together, the peoples of the 23 sovereign Cantons of Switzerland united by the present alliance..." Similarly, under the current 2000 Constitution, cantons hold all powers not specifically delegated to the federation. Switzerland's federal institutions are:
*A bicameral legislature--the Federal Assembly;
*A collegial executive of seven members--the Federal Council; and
*A judiciary consisting of a regular court in [[Lausanne]]--the Federal Tribunal--and special military and administrative courts.
**The Federal Insurance Tribunal is an independent division of the Federal Tribunal that handles social security questions; its seat is in [[Lucerne]].
**The Federal Criminal Court, located in [[Bellinzona]], is the [[court of first instance]] for all criminal cases under federal jurisdiction.
*The Constitution provides for separation of the three branches of government.

===Federal Assembly===
The Federal Assembly is the primary seat of power, although in practice the executive branch has been increasing its power at the expense of the legislative branch. The Federal Assembly has two houses--the Council of States and the National Council. These two houses have equal powers in all respects, including the right to introduce legislation. Legislation cannot be vetoed by the executive nor reviewed for constitutionality by the judiciary, but all laws (except the budget) can be reviewed by popular referendum before taking effect. The 46 members of the Council of States (two from each canton and one from each half canton) are directly elected in each canton by majority voting. The 200 members of the National Council are directly elected in each canton under a system of proportional representation. Members of both houses serve for 4 years.

The Federal Assembly meets quarterly for 3-week plenary sessions. The parliamentary committees of the two houses, which are often key in shaping legislation, meet behind closed doors, but both majority and minority positions are presented during the plenary sessions. The Federal Assembly is a militia parliament, and members commonly retain their traditional professions. Individual members of parliament have no personal staff.

The Assembly can be legally dissolved only after the adoption of a popular initiative calling for a complete revision of the Constitution. All citizens 18 or older have the right to vote and run for office in national, cantonal, and communal elections unless individually disqualified by the relevant legislature.

===Federal Council===
The top executive body is the seven-member cabinet called the Federal Council. The Federal Assembly individually elects the seven Federal Councilors in a joint session of both houses at the opening of a new legislature. Federal Councilors are elected for 4-year terms; there are no term limits and no provision to recall the cabinet or individual members during the legislature. Each year, the Federal Assembly elects from among the seven Federal Councilors a president and vice president, following the principle of seniority. The member who is vice president one year traditionally is elected president the next. Although the Constitution provides that the Federal Assembly chooses and supervises the cabinet, the latter has gradually assumed a preeminent role in directing the legislative process as well as executing federal laws.

Under an arrangement between the four major parties called the "magic formula" which was introduced in 1959 but ended in December 2003, two Federal Councilors (ministers) were elected each from the Christian Democrats, the Social Democrats, and the Free Democrats and one from the Swiss People's Party. Under the new magic formula starting January 1, 2004, the new party composition of the cabinet changed to the following composition: 1 Christian Democrat, 2 Social Democrats, 2 Free Democrats, and 2 representatives of the Swiss People's Party. This arrangement was shaken up in the aftermath of the 2008 federal elections: a leftist coalition of Social Democrats, Greens and Christian Democrats formed a parliamentary majority to oust Councilor Christoph Blocher, the iconic leader of the [[Swiss People's Party]], from office even though his party had just achieved a decisive electoral victory. He was replaced by party colleague Evelin Widmer-Schlumpf, who was subsequently banned from the party for conspiring against Blocher, along with fellow Councilor Samuel Schmid. The two went on to form a new breakaway party, the Conservative Democratic Party. The Swiss People's Party has since returned as a participant in the national government following the demission of Schmid, who was replaced by Ueli Maurer.

The Constitution requires that Federal Councilors act collectively in all matters, not as individual ministers or as representatives of their parties. Each Councilor heads one of seven federal departments and is responsible for preparing legislation pertaining to matters under its jurisdiction. The president, who remains responsible for the department he heads, has limited prerogatives and is first among equals (there is no formal prime minister).

====Federal Council Membership====
*President and Economic Affairs--Doris Leuthard (Christian Democrat)
*Vice President and Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications--Moritz Leuenberger (Social Democrat)
*Justice and Police--Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf (Conservative Democratic Party)
*Defense, Civil Protection and Sports--Ueli Maurer (Swiss People's Party)
*Finance--Hans-Rudolf Merz (Free Democrat)
*Foreign Affairs--Micheline Calmy-Rey (Social Democrat)
*Home Affairs--Didier Burkhalter (Free Democrat)
*Federal Chancellor--Annemarie Huber-Hotz (Ex Officio)

===Judiciary===
The administration of justice is primarily a cantonal function. The Federal Tribunal is limited in its jurisdiction. Its principal function is to hear appeals of civil and criminal cases. It also hears complaints of violations of the constitutional rights of citizens and has authority to review cantonal court decisions involving federal law as well as certain administrative rulings of federal departments. However, it has no power to review federal legislation for constitutionality. The Tribunal's 30 full-time and 30 part-time judges are elected by the Federal Assembly for 6-year terms. The Federal Criminal Court is the court of first instance for criminal cases involving organized and white-collar crime, money laundering, and corruption, which are under federal jurisdiction. The Court’s 11 judges are elected by the Federal Assembly for 6-year terms.

===Local Government===
[[File:Lausanne, Switzerland.jpg|thumb|Lausanne, canton of Vaud.]]
The cantons regulate local government. The basic unit of local government, which administers a village, town, or city, is the commune or municipality. Citizenship is derived from membership in a commune and can be conferred on non-Swiss by a commune. Cantons are subordinate to federal authority but keep autonomy in implementing federal law.

===[[Referendum|Referenda]]===
A strong emphasis on ballot votes arises out of the traditional Swiss belief that the will of the people is the final national authority. Every constitutional amendment adopted by parliament is automatically brought to the ballot and has to carry a double majority of votes and cantons in order to become effective. The voters themselves may actively seek changes to the Constitution by means of the popular [[initiative]]: 100,000 voters may with their signatures request a national vote on a proposed [[constitutional amendment]]. New federal legislation also is subject to popular review, under the so-called referendum: 50,000 signatures suffice to call a ballot vote on any federal law adopted by parliament. The Assembly can declare an act to be too urgent to allow time for popular consideration, but this is rare. At any rate, an act passed urgently must have a time limit and is later subject to the same constitutional provisions on popular review as other legislation. This device provides a useful channel for linking laws closely to the will of the people and reducing the influence of elites. A stunning example of this process occurred in November 2009, when Swiss voters turned out at the polls in huge numbers to approve of an amendment to the constitution banning the construction of [[minaret]]s <ref>http://www.admin.ch/ch/d//pore/va/20091129/det547.html Official voting results (in German)</ref>. This decision of a vast majority of voters to take a stand against political Islam came after a campaign in which the establishment elites had presented a unified front against the measure: all political parties except the [[Swiss People's Party]] had strongly opposed the suggested amendment, and most of the media openly mocked its supporters as racist and foolish.

===Political Conditions===
Although it has a diverse society, Switzerland has a stable government. Most voters support the government in the armed neutrality underlying its foreign and defense policies. Domestic policy poses no major problems, but the changing international environment has generated a significant reexamination of Swiss policy in key areas such as defense, neutrality, and immigration. Quadrennial national elections typically produce only marginal changes in party representation.

In recent years, Switzerland has seen a gradual shift in the party landscape. The rightist Swiss People's Party (SVP), traditionally the junior partner in the four-party coalition government, more than doubled its voting share from 11% in 1987 to 22.5% in 1999, and finally to 26.6% in 2003, thus overtaking its three coalition partners. This shift in voting shares ended the 44-year old "magic formula," the power-broking agreement of the four coalition parties, and gave a second seat in the 7-person Swiss cabinet to the Swiss People's Party at the expense of the Christian Democrats, now the weakest party with 14.4% of the votes. For the first time in Swiss history, the SVP has two seats in the government, reflecting its new status as Switzerland's most popular party.

On December 10, 2003, [[Christoph Blocher]]--a self-made industrialist and main figure of the right-populist Swiss People's Party known for his strong opinions on asylum and migration and law and order issues--was elected to the cabinet by parliament, replacing the incumbent Christian Democrat Justice and Police Minister Ruth Metzler. The parliament also elected the Free Democrat Hans-Rudolf Merz to replace retiring Finance Minister Kaspar Villiger. Both Blocher and Merz are strong advocates of drastic public spending cuts in order to reduce the country's mounting $102 billion francs state deficit and are staunch opponents to Switzerland's entering the European Union. On June 14, 2006, the Federal Council elected Doris Leuthard of the Christian Democratic Party. Leuthard replaced the retiring Joseph Deiss and has assumed the Economics and Trade portfolio that Deiss managed. Leuthard’s election and Deiss’ resignation do not change the dynamics of the Federal Council. The current makeup of the government remains fiscally conservative and against further integration with the European Union.

The Constitution limits federal influence in the formulation of domestic policy and emphasizes the roles of private enterprise and cantonal government. However, the Confederation has been compelled to enlarge its policymaking powers in recent years to cope with national problems such as education, agriculture, energy, environment, organized crime, and narcotics.

==Foreign Relations==
Traditionally, Switzerland has avoided [[alliance]]s that might entail military, political, or direct economic action. Since its forces suffered a major military defeat in the Middle Ages, it has stayed strictly [[neutral]]. Switzerland maintains diplomatic relations with almost all countries and has no major dispute in its bilateral relations. Historically, it has served as a neutral intermediary between hostile powers and host to major international treaty conferences. After [[World War I]], it hosted the [[League of Nations]] headquarters; during [[World War II]] it represented German interests in America and American and British interests in Germany. Since 1980, Switzerland has represented American interests in [[Iran]]. It also played a key role in brokering a truce agreement between the Sudanese Government and Sudan's Peoples Liberation Army (SPLA) for the Nuba Mountain region, signed after a week's negotiations taking place near [[Lucerne]] in January 2002.

The Swiss Constitution declares the preservation of Switzerland's independence and welfare as the supreme objective of Swiss [[foreign policy]]. Below this overarching goal, the Constitution sets five specific foreign policy objectives: to further the peaceful coexistence of nations; promote respect for [[human rights]], [[democracy]], and the [[rule of law]]; promote Swiss economic interests abroad, alleviate need and poverty in the world; and preserve natural resources.

The Swiss feel a moral obligation to undertake social, economic, and humanitarian activities that contribute to world peace and prosperity. This is manifested by Swiss bilateral and multilateral diplomatic activity, assistance to developing countries, and support for the extension of international law, particularly humanitarian law. Switzerland (mainly Geneva) is home to many international governmental and nongovernmental organizations, including the [[International Committee of the Red Cross]] (whose flag is essentially the Swiss flag with colors reversed--the Red Cross historically being a Swiss organization). One of the first international organizations, the [[Universal Postal Union]], is located in Bern.

===International Organizations===
In recent years, the Swiss have broadened the scope of activities in which they feel able to participate without compromising their neutrality. Swiss voters first rejected [[United Nations]] membership by a 3-to-1 margin in 1986 but in March 2002 adopted it, albeit in a very close election, making Switzerland the first country to join the UN based on a popular referendum decision. In similar fashion, the electorate rejected a government proposition to deploy Swiss troops as UN peacekeepers (Blue Helmets) in 1994, but Switzerland joined NATO's Partnership for Peace and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council in 1996 and 1997, respectively, and deployed Yellow Berets to support the OSCE in Bosnia. In June 2001, Swiss voters approved new legislation providing for the deployment of armed Swiss troops for international peacekeeping missions under UN or OSCE auspices as well as closer international cooperation in military training.

On September 10, 2002, Switzerland became a full member of the United Nations. Switzerland had previously been involved as party to the Statute of the International Court of Justice and member of most UN specialized agencies, as well as the International Atomic Energy Agency. Switzerland has long participated in many UN activities, including the Economic Commission for Europe, UN Environment Program, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, UN Conference for Trade and Development, UN Industrial Development Organization, and the Universal Postal Union (UPU). Prior to its formal accession, Switzerland had maintained a permanent observer mission at UN Headquarters since 1948.

Switzerland also is a member of the following international organizations: World Trade Organization, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, European Free Trade Association, Bank for International Settlements, Council of Europe, and Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). In 1992, Swiss voters approved membership in the Bretton Woods organizations but later that year rejected the European Economic Area agreement, which the government viewed as a first step toward EU membership.

Switzerland has furnished military observers and medical teams to several UN operations. Switzerland is an active participant in the OSCE, its foreign minister serving as Chairman-in-Office for 1996. Switzerland also is an active participant in the major nonproliferation and export control regimes.

===[[War on Terror]]===
The Swiss Government on June 25, 2003, eased most of the sanctions against the Republic of [[Iraq]] in accord with UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1483. The government lifted the trade embargo, flight restrictions, and financial sanctions in place since August 1990. The weapons embargo and the asset freeze, the scope of which was extended, remain in force, and restrictions on the trade in Iraqi cultural goods were newly imposed. Though not a member at the time, Switzerland had joined UN sanctions against Iraq after the invasion of Kuwait. Switzerland in recent years joined UN and EU economic sanctions imposed on Sierra Leone, UNITA (Angola), Liberia, Serbia and Montenegro, Burma, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Cote d'Ivoire. On October 15, 2003, the Federal Council ended the import restrictions on raw diamonds from Sierra Leone and lifted sanctions against Libya.

Switzerland in October 2000 implemented an ordinance to enforce UN sanctions against the Taliban (UNSCR 1267), which it subsequently amended in April 2001 in accord with tighter UN regulations (UNSCR 1333). On May 2, 2002, the Swiss Government eased the sanctions regime in accord with UNSCR 1388 and 1390, lifting the ban on the sale of acetic acid (used in drug production), Afghani Airlines, and Afghani diplomatic representations. The weapons embargo, travel restrictions, and financial sanctions remain in force. The Swiss Government in November 2001 issued an ordinance declaring illegal the terrorist organization [[al Qaeda]] as well as possible successor or supporting organizations. More than 200 individuals or companies linked to international terrorism have been blacklisted to have their assets frozen. Thus far, Swiss authorities have blocked about 72 accounts totaling 34 million francs.

==Defense==
On May 18, 2003, Swiss voters approved the military reform project "Army XXI" that will drastically reduce the size of the Swiss Army. In January 2004, the 524,000-strong militia started paring down to 220,000 conscripts, including 80,000 reservists. The defense budget of currently SF 4.3 billion ($3.1 billion) will be trimmed by SF 300 million, and some 2,000 jobs are expected to be shed between 2004 and 2011. The mandatory time of service will be curtailed from 300 to 260 days. All able-bodied Swiss males aged 20 to 30 must serve. Thereafter, most personnel are assigned to civil protection duties until the age of 37. Each Swiss militaman is required to keep his Sig 550 service rifle at home, properly maintained and in working order. Up until 2007, soldiers also received a sealed box of 50 bullets: they were meant to be used in the journey from home to the reporting station in case of invasion. This requirement has since been abolished and ammunition returned.

A new category of soldiers called "single-term conscripts" will discharge the total time of service of about 300 days of active duty in one go. Recruiting is on a voluntary basis and should not exceed 20% of a year's draft. The armed forces have a small nucleus of about 3,600 professional staff, half of whom are either instructors or staff officers, with the remainder mostly being fortification guards. The army has virtually no full-time active combat units but is capable of full mobilization within 72 hours. Women may volunteer to serve in the armed forces and may now join all units, including combat troops. About 2,000 women already serve in the army but, so far, have not been allowed to use weapons for purposes other than self-defense.
The armed forces are organized in four army corps and an air force and are equipped with modern, sophisticated, and well-maintained gear. In 1993, the Swiss Government procured 34 [[F/A-18 Hornet|F/A-18 fighters]] from the United States.

Switzerland has a rich history of providing mercenaries to the battlefield of Europe, ever since the Middle Ages up until the Napoleonic period. Nowadays Swiss citizens are forbidden to join foreign armies, with the notable exception of the Pontifcial Swiss Guard (''Guardia Svizzera Pontificia'') which constitutes the tiny armed forces of [[Vatican City|the State of the Vatican City]]. In order to join, Swiss male citizens must have a proven Catholic faith and a certificate of good conduct from the Army, besides meeting physical criterias.

==Economy==
Despite a dearth of [[natural resources]], the Swiss economy is among the world's most advanced and prosperous. Per capita income is virtually the highest in the world, as are wages. Trade has been the key to prosperity in Switzerland. The country is dependent upon [[export]] markets to generate income while dependent upon imports for raw materials and to expand the range of goods and services available in the country. Switzerland has liberal investment and trade policies, notwithstanding agriculture, and a conservative fiscal policy. The Swiss legal system is highly developed, commercial law is well defined, and solid laws and policies protect investments. The Swiss franc is one of the world's soundest currencies, and the country is known for its high standard of banking and financial services. Switzerland is a member of a number of international economic organizations, including the [[World Trade Organization]] (WTO), the [[International Monetary Fund]], the [[World Bank]], and the [[Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development]] (OECD).
[[File:Cathedral Lausanne Bessieres.JPG|thumb|left|300px|Lausanne, Cathedral, Bessieres Bridge and St-Martin Bridge.]]
Switzerland's machinery, metals, electronics, and chemicals sectors are world-renowned for precision and quality. Together they account for well over half of Swiss export revenues. In agriculture, Switzerland is about 60% self-sufficient. Only 7.5% of the remaining imports originated from the U.S. Swiss farmers are one of the most highly protected and subsidized producer group in the world. OECD estimates show that Switzerland is subsidizing more than 70% of its agriculture, compared to 35% in the EU. According to the newly adopted "2008-2011 Agricultural Program", Switzerland intends to reduce its subsidies from SF 14.1 billion (U.S. $11.6 billion) to SF 13.6 billion (U.S. $10.5 billion) over the next four years. In March 2007, the parliament increased the initial government bill by SF 150 million (U.S. $123 million) on the grounds that Swiss farm reforms were going too fast. The parliament also accepted international parallel imports for fertilizers and tractors. Swiss farmers will be allowed to import tractors produced in China or India and sold in the EU, and save up to $41 million (SF 50 million) annual in expenses. German [[fertilizer]] could save another $20 million (SF 25 million). A more general bill on parallel imports will be presented by the Justice Ministry to parliament by the end of 2007.

[[Tourism]], [[banking]], [[engineering]], and [[insurance]] are significant sectors of the economy and heavily influence the country's economic policies. Swiss trading companies have unique marketing expertise in many parts of the world, including Eastern Europe, the Far East, Africa, and the Middle East. Not only does Switzerland have a highly developed [[tourism]] infrastructure (making it a good market for tourism-related equipment and services), the Swiss also are intrepid travelers. Per capita, more Swiss visit the United States every year than from any other country. Tourism is the most important U.S. export to Switzerland (earning almost $1.5 billion). In 2004, more than 285,000 Swiss came to the United States as tourists.

In 2005, the dollar/Swiss franc exchange rate continued to be shaped by geopolitical tensions. The dollar depreciated further against the Swiss franc from SF 1.49 in October 2002 to SF 1.31 in 2003, to 1.28 in 2005 to 1.23 in July 2006, and 1.22 in January 2007. The strengthening of the Euro, however, helped Switzerland to minimize the pressure from a weakening dollar. The Swiss National Bank raised interest rates on June 15, 2006 to 1.5%, the third increase since January 2006. The Swiss National Bank also said it expected economic growth to be a robust 2.5% in 2006 and 2007.

While the number of bankruptcies in Switzerland had been on the rise for four years, reaching alarming levels in 2005 (10,800), the rate dropped by 4.7% in 2006. Compared to other European countries, Switzerland's bankruptcy rates ranks fourth (1.35%) among the hardest hit countries, after Luxemburg (2.39%), Austria (1.9%) and France (1.49%).

The Swiss economy expanded by 2.7% in 2006, the fastest rate in six years, thus confirming sustained growth over the last four years. GDP growth was primarily due to the positive evolution of private consumption and expansion of investment in fixed assets and software. For once, all export industries benefited from increased demand from foreign markets. With a surplus of $9.6 billion (SF 11.7 billion), the Swiss trade balance reached unprecedented levels. On the inflation side, import prices increased more rapidly than exports.

Switzerland was ranked as the most competitive economy in the World Economic Forum’s 2006 Global Competitiveness Report for the first time, reflecting the country’s sound institutional environment, excellent infrastructure, efficient markets, competent macroeconomic management, world-class educational attainment, and high levels of technological innovation, which boost Switzerland's competitiveness in the global economy. The country has a well-developed infrastructure for scientific research, companies spend generously on research and development, and intellectual property protection is strong. Business activity benefits from a well-developed institutional framework, characterized by the rule of law, an efficient judicial system, and high levels of transparency and accountability within public institutions. Higher education and training are rapidly growing in importance as engines of productivity growth.

===Global Economic Crisis===
Being a nation that depends upon exports for economic growth, and due to the fact that it is so closely linked to the economies of Western Europe and the United States, Switzerland was not able to escape recent slowdowns experienced in these countries. During most of the 1990s, the Swiss economy was Western Europe's weakest, with annual GDP growth averaging 0% between 1991 and 1997. Beginning in late 1997, the economy steadily gained momentum until peaking in 2000 with 3% growth in real terms. The economy returned to lackluster growth during 2001-2003, but has been growing at or above potential since 2004--2.5% per annum. The Swiss Economic Ministry reports that strong global demand, particularly in the U.S. and Asia, and better Euro zone growth has helped Switzerland’s economic recovery. Long-run economic growth, however, is predicated on structural reforms. In order to maximize its economic potential, Switzerland will need to push through difficult agrarian and competition policy reforms. These are essential if the government is to reduce its budget deficits and meet its 3% growth target.

The recent economic upswing had some positive impact on the labor market. Unemployment decreased from 4.1% in December 2003 to 3.1% in March 2007. Swiss in the 15-25 age bracket continue to fight unemployment numbers with a rate of 5.4%, and hotel and restaurant industry workers with 10.4%. One-fourth of the country's full-time workers are unionized. In general, labor/management relations are good, mostly characterized by a willingness on both sides to settle disputes by negotiations rather than by labor action. About 600 collective bargaining agreements exist today in Switzerland and are regularly renewed without major problems. However, the mood is changing. The massive layoffs that resulted from both the global economic slowdown and major management scandals have strained the traditional Swiss "labor peace." Swiss trade unions encouraged strikes against several companies, including the national airline SWISS, Coca-Cola, and Orange (the French telecom operator), but total days lost to strikes remain among the lowest in the OECD. Uncertainties concerning the proper management of pension funds, and the prospect of a potential hike in the retirement age from 65 to 67 have stirred heated political debate.

===Trade with the EU===

The Swiss economy earns roughly half of its corporate earnings from the export industry, and 62% of Swiss exports are destined for the [[EU]] market. The EU is Switzerland's largest trading partner, and economic and trade barriers between them are minimal. In the wake of the Swiss voters' rejection of the European Economic Area Agreement in 1992, the Swiss Government set its sights on negotiating bilateral sectoral agreements with the EU. After more than 4 years of negotiations, an agreement covering seven sectors (research, public procurement, technical barriers to trade, agriculture, civil aviation, land transport, and the free movement of persons) was achieved at the end of 1998. Parliament officially endorsed the so-called "Bilaterals I" in 1999, and the Swiss people approved them in a referendum in May 2000. The agreements, which had to be ratified by the European Parliament as well as legislatures in all 15 EU member states, entered into force on June 1, 2002. Switzerland has so far attempted to mitigate possible adverse effects of non-membership by conforming many of its regulations, standards, and practices to EU directives and norms. Full access to the Swiss market for the original 15 EU member states entered into force in June 2004, ending as a result the “national preference”. The Swiss agreed to extend these preferences to the 10 new EU members on September 25, 2005.

The Swiss Government embarked in July 2001 on a second round of bilateral negotiations with the EU known as “Bilaterals II”. Talks focused on customs fraud, environment, statistics, trade in processed agricultural goods, media, the taxation of savings, and police/judicial cooperation (dubbed the Schengen-Dublin accords). Amid a fierce political debate over the essence of Swiss-EU relations and populist warnings against EU workers and criminals entering Switzerland, the Schengen-Dublin package was approved on June 5, 2005 by a referendum of 54.6%. Fears of cheap labor coming from new EU member states have prompted the government to provide for tripartite surveillance committees to ensure that decent wages are enforced. The EU has still to ratify the extension of Schengen to Switzerland, and implement the bilateral agreements on research and development and media cooperation.

As part of the bilateral agreement on the taxation of savings signed in June 2003, Swiss banks will levy a withholding tax on EU citizens' savings income. The tax, which started on July 1, 2005, will increase gradually to 35% by 2011, with 75% of the funds being transferred to the EU.

On November 26, 2006, the Swiss electorate approved a government bill to contribute 1 billion Swiss francs (about $800 million) to the 10 new EU member states. In a nation-wide referendum, 53.4% of voters accepted the “Eastern Europe Cooperation Act,” which entitles the government to spend 1 billion Swiss francs on projects in primarily [[Central Europe]]an states over the next 10 years. Switzerland had pledged this contribution to share the burden of the EU’s eastern expansion in order to facilitate the conclusion of the second set of bilateral negotiations with the EU. The right-populist Swiss People’s Party (SVP), which prompted the referendum, was disappointed, but pleased that it mobilized a 47% opposition. The Eastern Europe Cooperation Act gives a new legal basis for Swiss aid to countries in Eastern Europe. The act has a 10-year term and replaces the former federal Law on Aid to Eastern Europe, which came into force in 1995. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, Switzerland has spent SF 3.5 billion on about 1,000 aid projects in East-[[Central Europe]] to help countries in the region transform into market economies. Sixty percent of the SF 1 billion is to come from the budget of the departments of foreign and economic affairs, mainly from cuts in aid programs to other parts of the world. The remaining 40% will be taken from the regular budget of the federal administration. The funds are to be used on projects chosen by Switzerland and focused on education, trade promotion, environment, and internal security. The money is paid directly to the projects and does not go the EU cohesion fund in Brussels. Switzerland has no formal agreement with the European Union concerning these contributions. Instead, there is a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that sets out the general conditions of the Swiss commitment to the ten new EU member states. Under the MOU, almost half of the funding will go to Poland. Hungary's benefit will be SF 131 million, while the Czech Republic will receive SF 110 million.

The Swiss federal government remains deeply divided over whether to eventually join the EU, and in a March 2001 referendum more than 70% of Swiss voters rejected rapid steps toward EU membership. The issue of EU membership is likely to be shelved for several years, if not a decade. In May 2005, the government said it could sign a framework agreement with the European Union, as an alternative to joining the organization, to encourage dialogue and create a platform for closer cooperation.

Switzerland nevertheless expressed interest in reaching a third layer of bilateral agreements that would involve energy, the Galileo satellite navigation system, health, and agriculture. But recent harsh criticism by the European Commission against preferential cantonal tax treatment for foreign holdings cooled the political climate surrounding the EU. Unilateral trade retaliation--as threatened by the EU if the Swiss cantons do not change their cantonal tax regimes--has not occurred, but the political damage is done, including greater anti-EU feelings among the population. The pressure to negotiate with the EU could turn sour as the EU has already asked Switzerland to pay another SF 300-350 million ($240-280 million, on top of the SF 1 billion cohesion fund) to provide further financial aid to Romania and Bulgaria, which joined the EU on January 1, 2007. Unlike the November 2006 referendum, the newly enacted Eastern Europe Cooperation Act does not provide for an automatic referendum on further payments. The parliament will decide on the additional aid request.

The government also decided in November 2006 to once more consider adoption of the EU “Cassis-de-Dijon” principle for trade after a first setback in 2004. If adopted, EU products could be imported in Switzerland without having to go through the burdensome Swiss certification and Swiss language requirement process. Currently, Swiss retail prices are on average 20-40% higher than in the EU. If parallel imports are allowed under adoption of the Cassis-de-Dijion principle, prices could drop by 10%. Possible exceptions have been reduced from 129 products to 40, but hurdles remain on the labeling of alcohol contained in Alcopops, the Swiss ban of phosphates in washing machine powders, the real origin of “EU meat”, and on the stringent Swiss generic food production requirements. The “Cassis de Dijon principle” will not apply to the many farming and industrial products already covered by mutual recognition agreements (MRAs) under the EU-Swiss Bilaterals I and II; nor will it apply to other products such as pesticides, motor engines, and weapons that require an authorization. The impact, as a result, may not be as large as expected. Another issue is that Swiss and EU MRAs concluded with third countries may also benefit from adoption of the Cassis-de-Dijon principle (these goods would also have to receive WTO most favored nation status).

The government has reaffirmed its wish to strengthen ties with other non-EU trading partners in Asia and America. Exploratory talks on a Free Trade Agreement between the U.S. and Switzerland failed to result in negotiations, due to Swiss problems with free trade in agriculture, but the two sides did agree to a new framework for economic, trade, and investment discussions. This new agreement is the Swiss-U.S. Trade and Investment Cooperation Forum (the “Forum”) and is currently assessing areas where the two governments could facilitate greater trade and investment flows.

Switzerland ranks 17th among the main trading partners of the U.S. worldwide. The United States is the second-largest importer (11.5%) of Swiss goods after Germany (20%). The U.S. exports more to Switzerland each year than to all the countries of the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe combined, and Switzerland imports more U.S. products and services than does Spain. In addition, the United States is the largest foreign investor in Switzerland, and conversely, the primary destination of Swiss foreign investment. It is estimated that 200,000 American jobs depend on Swiss foreign investments. Total U.S.-Swiss bilateral trade increased from $15.33 billion during 2003 to $16 billion in 2004.

==History==
[[File:D aigle Castle Switzerland.jpg|thumb|300px|D'aigle Castle.]]
Originally inhabited by the Helvetians, or Helvetic Celts, the territory comprising modern Switzerland came under Roman rule during the Gallic wars in the 1st century BC and remained a Roman province until the 4th century AD. Under Roman influence, the population reached a high level of civilization and enjoyed a flourishing commerce. Important cities, such as Geneva, Basel, and Zurich, were linked by military roads that also served as trade arteries between Rome and the northern tribes.

After the decline of the Roman Empire, Switzerland was invaded by Germanic tribes from the north and west. Some tribes, such as the Alemanni in central and northeastern Switzerland, and the Burgundians, who ruled western Switzerland, settled there. In 800, the country became part of Charlemagne's empire. It later passed under the dominion of the Holy Roman emperors in the form of small ecclesiastic and temporal holdings subject to imperial sovereignty.

With the opening of a new important north-south trade route across the Alps in the early 13th century, the Empire's rulers began to attach more importance to the remote Swiss mountain valleys, which were granted some degree of autonomy under direct imperial rule. Fearful of the popular disturbances flaring up following the death of the Holy Roman Emperor in 1291, the ruling families from Uri, Schwyz, and Unterwalden signed a charter to keep public peace and pledging mutual support in upholding autonomous administrative and judicial rule. The anniversary of the charter's signature (August 1, 1291) today is celebrated as Switzerland's National Day.

Between 1315 and 1388 the Swiss Confederates inflicted three crushing defeats on the Habsburgs, whose aspiration to regional dominion clashed with Swiss self-determination. During that period, five other localities (cantons in modern-day parlance) joined the original three in the Swiss Confederation. Buoyed by their feats, the Swiss Confederates continuously expanded their borders by military means and gained formal independence from the Holy Roman Empire in 1499. Routed by the French and Venetians near Milan in 1515, they renounced expansionist policies. By then the Swiss Confederation had become a union of 13 localities with a regularly convening diet administering the subject territories. Swiss mercenaries continued for centuries to serve in other armies; the Swiss Guard of the Pope is a vestige of this tradition.

The Reformation led to a division between the Protestant followers of Zwingli and Calvin in the German and French parts of the country respectively, and the Catholics. Despite two centuries of civil strife, the common interest in the joint subject territories kept the Swiss Confederation from falling apart. The traffic in mercenaries as well as the alienation between the predominantly Protestant Swiss and their Catholic neighbors kept the Swiss Confederation out of the wars of the European powers, which formally recognized Swiss neutrality in the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. The Swiss remained neutral during the War of the First Coalition against revolutionary France, but Napoleon, nonetheless, invaded and annexed much of the country in 1797-98, replacing the loose confederation with a centrally governed unitary state.

The Congress of Vienna in 1815 re-established the old confederation of sovereign states and enshrined Switzerland's status of permanent armed neutrality in international law. In 1848, after a brief civil war between Protestant liberals seeking a centralized national state and Catholic conservatives clinging on to the old order, the majority of Swiss Cantons opted for a Federal State, modeled in part on the U.S. Constitution. The Swiss Constitution established a range of civic liberties and made far-reaching provisions to maintain cantonal autonomy to placate the vanquished Catholic minority. The Swiss amended their Constitution extensively in 1874, establishing federal responsibility for defense, trade, and legal matters, as well as introducing direct democracy by popular referendum. To this day, cantonal autonomy and referendum democracy remain trademarks of the Swiss polity.

Switzerland industrialized rapidly during the 19th century and by 1850 had become the second most industrialized country in Europe after Great Britain. During World War I serious tension developed between the German, French, and Italian-speaking parts of the country, and Switzerland came close to violating its neutrality but managed to stay out of hostilities. Labor unrest culminating in a general strike in 1918 marked the interwar period, but in 1937 employers and the largest trade union concluded a formal agreement to settle disputes peacefully, which governs workplace relations to the present day. During World War II, Switzerland came under heavy pressure from the fascist powers, which after the fall of France in 1940 completely surrounded the country. Some political and economic leaders displayed a mood of appeasement, but a combination of tactical accommodation and demonstrative readiness to defend the country helped Switzerland survive unscathed.

The Cold War enhanced the role of neutral Switzerland and offered the country a way out of its diplomatic isolation after World War II. Economically, Switzerland integrated itself into the American-led Western postwar order, but it remained reluctant to enter supranational bodies. Switzerland did not join the United Nations, even though Geneva became host to the UN's European headquarters, and the country played an active role in many of the UN's specialized agencies. Switzerland also remained aloof in the face of European integration efforts, waiting until 1963 to join the Council of Europe. It still remains outside the European Union. Instead, Switzerland in 1960 helped form the European Free Trade Area, which did not strive for political union. Following the Cold War, Switzerland joined the Bretton Woods institutions in 1992 and finally became a member of the United Nations in 2002.

{{Copyright Details (US Government)}}

Source = [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3431.htm]

==See also==
*[[Bern Switzerland Temple]]

==References==
<References/>

[[Category:European Countries]]
[[Category:Landlocked Countries]]
[[Category:Christian-Majority Countries]]
[[Category:Switzerland]]

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

2013-08-10T14:15:16Z

RonaldV:

{{Country
|name =''Союз Советских Социалистических Республик Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik''
|map =Soviet union rel 1986.jpg
|flag =600px-Flag_of_the_Soviet_Union.svg.png
|arms =Coat of arms of the Soviet Union.svg.png
|capital =Moscow
|government =Communist
|language =Russian (de facto)
|area =8,649,538 sq. mi. (1991)
|pop =293,047,571 (1991)
|pop-basis =
}}
The '''Soviet Union''' (Russian: Советский Союз, ''Sovyetskiy Soyuz''), formally the '''Union of Soviet Socialist Republics''' (or '''USSR''') (Russian: Союз Советских Социалистических Республик, ''Soyuz Sovietskykh Sotsialisticheskykh Respublik'', abbreviated ''СССР'') existed 1917-1991, then broke into 15 separate countries, most notably [[Russia]]. It was the most powerful established [[socialist]] state in history, coming to power under [[Lenin]] in 1918 and killing millions of its citizens to establish a ruthless Communist dictatorship under [[Joseph Stalin]] in the 1930s. After cooperating with the USSR (1939-41), the Nazi Germans under [[Adolf Hitler]] invaded in a war to the death. The USSR defeated the Nazis in [[World War II]] (1941-45), and took control of most of [[Central Europe]], turning formerly independent countries into Communist satellite states. It was the primary antagonist of the United States during the [[Cold War]] (1947-1989); it then collapsed because of American pressure and its own internal economic and social failures. At its height the USSR covered one-sixth of the earth's land area, stretching from [[Central Europe]] across [[Eastern Europe]] and northern Asia to the Pacific Ocean. Although Russia and most of Soviet republics are [[Western world]] countries, during the Soviet period, a war was declared on Christianity, the country wanted to cut its Western roots and create a brand new civilisation, a communist utopia.

==Geography==
[[File:Siberian cat.jpg|thumbnail|300px|The [[Siberia]]n [[cat]] is the national cat of [[Russia]].
 
 
(photo obtained from [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bugsy_outside4.jpg Wikimedia commons], photographer: Jan Warner, see: [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en license agreement])]]
Located in the middle and northern latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, the Soviet Union's 22.4 million square kilometers included one-sixth of the earth's usable land area. Its western portion (European part of Russia), more than half of all European landmass, made up 25% of Russia's total area. European part of Russia (European Russia), however, was where 72% of the people lived and where most industrial and agricultural activities were concentrated. The largest region was the lightly populated [[Siberia]], a land between the Urals and the Pacific that for centuries was infamous as a place of exile, a land of endless expanses of snow and frigid temperatures.

Extending for over 60,000 kilometers, the Soviet border was the world's longest national frontier, sharing a common border with twelve countries, six on each continent. In Asia, its neighbors were the [[Democratic People's Republic of Korea]] (North Korea), [[China]], [[Mongolia]], [[Afghanistan]], [[Iran]], and [[Turkey]]; in [[Europe]], it bordered [[Romania]], [[Hungary]], [[Czechoslovakia]] (now [[Czech Republic]] and [[Slovakia]]), [[Poland]], [[Norway]], and [[Finland]].

Approximately two-thirds of the frontier was bounded by water, forming the longest and, owing to its proximity to the North Pole, probably the most useless coastline of any country. Apart from Murmansk, which receives the warm currents of the Gulf Stream, the northern coast is locked in ice much of the year. The search for a warm water port was a central theme throughout Russian history.

A dozen seas, part of the water systems of three oceans--the Arctic, Atlantic, and Pacific--washed over Soviet shores.
*Size: Approximately 22,402,200 square kilometers (land area 22, 272,000 square kilometers); slightly less than 2.5 times size of United States.
*Location: Occupies eastern portion of European continent and northern portion of Asian continent. Most of country north of 50° north latitude.
*Topography: Vast steppe with low hills west of Ural Mountains; extensive coniferous forest and tundra in Siberia; deserts in Central Asia; mountains along southern boundaries.
*Climate: Generally temperate to Arctic continental. Winters vary from short and cold along Black Sea to long and frigid in Siberia. Summers vary from hot in southern deserts to cool along Arctic coast. Weather usually harsh and unpredictable. Generally dry with more than half of country receiving fewer than forty centimeters of rainfall per year, most of Soviet Central Asia northeastern Siberia receiving only half that amount.
*Land Boundaries: 19,933 kilometers total: Afghanistan 2,384 kilometers' China 7,520 kilometers; Czechoslovakia 98 kilometers; Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) 17 kilometers; Finland 1,313 kilometers, Hungary 135 kilometers; Iran 1,690 kilometers; Mongolia 3,441 kilometers; Norway 196 kilometers; Poland 1,215 kilometers; Romania 1,307 kilometers; and Turkey 617 kilometers.
*Water Boundaries: 42,777 kilometers washed by oceanic systems of Arctic, Atlantic, and Pacific.
*Land Use: 11 percent of land arable; 16 percent meadows and pasture; 41 percent forest and woodland; and 32 percent other, including tundra.
*Natural Resources: Oil, natural gas, coal, iron ore, timber, gold, manganese, lead, zinc, nickel, mercury, potash, phosphates, and most strategic minerals.

===Administrative-Political-Territorial Divisions===
The USSR was divided into fifteen union republics - the largest administrative and political units - officially known as Soviet republics or union republics. Theoretically they were independent countries; in practice they were controlled by the Kremlin. Nationality, size of the population, and location were the determinants for republic status. By far the largest and most important was the Russian Republic, containing about 51% of the population. In 1989 Russians made up over 51% of the Soviet population and were politically, economically and culturally the dominant nationality, there are more than 100 other nationality groups that make up Soviet society. Fourteen other major nationalities also have their own republics: in the European part are the [[Lithuania]]n, [[Latvia]]n, [[Estonia]]n, [[Belarus|Belarusian]], [[Ukraine|Ukrainian]], and [[Moldavia]]n republics; the [[Georgia (country)|Georgia]]n, [[Azerbaijan]], and [[Armenian]] republics occupy the Caucasus; and Soviet Central Asia is home to the [[Kazakhstan|Kazakh]], [[Uzbekistan|Uzbek]], [[Turkmenistan|Turkmen]], [[Kyrgyzstan|Kyrgyz]], and [[Tajikistan|Tajik]] republics.

The Soviet republics were subdivided into administrative subdivisions called autonomous republics, autonomous oblasts, autonomous okruga, kraia, or most often oblasts. These subdivisions made the country easier to manage and some served to recognize additional nationalities.

==People==
[[Image:Solzhenitsyn.jpg‎|thumb|150px|right|The [[Nobel Prize]] winning [[Russia|Russian]] author [[Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]] was exiled from the Soviet Union due to his criticism of the Soviet government.]]
The official Soviet census of 1989 listed over 100 nationalities in the Soviet Union. Each had its own history, culture, and language. Each possessed its own sense of national identity and national consciousness. The position of each nationality in the Soviet Union depended to a large degree on its size, the percentage of the people using the national language as their first language, the degree of its integration into the Soviet society, and its territorial-administrative status. This position was also dependent on each nationality's share of membership in the [[Communist Party of the Soviet Union]] (CPSU), the number of students in higher institutions, the number of scientific workers, and the urbanization of each nationality.

The various nationalities differed greatly in size. On the one hand, the [[Russia]]ns, who constituted about 50.8 percent of the population, numbered about 145 million in 1989. On the other hand, half of the nationalities listed in the census together accounted for only 0.5 percent of the total population, most of them having fewer than 100,000 people. Twenty-two nationalities had more than 1 million people each. Fifteen of the major nationalities had their own union republics, which together comprised the federation known as the Soviet Union.

The nationalities having union republic status commanded more political and economic power than other nationalities and found it easier to maintain their own language and culture. In 1989 some nationalities formed an overwhelming majority within their own republics; one nationality (the Kazakhs), however, lacked even a majority. In addition to the fifteen union republics, individual nationalities had their own territorial units, such as autonomous republics, autonomous oblasts, and autonomous okruga. The remaining nationalities did not have territorial units of their own and in most cases only constituted minorities in the Russian Republic.

The nationalities that have had a significant political and economic impact on the Soviet Union include the fifteen nationalities that have their own union republics and the non-union republic nationalities that numbered at least 1 million people in 1989. They are the Slavic nationalities, the Baltic nationalities, the nationalities of the Caucasus, the Central Asian nationalities, and a few other nationalities.
*Population: 293,047,571 (1991 estimate). Average annual growth rate 0.9 percent. Density twelve persons per square kilometer; 75 percent of people lived west of Ural Mountains.
*Nationalities: 51 percent of population Russian, 15 percent Ukrainian, 6 percent Uzbek, nearly 4 percent Belorussian, and 24 percent about 100 other nationalities.
[[File:Bezhnoznik u stanka 15-1929.jpg|thumb|260px|A Soviet propaganda poster disseminated in the ''Bezbozhnik'' (''Atheist'') magazine depicting [[Jesus]] being dumped from a wheelbarrow by an industrial worker as well as a smashed church [[bell]]; the text advocates Industrialisation Day as an alternative replacement to the [[Christian]] Transfiguration Day. see: [[Militant atheism]] ]]
*Religions: Religious worship was authorized by Constitution, but Marxism-Leninism, the official ideology, was militantly [[Atheism|atheistic]] (see: [[Militant atheism]]). Reliable statistics are unavailable, but about 18 percent was Russian Orthodox; 17 percent Muslim; and nearly 7 percent Roman Catholic, Protestant, Armenian Orthodox, Georgian Orthodox, and Jewish combined. Officially, most of remainder was atheist.
*Languages: Russian was the official language. Over 200 other languages and dialects were spoken, often as the primary tongue; 18 languages were spoken by groups of more than 1 million each. About 75 percent of people spoke Slavic languages.
*Education: Highly centralized school system with standardized curriculum. Attendance was compulsory through eleventh grade. Strong emphasis on training for vocations selected by central authorities. Indoctrination in Marxist-Leninist ideology at all levels. Science and technology emphasized at secondary level and above. As of 1979 census, official literacy rate 99.8 percent for persons between nine and forty-nine years old. Over 5.3 million studied at universities and institutes, nearly 50 percent part time. All education free, and in many cases students received stipends.
*Health and Welfare: Medical care by government health institutions; free, but of poor quality for general public despite having the highest number of physicians and hospital beds per capita in world. Welfare and pension programs provided, albeit marginally, for substantial segments of population.

===Population===
Seven official censuses have been taken in the Soviet Union (1920, 1926, 1939, 1959, 1970, 1979, and 1989). Both the quality and the quantity of the data have varied: in 1972 seven volumes totaling 3,238 pages were published on the 1970 census. In contrast, the results of the 1979 census were published more than five years later in a single volume of 366 pages.

According to the census of 1989, on the day of the census, January 12, the population of the Soviet Union was estimated to be 286,717,000. This figure maintained the country's long-standing position as the world's third most populous country after China and India. In the intercensal period (1979-88), the population of the Soviet Union grew from 262.4 million to 286.7 million, a 9 percent increase.

During the 1970s and early 1980s, the Soviet Union experienced declining birth rates, increasing divorce rates, a trend toward smaller nuclear families, and increasing mobility and urbanization. Major problems associated with such factors as migration, tension among nationality groups, uneven fertility rates, and high infant and adult mortality became increasingly acute, and various social programs and incentives were introduced to deal with them.

===Religion===
Over one-third of the people in the Soviet Union, an officially [[Atheism|atheistic]] state, professed religious belief. [[Christianity]] and Islam had the most believers. Christians belonged to various churches: Orthodox, which had the largest number of followers; Catholic; and Baptist and various other Protestant sects. The majority of the Islamic faithful were Sunni. Judaism also had many followers. Other religions, which were practiced by a relatively small number of believers, included Buddhism, Lamaism, and shamanism, a religion based on primitive spiritualism.

The role of religion in the daily lives of Soviet citizens varied greatly. Because Islamic religious tenets and social values of Muslims are closely interrelated, religion appeared to have a greater influence on Muslims than on either Christians or other believers. Two-thirds of the Soviet population, however, had no religious beliefs. About half the people, including members of the CPSU and high-level government officials, professed atheism. For the majority of Soviet citizens, therefore, religion seemed irrelevant.

==Government==
[[File:200px-Coat of arms of the Soviet Union.svg.png|thumbnail|200px|Coat of arms of the Soviet Union]]
:''Main article: [[Soviet Union government]]''
The Soviet Union administered the country's economy and society through decisions made by the extremely authoritarian leading political institution in the country, the [[Communist Party of the Soviet Union]] (CPSU).

In the late 1980s, the government appeared to have many characteristics in common with other Western, democratic political systems. For instance, a constitution established all organs of government and granted to citizens a series of political and civic rights. A legislative body, the Congress of People's Deputies, and its standing legislature, the Supreme Soviet, represented the principle of popular sovereignty. The Supreme Soviet, which had an elected chairman who functioned as head of state, oversaw the Council of Ministers, which acted as the executive branch of the government. The chairman of the Council of Ministers, whose selection was approved by the legislative branch, functioned as head of government. A constitutionally based judicial branch of government included a court system, headed by the Supreme Court, which was responsible for overseeing the observance of Soviet law by government bodies. According to the Constitution of 1977, the government had a federal structure, permitting the republics some authority over policy implementation and offering the national minorities the appearance of participation in the management of their own affairs.

In practice, however, the government differed markedly from other Western systems. In the late 1980s, the CPSU performed many functions that governments of other countries usually perform. For example, the party decided on the policy alternatives that the government ultimately implemented. The government merely ratified the party's decisions to lend them an aura of legitimacy. The CPSU used a variety of mechanisms to ensure that the government adhered to its policies. The party, using its nomenklatura authority, placed its loyalists in leadership positions throughout the government, where they were subject to the norms of [[democratic centralism]]. Party bodies closely monitored the actions of government ministries, agencies, and legislative organs.

The content of the Soviet Constitution differed in many ways from typical Western constitutions. It generally described existing political relationships, as determined by the CPSU, rather than prescribing an ideal set of political relationships. The Constitution was long and detailed, giving technical specifications for individual organs of government. The Constitution included political statements, such as foreign policy goals, and provided a theoretical definition of the state within the ideological framework of Marxism-Leninism. The CPSU could radically change the constitution or remake it completely, as it has done several times in the past.

The Council of Ministers acted as the executive body of the government. Its most important duties lay in the administration of the economy. The council was thoroughly under the control of the CPSU, and its chairman - the prime minister - was always a member of the Politburo. The council, which in 1989 included more than 100 members, is too large and unwieldy to act as a unified executive body. The council's Presidium, made up of the leading economic administrators and led by the chairman, exercised dominant power within the Council of Ministers.

According to the Constitution, as amended in 1988, the highest legislative body in the Soviet Union was the Congress of People's Deputies, which convened for the first time in May 1989. The main tasks of the congress were the election of the standing legislature, the Supreme Soviet, and the election of the chairman of the Supreme Soviet, who acted as head of state. Theoretically, the Congress of People's Deputies and the Supreme Soviet wielded enormous legislative power. In practice, however, the Congress of People's Deputies met only a few days in 1989 to approve decisions made by the party, the Council of Ministers, and its own Supreme Soviet. The Supreme Soviet, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, the chairman of the Supreme Soviet, and the Council of Ministers had substantial authority to enact laws, decrees, resolutions, and orders binding on the population. The Congress of People's Deputies had the authority to ratify these decisions.

The government lacked an independent judiciary. The Supreme Court supervised the lower courts and applied the law, as established by the Constitution or as interpreted by the Supreme Soviet. The Constitutional Oversight Committee reviewed the constitutionality of laws and acts. The Soviet Union lacked an [[Adversary proceeding|adversary court procedure]]. Under Soviet law, which derived from Roman law, a procurator worked together with a judge and a defense attorney to ensure that civil and criminal trials uncovered the truth of the case, rather than protecting individual rights.

The Soviet Union was a federal state made up of fifteen republics joined together in a theoretically voluntary union. In turn, a series of territorial units made up the republics. The republics also contained jurisdictions intended to protect the interests of national minorities. The republics had their own constitutions, which, along with the all-union Constitution, provide the theoretical division of power in the Soviet Union. In 1989, however, the CPSU and the central government retained all significant authority, setting policies that were executed by republic, provincial (''oblast'', ''krai'', and autonomous subdivisions), and district (''raion'') governments.

==History==
:''Main article: [[History of the Soviet Union]]''
===Lenin===
The Soviet Union was established in December 1922 by the leaders of the Russian Communist Party (Bolshevik) on territory generally corresponding to that of the old Russian Empire. A spontaneous popular uprising in Petrograd overthrew the imperial government in March 1917, leading to the formation of the Provisional Government, which intended to establish democracy in Russia. At the same time, to ensure the rights of the working class, workers' councils (''soviets'') sprang up across the country. The Bolsheviks, led by Vladimir I. Lenin, agitated for socialist revolution in the soviets and on the streets, and they seized power from the Provisional Government in November 1917. Only after the ensuing Civil War (1918-21) and foreign intervention was the new communist government secure.

From its first years, government in the Soviet Union was based on the one-party rule of the Communists, as the Bolsheviks called themselves beginning March 1918. After unsuccessfully attempting to centralize the economy during the Civil War, the Soviet government permitted some private enterprise to coexist with nationalized industry in the 1920s. Debate over the future of the economy provided the background for Soviet leaders to contend for power in the years after Lenin's death in 1924. By gradually consolidating influence and isolating his rivals within the party, [[Joseph Stalin|Joseph V. Stalin]] became the sole leader of the Soviet Union by the end of the 1920s.

===Stalin===
[[Image:Stalin-140508 27880t.jpg|right|225px|thumb|[[Joseph Stalin]], the Premier of the Soviet Union from 6 May 1941 to 5 March 1953, founded the League of Militant Atheists, whose chief aim was to propagate [[militant atheism]] and eradicate [[religion]].<ref name=Hesemann-Strieber>{{cite book|author=Michael Hesemann, Whitley Strieber|title=The Fatima Secret|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=tx-BEpkJBq8C&pg=PT107&dq=Joseph+Stalin+militant+atheism&hl=en&ei=-DeRTpLrJoPi0QHo88wi&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=Joseph%20Stalin%20militant%20atheism&f=false|quote=Lenin's death in 1924 was followed by the rise of Joseph Stalin, "the man of steel," who founded the "Union of Militant Atheists," whose chief aim was to spread [[atheism]] and eradicate religion. In the following years it devastated hundreds of churches, destroyed old icons and relics, and persecuted the clergy with unimaginable brutality.|publisher=Random House Digital, Inc.|date=2000|accessdate=09 October 2011}}</ref> See also: [[Atheism]] ]]
In 1928 [[Joseph Stalin]] introduced the First Five-Year Plan for building a socialist economy. In industry, the state assumed control over all existing enterprises and undertook an intensive program of industrialization; in agriculture, the state appropriated the peasants' property to establish collective farms. These sweeping economic innovations produced widespread misery, and millions of peasants perished during forced collectivization. Social upheaval continued in the mid-1930s when Stalin began a purge of the party; out of this purge grew a campaign of terror that led to the execution or imprisonment of untold millions of people from all walks of life. Yet despite this turmoil, the Soviet Union developed a powerful industrial economy in the years before World War II.

===World War II===
Stalin tried to divide up [[Central Europe]] with Germany by concluding the Nazi-Soviet Nonaggression Pact with Adolf Hitler in 1939. The USSR took over the Baltics (Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia) and the eastern borderlands (Polish: 'Kresy') of Poland, while going to war with [Finland]]. Communists across the world ended their diatribes against fascism, while Stalin provided the German war machine with supplies of oil and grain. Europe was not big enough for two dictators, so in June 1941 Germany invaded the Soviet Union. The U.S. and Britain formed an alliance with Stalin to fight the Nazis, and poured in [[Lend Lease]] aid. After many humiliating defeats and the loss of three mission soldiers, the Red Army finally stopped the Nazi offensive at the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942-43 and then all of [[Central Europe]] before Germany surrendered in 1945. Although severely ravaged in the war, the Soviet Union emerged from the conflict as one of the world's great powers.
===Cold War===
During the immediate postwar period, the Soviet Union first rebuilt and then expanded its economy, using resourcs stripped from defeated Germany. The Red Army imposed Communist political control over postwar [[Central Europe]] and the Balkans, except for Yugoslavia and Albania. The active Soviet foreign policy helped bring about the [[Cold War]], starting about 1947, which turned its wartime allies, Britain and the United States, into foes. Within the Soviet Union, repressive measures continued in force; Stalin apparently was about to launch a new purge when he died in 1953.
===Khrushchev===
[[File:Nikita Krushchev.jpg|thumb|200px|[[Nikita Khrushchev]] liked to threaten and bully, often using "brinkmanship" (the threat of nuclear weapons); ''Time'' Sept. 8, 1961]]

see: [[Nikita Khrushchev]]

After three years of a join leadership, [[Nikita Khrushchev]] seized power, denounced Stalin's use of terror and effectively reduced repressive controls over party and society. Khrushchev's reforms in agriculture and administration, however, were generally unproductive, and foreign policy toward China and the United States suffered reverses. Khrushchev's colleagues in the leadership removed him from power in 1964.

===Brezhnev ===
Following the ouster of Khrushchev, another period of rule by collective leadership ensued, which lasted until [[Leonid Brezhnev|Leonid I. Brezhnev]] established himself in the early 1970s as the preeminent figure in Soviet political life. Brezhnev presided over a period of détente with the rest of the West while at the same time building up Soviet military strength; the arms buildup contributed to the demise of [[détente]] in the late 1970s. Also contributing to the end of détente was the [[Soviet-Afghan War|Soviet invasion of Afghanistan]] in December 1979.

After some experimentation with economic reforms in the mid-1960s, the Soviet leadership reverted to established means of economic management. Industry showed slow but steady gains during the 1970s, while agricultural development continued to lag. In contrast to the revolutionary spirit that accompanied the birth of the Soviet Union, the prevailing mood of the Soviet leadership at the time of Brezhnev's death in 1982 was one of cautious conservatism and aversion to change. Brezhnev was succeeded by former KGB head Yuri Andropov.

===Reagan challenge===
Friction with other Western countries continued in the 1980's, especially with the United States and its new president, [[Ronald Reagan]], who saw the Soviet Union for what it was and branded it an "evil empire," partially in response to the Afghanistan occupation. Reagan negotiated with West Germany to provide sites for the basing of Pershing II medium-range ballistic missiles, which was bitterly opposed by Moscow. A short period of confrontation existed between the two superpowers during the period of late-1983 through 1984, beginning with the tragic Soviet attack on a commercial airliner, [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]], over international waters near Sakhalin Island on September 1, 1983, and killing 269 civilians, including a sitting U.S. Congressman, [[Larry McDonald]]; this was followed by events within a military exercise known as Able Archer, in which a falling satellite was mistaken for an incoming ICBM and almost triggered a major war. Reagan's [[Strategic Defense Initiative]], a space-based missile defense system critics derisively dubbed "Star Wars" as well as his expansion of the United States military, also prompted a new, expensive arms race.

Andropov and his successor, Konstantin Chernenko, kept the communist system under Brezhnev intact, but upon Chernenko's death [[Mikhail Gorbachev]] became party chairman.

===Gorbachev and the end of Communism===
see [[Mikhail Gorbachev]]

A reformer, he introduced a series of economic and political reforms known as ''[[glasnost]]'' ("openess") and ''[[perestroika]]'' ("restructuring"), which began to creak open the doors of the Soviet's closed system. A failed attempt to reign in the three [[Baltic States]] in 1989 led to a domino-effect of [[Warsaw Pact]] countries abandoning communism; a coup attempt against Gorbachev in 1991 by hard-liners trying to keep their tattering empire ended within days. The USSR was formally dissolved on Christmas day 1991 by [[Boris Yeltsin]], freeing many from its tyranny. The main successor state to the Soviet Union is [[Russia]]; the effort to form a "Commonwealth of Independent States" went nowhere, and the 15 republics of the USSR are now independent states.

==See Also==
*[[Communist Party of the Soviet Union]]
*[[Soviet Union government]]
*[[Nazi Germany]]
*[[Korean Airlines Flight 007]]
*[[KAL 007: the Russian Federation support for a water landing]] The Soviet Staff and military communications evidence
*[[Soviet Officers of KAL 007 Shootdown]]
*[[KAL 007: Soviet stalk, shoot down, and rescue mission orders transcripts]]
*[[KAL 007: Timeline of Interception and Shootdown]]
*[[Anatoly Kornukov]]
*[[The Soviet/ U.S naval confrontation]]
*[[KAL 007 and the Soviet Top Secret Memos]]

==Bibliography==
===Surveys===
* Brzezinski, Zbigniew. ''Grand Failure: The Birth and Death of Communism in the Twentieth Century'' (1990)
* Ingram, Philip. ''Russia and the USSR, 1905-1991'' (1997) [http://www.amazon.com/Russia-1905-1991-Cambridge-History-Programme/dp/0521568676/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232394134&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
* Keep, John L. H. ''Last of the Empires: A History of the Soviet Union, 1945-1991'' (1996) [http://www.questia.com/read/25055927?title=Last%20of%20the%20Empires%3a%20A%20History%20of%20the%20Soviet%20Union%2c%201945-1991 online edition]
* McCauley, Martin. ''The Soviet Union: 1917-1991'' (1993) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=54365219 online edition]
* McCauley, Martin. ''Who's Who in Russia since 1900,'' (1997) [http://www.questia.com/read/103052094?title=Who's%20Who%20in%20Russia%20since%201900 online edition]
* Malia, Martin. ''Soviet Tragedy: A History of Socialism in Russia'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/Soviet-Tragedy-History-Socialism-Russia/dp/0684823136/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232396454&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Nove, Alec. ''An Economic History of the USSR 1917-1991'' (3rd ed. 1993)
* Pipes, Richard. ''Communism: A History'' (2003), by a leading conservative
* Suny, Ronald Grigor. ''The Soviet Experiment: Russia, the USSR, and the Successor States.'' (1998) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24265044# online edition]
===Lenin and Stalin===
* Bullock, Alan. ''Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives'' (1992), a double biography covering each man in separate but parallel chapters
* Lee, Stephen J. ''Stalin and the Soviet Union'' (1999) [http://www.questia.com/read/108215209?title=Stalin%20and%20the%20Soviet%20Union online edition]
* McCauley, Martin. ''Stalin and Stalinism'' (3rd ed 2003), 172pp
* Service, Robert. ''Stalin: A Biography'' (2004), along with Tucker the standard biography
* Service, Robert. ''Lenin: A Biography'' (2002)
* Tucker, Robert C. ''Stalin as Revolutionary, 1879-1929'' (1973); ''Stalin in Power: The Revolution from Above, 1929-1941.'' (1990) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=103246514 online edition] with Service, a standard biography; [http://www.historyebook.org/ online at ACLS e-books]
* Ulam, A. B. ''Stalin'' (1973), good older biography; replaced by Tucker and Service
* Wood, Alan. ''Stalin and Stalinism'', (2004), 105pp [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=108863368 online edition]
===Peoples, society, culture===
* Cole, J. P. ''Geography of the Soviet Union'' (1984) [http://www.questia.com/read/7724372?title=Geography%20of%20the%20Soviet%20Union online edition]
* Davis, Nathaniel. ''A Long Walk to Church: A Contemporary History of Russian Orthodoxy'' (1995) [http://www.questia.com/read/30537968?title=A%20Long%20Walk%20to%20Church%3a%20A%20Contemporary%20History%20of%20Russian%20Orthodoxy online edition]
* Denber, Rachel. ''The Soviet Nationality Reader: The Disintegration in Context'' (1992) [http://www.questia.com/read/97474829?title=The%20Soviet%20Nationality%20Reader%3a%20The%20Disintegration%20in%20Context online edition]
* Lane, David. ''Soviet Society under Perestroika'' (1992) [http://www.questia.com/read/103443652?title=Soviet%20Society%20under%20Perestroika online edition]
* Lapidus, Gail Warshofsky. ''Women, Work, and Family in the Soviet Union'' (1982) [http://www.questia.com/read/106056669?title=Women%2c%20Work%2c%20and%20Family%20in%20the%20Soviet%20Union online edition]
* Lutz, Wolfgang Lutz, Sergei Scherbov, Andrei Volkov. ''Demographic Trends and Patterns in the Soviet Union before 1991'' (1994) [http://www.questia.com/read/103849492?title=Demographic%20Trends%20and%20Patterns%20in%20the%20Soviet%20Union%20before%201991 online edition]
* Wixman, Ronald. ''The Peoples of the USSR: An Ethnographic Handbook'' (1984) [http://www.questia.com/read/582240?title=The%20Peoples%20of%20the%20USSR%3a%20An%20Ethnographic%20Handbook online edition]

===1918-1939===
* Daniels, R. V., ed. ''The Stalin Revolution'' (1965)
* Davies, Sarah, and James Harris, eds. ''Stalin: A New History,'' (2006), 310pp, 14 specialized essays by scholars [http://www.amazon.com/Stalin-New-History-Sarah-Davies/dp/0521616530/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201494353&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* De Jonge, Alex. ''Stalin and the Shaping of the Soviet Union'' (1986)
* Fitzpatrick, Sheila, ed. ''Stalinism: New Directions,'' (1999), 396pp excerpts from many scholars on the impact of Stalinism on the people (little on Stalin himself) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=109468478 online edition]
* Hoffmann, David L. ed. ''Stalinism: The Essential Readings,'' (2002) essays by 12 scholars
* Pipes, Richard. ''A Concise History of the Russian Revolution'' (1996) [http://www.amazon.com/Concise-History-Russian-Revolution/dp/0679745440/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232393501&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search], by a leading conservative
* Tucker, Robert. ''Stalinism: Essays in Historical Interpretation'' (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Stalinism-Historical-Interpretation-Robert-Tucker/dp/0765804832/ref=sr_1_12/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193876953&sr=1-12 excerpt and text search]

===[[Gulag]] and Terror===
* Applebaum, Anne. ''Gulag: A History.'' 2003. 736 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Gulag-History-ANNE-APPLEBAUM/dp/B0007NMYPY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201494284&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Conquest, Robert. ''The Great Terror: A Reassessment'' (1991) [http://www.questia.com/read/79044140?title=The%20Great%20Terror%3a%20A%20Reassessment online edition]
* Pohl, J. Otto. ''Ethnic Cleansing in the USSR, 1937-1949'' (1999) [http://www.questia.com/read/9465022?title=Ethnic%20Cleansing%20in%20the%20USSR%2c%201937-1949 online edition]
* Rosefielde, Steven. "Stalinism in Post-Communist Perspective: New Evidence on Killings, Forced Labour and Economic Growth in the 1930s" ''Europe-Asia Studies,'' Vol. 48, No. 6 (Sep., 1996), pp. 959-987 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0966-8136(199609)48%3A6%3C959%3ASIPPNE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-V in JSTOR]

===World War II===
* Brandon, Ray, and Wendy Lower, eds. ''The Shoah in Ukraine: History, Testimony, Memorialization.'' (2008). 378 pp. [http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=24078 online review], on the Holocaust
* Broekmeyer, Marius. ''Stalin, the Russians, and Their War, 1941-1945.'' 2004. 315 pp.
* Overy, Richard. ''The Dictators: Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia.'' 2004. 448 pp. focus on 1930-45 [http://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Hitlers-Germany-Stalins-Russia/dp/B000FTCH5W/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201494219&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Priestland, David. ''Stalinism and the Politics of Mobilization'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Stalinism-Politics-Mobilization-David-Priestland/dp/0199245134/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201494105&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Roberts, Geoffrey. ''Stalin's Wars: From World War to Cold War, 1939–1953'' (2006).

===Cold War===
* see [[Cold War]]
* Craig, Campbell, and Yuri Smirnov. ''Truman, Stalin, and the Bomb'' (2008)
* Gaddis, John. ''A New History of the Cold War'' (2006)
* Holloway, David. ''Stalin and the Bomb: The Soviet Union and Atomic Energy, 1939-1956'' (1996) [http://www.amazon.com/Stalin-Bomb-Soviet-Atomic-1939-1956/dp/0300066643/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193876689&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Mastny, Vojtech. ''The Cold War and Soviet Insecurity: The Stalin Years'' (1998) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=98422373 online edition] [http://www.historyebook.org/ online at ACLS e-books]
* Zubok, Vladislav M. ''A Failed Empire: The Soviet Union in the Cold War from Stalin to Gorbachev'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Failed-Empire-Soviet-Gorbachev-History/dp/0807859583/ref=pd_bbs_sr_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232393695&sr=8-5 excerpt and text search]
===Khruschev, Gorbachev===
* Brown, Archie. ''The Gorbachev Factor'' (1996) [http://www.questia.com/read/109878423?title=The%20Gorbachev%20Factor online edition]
* Dallin, Alexander, and Gail W. Lapidus. ''The Soviet System: From Crisis to Collapse'' (1995) [http://www.questia.com/read/100838053?title=The%20Soviet%20System%3a%20From%20Crisis%20to%20Collapse online edition]
* Matlock, Jack. ''Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War Ended'' (2005), by leading conservative [http://www.amazon.com/Reagan-Gorbachev-How-Cold-Ended/dp/0812974891/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232393695&sr=8-3 excerpt and text search]
* Taubman, William. ''Khrushchev: The Man and His Era'' (2004) [http://www.amazon.com/Khrushchev-Man-His-William-Taubman/dp/0393324842/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232393626&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Zubok, Vladislav M. ''A Failed Empire: The Soviet Union in the Cold War from Stalin to Gorbachev'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Failed-Empire-Soviet-Gorbachev-History/dp/0807859583/ref=pd_bbs_sr_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232393695&sr=8-5 excerpt and text search]

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/sutoc.html Library of Congress detailed country study on the Soviet Union]
*[http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/soviet.exhibit/intro2.html The Soviet Union and the United States]
*State Defense Committee Decree No. 5859ss [http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/l2tartar.html "On the Crimean Tatars"], The Kremlin, May 11, 1944.
*[http://bertschlossberg.blogspot.com/ The Secret Soviet Missions to KAL 007 at Moneron Island]

[[category:Russian History]]
[[Category:Former Countries]]
[[Category:Warsaw Pact Members]]
[[Category:Communist States]]
[[Category:Cold War]]
[[Category:Totalitarianism]]

Italy

2013-08-01T21:55:03Z

RonaldV: /* Principal Government Officials */ Italian gov'ts change as quickly as the weather, it needs to be followed closely

{{Country
|name =''Repubblica Italiana''
|map =Italy rel 2004.jpg
|map2 =Italy location.png
|flag =Italyflag.gif
|arms =Italy-Emblem.png
|capital =Rome
|capital-raw =
|government =Parliamentary Republic
|government-raw =
|language =Italian
|king =
|queen =
|monarch-raw =
|president =Giorgio Napolitano
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =Enrico Letta
|pm-raw =
|area =116,340 sq mi
|pop =61,016,000
|pop-basis =2011
|gdp =
|gdp-year =$1.76 trillion (2009)
|gdp-pc =$30,300 (2009)
|currency =euro
|idd =
|tld =
}}
'''Italy''' is a country in [[Europe]], and was the center of the [[Roman Empire]] until its collapse. Italian cities led the [[Renaissance]], with world-class artists such as [[Leonardo da Vinci]], [[Donatello]], [[Michelangelo]], [[Titian]], [[Tintoretto]], [[Caravaggio]], and [[Giotto]]. Major cities today include [[Rome]], [[Milan]], [[Naples]] (Napoli), [[Turin]] (Torino), [[Palermo]], [[Genoa]] (Genova), [[Bologna]], [[Florence]] (Firenze) and [[Venice]] (Venezia).<ref> The [[Vatican City]], the governmental center of the [[Roman Catholic Church]], lies entirely within the boundaries of the capital city, Rome. The equally tiny sovereign state of [[San Marino]] is also entirely within Italy.</ref>

==Geography==
Italy, slightly larger than [[Arizona]], is a long peninsula shaped like a boot, surrounded on the west by the Tyrrhenian Sea and on the east by the Adriatic. It is bounded by [[France]], [[Switzerland]], [[Austria]], and [[Slovenia]] to the north. The [[Apennine Mountains]] form the peninsula's backbone; the Alps form its northern boundary. The largest of its many northern lakes is Garda (143 sq mi; 370 sq km); the Po, its principal river, flows from the [[Alps]] on Italy's western border and crosses the Lombard plain to the Adriatic Sea. Several islands form part of Italy; the largest are [[Sicily]] (9,926 sq mi; 25,708 sq km) and [[Sardinia]] (9,301 sq mi; 24,090 sq km).
*Area: 301,225 sq. km. (116,303 sq. mi.); about the size of Georgia and Florida combined.
*Cities: Capital--Rome (pop. 2.8 million, 3.7 million metro). Other cities--Milan (1.3 million, 3.9 metro), Naples (975,000, 3 million metro), Turin (900,000, 2.1 million metro).
*Terrain: Mostly rugged and mountainous.
*Climate: Generally mild Mediterranean; cold northern winters.

==People==
[[File:Rowers in Venice.jpg|thumb|left|Rowers in Venice.]]
Italy is largely homogeneous linguistically and religiously but is diverse culturally, economically, and politically. Italy has the fifth-highest population density in Europe--about 200 persons per square kilometer (490 per sq. mi.). Minority groups are small, the largest being the German-speaking people of Bolzano Province and the Slovenes around Trieste. There are also small communities of Albanian, Greek, Ladino, and French origin. Immigration has increased in recent years, however, while the Italian population is declining overall due to low birth rates. Although Roman Catholicism is the majority religion--85% of native-born citizens are nominally Catholic--all religious faiths are provided equal freedom before the law by the constitution.
*Population (November 2009 est.): Above 60.3 million.
*Annual growth rate (2007 est.): 0.01%.
*Ethnic groups: Primarily Italian, but there are small groups of German-, French-, Slovene-, and Albanian-Italians.
*Religion: Roman Catholic (majority).
*Language: Italian (official).
*Education: Years compulsory--10. Literacy--98%.
*Health: Infant mortality rate--5.72/1,000 live births. Life expectancy--77.01 years for men; 83.07 years for women.
*Work force (24.63 million, 2006 est.): Services--63%; industry and commerce--32%; agriculture--5%. Unemployment rate is 7

===Religion===
[[File:Milan Cathedral.jpg|thumb|left|300px|Cathedral of Milan (Duomo).]]
About 87% of native-born citizens are nominally Catholic, but only 20% regularly participate in worship services.<ref> See [http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2008/108453.htm U.S. State Department "International Religious Freedom Report 2008"]</ref> Other significant Christian communities include Orthodox, Jehovah's Witnesses, Assembly of God, the Confederation of Methodist and Waldensian Churches, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), and other small Protestant groups. Non-Catholic Christian groups, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Baha'is, and Buddhists constitute less than 5% of the population and, with the exception of Jews, are mainly foreign-born.

Immigration, both legal and illegal, continues to add large numbers of non-Christian residents, mainly Muslims, from North Africa, South Asia, Albania, and the Middle East. The Ministry of Interior reports that there are 258 places of Islamic worship (mainly "garage" mosques) and 628 Islamic associations concentrated in Lombardy, Veneto, Lazio, Emilia Romagna, and Tuscany. The Jewish community is estimated at 30,000 and maintains synagogues in 21 cities. The most recent data indicate that approximately 14% of the population identifies itself as either atheist or agnostic. (Numbers do not add up to 100% because of overlapping categories.)

===Italy's Cultural Contributions===
[[File:Caravaggio.JPG|thumb|[[Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio]]]]
Europe's Renaissance period began in Italy during the 14th and 15th centuries. Literary achievements, such as the poetry of [[Dante Alighieri|Dante]], [[Francesco Petrarch|Petrarch]], [[Torquato Tasso|Tasso]], and [[Ludovico Ariosto|Ariosto]] and the prose of [[Giovanni Boccaccio|Boccaccio]], [[Niccolò Machiavelli|Machiavelli]] and [[Alessandro Manzoni|Manzoni]], exerted a tremendous and lasting influence on the subsequent development of Western civilization, as did the painting, sculpture, and architecture contributed by giants such as [[Leonardo da Vinci]], [[Raphael]], [[Sandro Botticelli]], [[Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio|Caravaggio]], and [[Michelangelo|Michelangelo Buonarroti]].

The musical influence of Italian composers Monteverdi, Palestrina, and Vivaldi proved epochal; in the 19th century, Italian romantic opera flourished under composers Gioacchino Rossini, Giuseppe Verdi, and Giacomo Puccini. Contemporary Italian artists, writers, filmmakers, architects, composers, and designers contribute significantly to Western culture.

==History==
[[Image:Tiber.jpg|thumb|300px|The River Tiber.]]
The migrations of Indo-European peoples into Italy probably began about 2000 B.C. and continued down to 1000 B.C. From about the 9th century B.C. until it was overthrown by the [[Romans]] in the 3rd century B.C., the Etruscan civilization dominated the area. By 264 B.C. all Italy south of Cisalpine Gaul was under the leadership of Rome. For the next seven centuries, until the barbarian invasions destroyed the western Roman Empire in the 4th and 5th centuries A.D., the history of Italy is largely the history of Rome.

From 800 on, the Holy Roman Emperors, Roman Catholic popes, Normans, and Saracens all vied for control over various segments of the Italian peninsula. Numerous city-states, such as [[Venice]] and [[Genoa]], whose political and commercial rivalries were intense, and many small principalities flourished in the late [[Middle Ages]]. Although Italy remained politically fragmented for centuries, it became the cultural center of the Western world from the 13th to the 16th century.

In 1713, after the War of the Spanish Succession, [[Milan]], [[Naples]], and [[Sardinia]] were handed over to the Hapsburgs of Austria, which lost some of its Italian territories in 1735. After 1800, Italy was unified by Napoléon, who crowned himself king of Italy in 1805; but with the Congress of Vienna in 1815, Austria once again became the dominant power in a disunited Italy. Austrian armies crushed Italian uprisings in 1820–1821 and 1831.

=== Italian unification ===
In the 1830s, [[Giuseppe Mazzini]], a brilliant liberal nationalist, organized the Risorgimento (Resurrection), which laid the foundation for Italian unity. Disappointed Italian patriots looked to the House of Savoy for leadership. Count Camille di Cavour (1810–1861), prime minister of Sardinia in 1852 and the architect of a united Italy, joined England and France in the Crimean War (1853–1856), and in 1859 helped France in a war against Austria, thereby obtaining Lombardy. By plebiscite in 1860, Modena, Parma, Tuscany, and the Romagna voted to join Sardinia. In 1860, [[Giuseppe Garibaldi]] conquered Sicily and Naples and turned them over to Sardinia. Victor Emmanuel II, king of Sardinia, was proclaimed king of Italy in 1861. The annexation of Venetia in 1866 and of papal Rome in 1870 marked the complete unification of peninsular Italy into one nation under a constitutional monarchy.

=== Fascism and World Wars ===
Italy declared its neutrality upon the outbreak of [[World War I]] on the grounds that Germany had embarked upon an offensive war. In 1915, Italy entered the war on the side of the Allies but obtained less territory than it expected in the postwar settlement. [[Benito Mussolini]], “Il Duce”. a former Socialist, organized discontented Italians in 1919 into the [[Fascism|Fascist Party]] to “rescue Italy from [[Bolshevik|Bolshevism]].” He led his Black Shirts in a march on Rome and, on Oct. 28, 1922, became prime minister. He transformed Italy into a dictatorship, embarking on an expansionist foreign policy with the invasion and annexation of Ethiopia in 1935 and allying himself with Adolf Hitler in the Rome-Berlin Axis in 1936. When the Allies invaded Italy in 1943, Mussolini's dictatorship collapsed; he was executed by partisans on April 28, 1945, at Dongo on Lake Como. Following the armistice with the Allies (Sept. 3, 1943), Italy joined the war against Germany as a cobelligerent.

=== Italian Republic ===
A June 1946 plebiscite rejected monarchy and a republic was proclaimed. The peace treaty of Sept. 15, 1947, required Italian renunciation of all claims in Ethiopia and Greece and the cession of the Dodecanese islands to Greece and of five small Alpine areas to France. The Trieste area west of the new Yugoslav territory was made a free territory (until 1954, when the city and a 90-square-mile zone were transferred to Italy and the rest to Yugoslavia).

Italy became an integral member of [[NATO]] and the European Economic Community (later the [[EU]]) as it successfully rebuilt its postwar economy.

Until recently, there had been frequent government turnovers since 1945. The dominance of the Christian Democratic (DC) party during much of the postwar period lent continuity and comparative stability to Italy's political situation. A prolonged outbreak of terrorist activities by the left-wing Red Brigades threatened domestic stability in the 1970s, but by the early 1980s the terrorist groups had been suppressed. “Revolving door” governments, political instability, scandal, and corruption characterized Italian politics in the 1980s and 1990s.

=== Silvio Berlusconi and the "Second Republic" ===
From [[1992]] to 1997, Italy faced significant challenges as voters--disenchanted with past political paralysis, massive government debt, extensive corruption, and organized crime's considerable influence--demanded political, economic, and ethical reforms. Scandal investigations touched thousands of politicians, administrators, and businessmen. In [[1993]] referendums, voters approved substantial changes, including moving from a proportional to a largely majoritarian electoral system and the abolishment of some ministries.

Major political parties, beset by scandal and loss of voter confidence, underwent far-reaching changes. The end of [[Soviet Union|Soviet]] [[Communism]] caused a crisis on the Left, with a complex reshuffling of voters. Party changes were sweeping. The Christian Democratic Party dissolved; the Italian People's Party and the Christian Democratic Center emerged. Other major parties, such as the [[Socialist]]s, saw support plummet. For this reason this period is called "Second Republic".

New political forces and new alignments of power emerged in March [[1994]] national elections. A new populist and free-market oriented movement, Forza Italia, gained wide support among moderate voters. The National Alliance broke from the neofascist Italian Social Movement. The election saw a major turnover in the new parliament, with 452 out of 630 deputies and 213 out of 315 senators elected for the first time. The 1994 elections also swept media magnate [[Silvio Berlusconi]], and his Freedom Pole coalition, into office as Prime Minister. A trend toward two large coalitions--one on the center-left and the other on the center-right--emerged from the April 1995 regional elections.

Berlusconi, however, was forced to step down in January [[1995]] when one member of his coalition withdrew support. The Berlusconi government was succeeded by a technical government headed by Prime Minister Lamberto Dini, which fell in early [[1996]]. For the 1996 national elections, the center-left parties created the Olive Tree coalition while the center right united again under the Freedom Pole. The new elections in 1996 brought a center-left coalition to government for the first time after World War II.

A series of center-left coalitions dominated Italy's political landscape between 1996 and 2001. In April 1996, national elections led to the victory of a center-left coalition (the Olive Tree) under the leadership of Romano Prodi. Prodi's government became the second-longest to stay in power before he narrowly lost a vote of confidence (by three votes) in October 1998. A new government was formed by Democratic Party of the Left leader and former-communist Massimo D'Alema.

Italy adopted the [[euro]] as its currency in January [[1999]]. Treasury Secretary Carlo Ciampi, who is credited with the economic reforms that permitted Italy to enter the European Monetary Union, was elected president in May 1999. Italy joined its [[NATO]] partners in the [[Kosovo]] crisis. Aviano Air Base in northern Italy was a crucial base for launching air strikes into Kosovo and [[Yugoslavia]].

In April [[2000]], following a poor showing by his coalition in regional elections, D'Alema resigned. The succeeding center-left government, including most of the same parties, was headed by Giuliano Amato, who previously served as Prime Minister in 1992-93.

National elections, held on May 13, [[2001]], returned Berlusconi to power at the head of the five-party center-right Freedom House coalition, comprising the prime minister's own party, Forza Italia, the National Alliance, the Northern League, the Christian Democratic Center, and the United Christian Democrats. Berlusconi pledged to reduce unemployment, cut taxes, revamp the educational system, and reform the bureaucracy. His critics were alarmed by the apparent conflict of interest of a prime minister who also owned 90% of Italy's media. He was accused of Mafia connections and was under indictment for tax fraud and bribery. Found guilty in three out of four of his trials, he was acquitted in all of them on appeal. Several other cases are pending.

In Nov. [[2002]], Giulio Andreotti, who served as Italy's prime minister numerous times between 1972 and 1992, was sentenced to 24 years for ordering the [[Mafia]] to murder a journalist in 1979. At 84, however, he was deemed too old for prison.

At the end of [[2003]], Italian food giant [[Parmalat]] was accused of a massive accounting fraud scheme—$5 billion the company claimed was in fact nonexistent.

In April [[2005]], regional elections had disastrous results for Berlusconi's center-right coalition. The dismal state of the economy was blamed for the poor showing. Prime Minister Berlusconi resigned and formed a new government. The 60th government since the liberation of Italy was formed on April 23, 2005, with a new program emphasizing economic concerns. The previous Berlusconi government was the longest serving in Italy’s post-war history. In the same year parliament passed a new electoral law based on full proportional assignment of seats.

In national elections held April 9-10, [[2006]], the center-left Union coalition led by Romano Prodi, a successor to the Olive Tree, won 49.8% of the vote and Berlusconi's House of Liberties coalition won 49.7%—a mere 25,000 vote difference. The Union coalition includes the Democratic Party of the Left, the Daisy Party, UDEUR (Union of Democrats for Europe), Rose in the Fist (made up by Italian Social Democrats and Italian Radical Party), Communist Renewal, the Italian Communist Party, and the Greens. Berlusconi refused to concede and called for a recount. He eventually relented, and Prodi was given the go-ahead by the newly installed president Giorgio Napolitano to form a government. Prodi served as prime minister once before (1996–98) and also as president of the European Union. Prodi's government proved fragile almost immediately. Indeed, he submitted his resignation just nine months into his term after a key foreign-policy vote about the deployment of troops to Afghanistan and an expansion of a U. S. military base failed in the Senate. Days later, the Senate, facing the prospect of Silvio Berlusconi returning to power, narrowly passed a vote of confidence in Prodi's government. Prodi remained in office, surely to face similar obstacles in the near future.

In April 2006, Italy caught and arrested Bernardo Provenzano, the alleged boss of the Sicilian Mafia, who had eluded authorities for 42 years.

In October [[2007]], the Democrats of the Left and the Daisy parties officially merged to form the '''Democratic Party'''.

[[File:Logo-pdl-berlusconi.jpg|left|200px]]
The Prodi government collapsed on January 24, [[2008]], when it lost a vote of confidence in the Senate and the Prime Minster submitted his resignation to the President. The Prodi government fell when small coalition partner UDEUR withdrew support. In February, the President dissolved parliament and Silvio Berlusconi returned to power after defeating former Rome Mayor Walter Veltroni by a comfortable margin in elections on April 13-14, 2008. Berlusconi's winning coalition was composed of the '''People of Liberty''' (a union of Forza Italia and Gianfranco Fini's National Alliance), the Northern League, and the Movement for Autonomy. The election greatly simplified parliament, dramatically reducing the numbers of parties, and for the first time since World War II, leaving communist parties out of parliament. People of Liberty (37.4%) won the largest share of the vote and took power in coalition with a strengthened Northern League (8.3%) and the tiny Movement for Autonomy (1.1%). The Democratic Party scored 33.2% and ran in alliance with Italy of Values (4.4%), while the Union of the Center (5.6%) ran alone.

Berlusconi was sworn in as Prime Minister on May 8. Veltroni resigned as leader of the opposition in February [[2009]], and his deputy, Dario Franceschini, was elected new Democratic Party leader. In March 2009, Forza Italia and National Alliance changed the People of Liberty identification from an alliance to a party. The new mass center-right party is Italy's largest party and one of the largest in Europe. Party leaders define the party as post-ideological, charismatic, and pragmatic. It is led by Berlusconi.

In [[2010]], Gianfranco Fini's conservative party Future and Freedom emerged from a split from Berlusconi's People of Liberty party.

==Government==
Italy has been a democratic republic since June 2, 1946, when the monarchy was abolished by popular referendum. The constitution was promulgated on January 1, 1948.

The Italian state is centralized. The prefect of each of the provinces is appointed by and answerable to the central government. In addition to the provinces, the constitution provides for 20 regions with limited governing powers. Five regions--Sardinia, Sicily, Trentino-Alto Adige, Valle d'Aosta, and Friuli-Venezia Giulia--function with special autonomy statutes. The other 15 regions were established in 1970 and vote for regional "councils." The establishment of regional governments throughout Italy has brought some decentralization to the national governmental machinery, and recent governments have devolved further powers to the regions. Many regional governments, particularly in the north of Italy, are seeking additional powers.

The 1948 constitution established a perfectly bicameral parliament (Chamber of Deputies and Senate), a separate judiciary, and an executive branch composed of a Council of Ministers (cabinet), headed by the president of the council (prime minister). The president of the republic is elected for seven years by the parliament sitting jointly with a small number of regional delegates. The president nominates the prime minister, who chooses the other ministers. The Council of Ministers--in practice composed mostly of members of parliament--must retain the confidence of both houses.

The houses of parliament are popularly and directly elected by a proportional representation system. Under 2005 legislation, the Chamber of Deputies has 630 members (12 of which are elected by Italians abroad). In addition to 315 elected members (six of which are elected by Italians abroad), the Senate includes former presidents and several other persons appointed for life according to special constitutional provisions. Both houses are elected for a maximum of five years, but either may be dissolved before the expiration of its normal term. Legislative bills may originate in either house and must be passed by a majority in both.

The Italian judicial system is based on Roman law modified by the Napoleonic code and subsequent statutes. There is only partial judicial review of legislation in the American sense. A constitutional court, which passes on the constitutionality of laws, is a post-World War II innovation. Its powers, volume, and frequency of decisions are not as extensive as those of the U.S. Supreme Court.

===Principal Government Officials===
*President--Giorgio Napolitano
*Prime Minister--Enrico Letta
*Foreign Minister--Emma Bonino
*Minister of Defense--Mario Mauro
*Minister of Finance--Fabrizio Saccomanni
*Minister of Justice--Anna Maria Cancellieri
*Minister of the Interior--Angiolino Alfano

===Foreign Relations===
Italy was a founding member of the European Community--now the [[European Union]] (EU). Italy was admitted to the [[United Nations]] in 1955 and is a member and strong supporter of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization ([[NATO]]), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade/World Trade Organization (GATT/WTO), the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), and the Council of Europe. It chaired the CSCE (the forerunner of the OSCE) in 1994, the EU from July to December 1990, January to June 1996, and July to December 2003, and the G-8 in 2001 and in 2009. Italy served a two-year term on the UN Security Council in 2007-2008.

Italy firmly supports the United Nations and its international security activities. Italy leads the UN mission in Lebanon (UNIFIL) and has actively participated in and deployed troops in support of UN peacekeeping missions in Somalia, Mozambique, and Timor-Leste. It provides critical support for NATO and EU operations in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Albania, Georgia, and Chad.

Italy, under NATO's ISAF, maintains a Provincial Reconstruction Team in the western [[Afghanistan]] province of Herat, commands RC-West, and maintains a Carabinieri police training center. Italy supports reconstruction and development assistance to the Iraqi people through humanitarian workers and other officials, particularly in Dhi Qar Province, and is a leading contributor to the NATO Training Mission-Iraq, with approximately 100 military personnel and Carabinieri police trainers. Currently almost 9,000 Italian troops are deployed, including 2,100 in Kosovo, 2,350 in Lebanon as part of UNIFIL, and over 2,600 in Afghanistan. It will send another 1000 troops for the surge in [[Afghanistan War|Afghanistan]] in 2010.

=== Armed forces ===
The Italian Constitution explicitly repudiates war as a mean to solve international conflicts<ref>http://www.governo.it/Governo/Costituzione/principi.html</ref> but still affirms that the defence of the fatherland is a citizen's "sacred duty" and that, when required by the law, military service is mandatory. <ref>http://www.governo.it/Governo/Costituzione/1_titolo4.html</ref> Therefore, the Italian Republic maintains four armed forces:
* The Italian Army, ''Esercito Italiano'', is the ground branch and numbers above 108,000 troops. Its most famous equipment include the C-1 ''Ariete'' main battle tank, the ''Centauro'' wheeled armored car, the AR-70/90 assault rifle and the Beretta M9 pistol, which is also used by the United States armed forces. Among the corps which make up the Army, it's worthy to remember: the ''Alpini'' (mountain troops), the ''Bersaglieri'' (light infantry) and the ''Lagunari'' (marines).
* The Italian Navy, ''Marina Militare'', is the sea branch and counts 31,000 sailors and 70 warships, among them: the ''Cavour'' and ''Garibaldi'' aircraft carriers, the ''Horizon'' destroyers and the ''Amerigo Vespucci'' school sailship for naval cadets. The Com.Sub.In. (Underwater Incursion Command) are the Italian Navy SEALs, extremely well trained and with a long history of daring victories.
* The Italian Air Force, ''Aeronautica Militare'', is the air branch and musters 42,960 airmen and officers and 665 planes and helicopters. Its acrobatic patrol is highly famed and is known as the ''Tricolor Arrows'.
* The Carabinieri Corps, ''Arma dei Carabinieri'' is the national gendarmery force, 120,000-strong. Formerly part of the Army, the Carabinieri act both as a civilian police force and a military one. They mantain some combat-ready light infantry units, the "Hunters" regiments.

The Italian armed forces relied upon conscription for almost a hundred and fifty years, but mandatory service was abolished in 2005, moving them to a professionist, volunteer model.

==Economy==
[[File:Banca Commerciale Italiana Milan.JPG|thumb|300px|Palace of the "Banca Commerciale Italiana", Milan.]]
The Italian economy has changed dramatically since the end of World War II. From an agricultural-based economy, it has developed into an industrial state ranked as the world's sixth-largest market economy. Italy belongs to the Group of Eight (G-8) industrialized nations; it is a member of the European Union and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

Italy has few natural resources. With much land unsuited for farming, Italy is a net food importer. There are no substantial deposits of iron, coal, or oil. Proven natural gas reserves, mainly in the Po Valley and offshore Adriatic, constitute the country's most important mineral resource. Most raw materials needed for manufacturing and more than 80% of the country's energy sources are imported. Italy's economic strength is in the processing and the manufacturing of goods, primarily in small and medium-sized family-owned firms. Its major industries are precision machinery, motor vehicles, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, electric goods, and fashion and clothing.

Italy's economic growth averaged only 0.66% for the five years ending in 2005; 2006 GDP growth reached 1.9%, largely due to export growth to the Euro zone area.

Italy continues to grapple with budget deficits and high public debt--2.6% and 105.9% of GDP for 2008, respectively. Italy joined the European Monetary Union in 1998 by signing the Stability and Growth Pact, and as a condition of this Euro zone membership, Italy must keep its budget deficit beneath a 3% ceiling. The Italian Government has found it difficult to bring the budget deficit down to a level that would allow a rapid decrease of that debt. The worsening of the economic situation is expected to jeopardize this effort. The deficit is expected to grow well above the 3% ceiling in 2009 and 2010.

Italy's economic growth averaged only 0.8% in the period 2001-2008; 2008 GDP decreased 1.0%, largely due to the global economic crisis and its impact on exports and domestic demand. GDP is expected to contract further, with a huge decrease in 2009 (ranging from 2% to 3%) as the Euro zone and world economies slow.

Italy's closest trade ties are with the other countries of the European Union, with whom it conducts about 60.1% of its total trade (2007 data). Its largest EU trade partners are Germany (12.9%), France (11.4%), and the United Kingdom (5.8%). Italy continues to grapple with the effects of globalization, where China has undersold the Italian lower-end industrial product sector.

The Italian economy is also affected by a large underground economy--worth some 27% of its GDP. This production is not subject, of course, to taxation and thus remains a source of lost revenue to the local and central government.

*GDP (purchasing power parity, 2007 est.): $1.8 trillion.
*GDP per capita (purchasing power parity, 2007 est.): $31,000.
*GDP growth: 1.7% (2007); 1.9% (2006); 0.1% (2005); 0.9% (2003 est.); 0.4% (2002); 1.8% (2001).
*Natural resources: Fish and natural gas.
*Agriculture: Products--wheat, rice, grapes, olives, citrus fruits, potatoes, sugar beets, soybeans beef, dairy products.
*Industry: Types--tourism, machinery, iron and steel, chemicals, food processing, textiles, motor vehicles, clothing, footwear, ceramics.
*Trade: Exports (2007 est.)--$474.8 billion f.o.b.: mechanical products, textiles and apparel, transportation equipment, metal products, chemical products, food and agricultural products. Partners (2006)--Germany 13.2%, France 12.3%, U.S. 7.5%, Spain 7.5%, U.K. 6.6%. Imports (2007 est.)--$483.6 billion f.o.b.: machinery and transport equipment, foodstuffs, ferrous and nonferrous metals, wool, cotton, energy products. Partners (2006)--Germany 17.3%, France 10.0%, Netherlands 5.7%, China 5.2%, Belgium 4.5%, Spain 4.3%.

====U.S.-Italy Economic Relations====
The United States and Italy cooperate closely on major economic issues, including within the G-8. With a large population and a high per capita income, Italy was the United States' twelfth-largest trading partner in 2008, with total bilateral trade of $51.6 billion comprised of exports to Italy totaling $15.5 billion and imports worth $36.1 billion. The U.S.'s $20.7 billion deficit with Italy in 2008 was slightly below the $20.9 billion deficit registered in 2007. Machinery and aircraft are becoming important U.S. exports. U.S. foreign direct investment in Italy at the end of 2007 exceeded $28.4 billion.

====Labor====
Unemployment is a regional issue in Italy--low in the north, high in the south. The overall national rate is at its lowest level since 1992. Chronic problems of inadequate infrastructure, corruption, and organized crime act as disincentives to investment and job creation in the south. A significant underground economy absorbs substantial numbers of people, but they work for low wages and without standard social benefits and protections. Women and youth have significantly higher rates of unemployment than do men.

Unions claim to represent 40% of the work force. Most Italian unions are grouped in four major confederations: the General Italian Confederation of Labor (CGIL), the Italian Confederation of Workers' Unions (CISL), the Italian Union of Labor (UIL), and the General Union of Labor (UGL), which together claim 35% of the work force. These confederations formerly were associated with important political parties or currents, but they have evolved into fully autonomous, professional bodies. The CGIL, CISL, and UIL are affiliated with the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) and customarily coordinate their positions before confronting management or lobbying the government. The confederations have had an important consultative role on national social and economic issues.

====Agriculture====
Italy's agriculture is typical of the division between the agricultures of the northern and southern countries of the European Union. The northern part of Italy produces primarily grains, sugarbeets, soybeans, meat, and dairy products, while the south specializes in fruits, vegetables, olive oil, wine, and durum wheat. Even though much of its mountainous terrain is unsuitable for farming, Italy has a large work force (1.4 million) employed in farming. Most farms are small, with the average size being only seven hectares.

== See also ==
*[[Benito Mussolini]]
*[[Giuseppe Garibaldi]]
*[[Galileo Galilei]]
*[[Marco Polo]]
*[[The Renaissance]]
*[[Italian Painting]]

== External links ==
*[http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107658.html Italy.]

==References==
<references/>

{{Copyright Details (US Government)}}

{{European Union}}

[[Category:European History]]
[[Category:European Countries]]
[[Category:NATO members]]
[[Category:Christian-Majority Countries]]

Silvio Berlusconi

2013-08-01T21:51:12Z

RonaldV:

[[Image:Logo-pdl-berlusconi.jpg|right|260px]]
'''Silvio Berlusconi''' (born [[Milan]], 29 September 1936) is an [[Italian]] businessman and politician.

==Politics==
He is the leader of the [[People of Freedom]] party, the merger of the [[Forza Italia]] party which he founded in 1993 and of Gianfranco Fini's post-fascist [[National Alliance]] party.

He was [[prime minister]] of Italy between 1993 and 1994 and again between 2001 and 2006. He has been reelected by a substantial majority in April of 2008 after the fall of the centre-left coalition government led by [[Romano Prodi]], which lasted a mere 20 months<ref>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article3744594.ece</ref>. On 8 November 2011 Berlusconi announced his resignation.

He is a great friend of [[George W. Bush|President Bush]] and he lauded the US President in the special issue of [[Time]] magazine, ''100: The World's Most Influential People''. Nevertheless, he greatly welcomed [[Barack Obama]] saying that he is "young, handsome and tanned" and since then, he has showed a great friendship with the black President. Berlusconi has also declared his friendship with leaders such as [[Gaddafi]] (even kissing his hand) and Putin.

==Business==
His wealth derives from his ownership of the financial conglomerate Fininvest, including Mediaset, which owns several major television channels and newspapers (according to Freedom House, Italy has constantly been "partly free" in regard to freedom of press while Berlusconi was in charge<ref>[http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/fop/2009/FreedomofthePress2009_MOPF.pdf]</ref>), but he started as a building contractor.

He is also the owner of the [[soccer]] team [[AC Milan]].

==Controversies==
The source of his original wealth is currently disputed: in particular, Berlusconi received several large loans from the Rasini Bank, which was later discovered to be a coverup for the money laundering activity of the mafia,<ref>Marco Travaglio, ''L'odore dei soldi'', ''The smell of money''. A book from the independent journalist Marco Travaglio, later indicted by Berlusconi for slander, and subsequently acquitted.</ref> being also linked with the masonic lodge P2 (Berlusconi was also a member of the P2, card n. 1816)<ref>The picture of Berlusconi's P2 admission paper can be easily found on the web: [http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_hHn2RHGuQvU/SHOh2CQDehI/AAAAAAAAAPA/JdZSlDYdo3s/s400/berlusconi_tessera_p2.gif]</ref>. Berlusconi has always defended himself saying that money came from his father Luigi, also an employee of the Rasini Bank.<ref>[http://www.repubblica.it/online/politica/sati/integrale/integrale.html</ref>

Berlusconi has been accused of having contacts with the mafia: it has been established that he took a mafioso boss, Vittorio Mangano, as his alleged "stableman"<ref>[http://www.corriere.it/cronache/09_settembre_25/mangano_berlusconi_gatto_3a66f02c-a9bd-11de-93d1-00144f02aabc.shtml Il Corriere della Sera]</ref>. Mangano was arrested and sentenced several times while working for Berlusconi and his right-hand, Marcello Dell'Utri, who has been sentenced in Appeal for mafia.<ref>[http://www.lastampa.it/redazione/cmssezioni/politica/201006articoli/56285girata.asp La Stampa: Mafia, Dell'Utri sentenced to 7 years]</ref> Asked about Mangano, both Berlusconi and Dell'Utri answered saying that he was "a hero".<ref>[http://www.repubblica.it/2008/04/sezioni/politica/verso-elezioni-18/berlusconi-toghe/berlusconi-toghe.html La Repubblica</ref>

Berlusconi has been the subject of judicial investigations into alleged [[corruption]], judicial corruption, [[fraud]], underage prostitution and accounting irregularities by, what he and others claim is, a group of politicized left-wing judges or "toghe rosse" (red robes).<ref>[http://www.repubblica.it/politica/2011/05/27/news/i_processi_di_b_-16841936/]</ref> The facts of which Berlusconi has been accused have been all proved,<ref>[http://www.beppegrillo.it/2011/05/berlusconi_ergastolo_alla_carriera/index.html An editorial by Marco Travaglio, hosted on the blog of the Italian popular blogger Beppe Grillo</ref>, but Berlusconi has never been sentenced thanks to amnesties, self-depenalizations of illicit accouting while he was at power<ref>[http://www.corriere.it/Primo_Piano/Cronache/2005/09_Settembre/26/alliberian.shtml</ref>, shortening of the statute of limitations. In may 2009, David Mills, Berlusconi's Lawyer, was convicted of perjury in order to promote Berlusconi's impunity<ref>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6322775.ece</ref>. Berlusconi has been fully acquitted for "not having committed the fact" (full acquittal) only in one case. [[Italy]] is one of the few [[Europe|European]] countries, where the head of government has no [[immunity]]. In spite of this, Berlusconi has tried to promulgate several laws establishing his immunity (called "''ad personam''" laws in Italy), but almost all of them were found to be un-costitutional by the Italian Constitutional Court and therefore canceled. Berlusconi has accused Constitutional judges of being "[[communist]]", and has also said that the Italian Constitution - which has been written mostly by [[moderate]] [[Christian Democrat]]s - is also "[[sovietic]]".<ref>[http://www.corriere.it/politica/09_ottobre_07/lodo_alfano_corte_costituzionale_d1f066b8-b308-11de-b362-00144f02aabc.shtml]</ref><ref>[http://www.repubblica.it/2009/02/sezioni/cronaca/eluana-englaro-2/eluana-chigi-quirinale/eluana-chigi-quirinale.html]</ref>

Berlusconi says to be a conservative and the "defender of the traditional family". It is to be noted, though, that Berlusconi has admitted having sex with many very young prostitutes (Berlusconi is currently 74 years old) such as Karima "Ruby" el-Mahroug in a perverted sexual rite called "''bunga-bunga''"; he is a known and self-admitted "user" of prostitutes who he lets inside his villas and has divorced from the wife Veronica Lario.

Has been definitively convicted for tax fraud by the Italian supreme court on 1 August 2013, being handed a four year jail term. Due to age limits and a previous amnesty, he will likely spend only one year either at home arrest or in probation with the social service.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/02/world/europe/ruling-on-berlusconi-case-by-italys-top-court-is-expected.html?hp&_r=0</ref>

==Notes==
<references/>
{{DEFAULTSORT:Berlusconi, Silvio}}
[[Category:International Political Figures]]
[[Category:Italian People]]