Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Is it possible to be conservative and know there is no possibility of there ever being a "God" and/or higher being?

2009-05-18T16:51:00Z

Roopilots6: /* Yes */

{{move|Debate:Is it possible to be conservative and know there is no possibility of there ever being a "God" and/or higher being?}}
Most of the people I know call me conservative-independent, because I believe in many values such as unsociallised medicine, taxation favouring the wealthy, etc. However, I am also an ardent atheist. Would I be classified as conservative?

==Yes==
I've encountered and listened to several people label themselves as a conservative while they eschew almost every leftist point in the book. They consider themselves middle of the road or moderate conservatives. Sometimes you can even reason with them until they agree with conservatism until a day or week later when they've returned to original middle of the road or moderate positions. Usually anyone not a hardcore radical leftist who think being to the right of the extreme makes them conservative. It is a label of convenience for a person that tolerates any opinion but will rarely, if ever, take a stand on anything.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:51, 18 May 2009 (EDT)

==No==
Are you familiar with [http://www.lp.org/ Libertarian] values? If a moniker should be applied to you, it sounds like that would be appropriate. --[[User:NicholasT|NicholasT]] 11:38, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

Debate:Why are most actors turned politicians Republicans?

2008-09-11T23:58:10Z

Roopilots6:

Ronald Reagan, Jesse Ventura, Fred Thompson, Arnold Schwarz., Sonny Bono, that guy from the Love Boat, that guy from Dukes of Hazzard...I can't think of a single Democrat who ran a successful campaign. Heck, aside from Fraken, I think think of one who ran. Any thoughts? [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 00:30, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:That is really interesting considering how liberal Hollywood is considered to be. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Look at this petition!]] 00:34, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
Interesting. Don't forget Clint Eastwood. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:36, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:Actually, Jesse Ventura was an independent, not a Republican. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:15, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:: And "that guy from Dukes of Hazzard", aka Ben Jones, ran and won a Congressional seat in 1988 and 1990...as a Democrat. So you can now say that not only do you know of an actor who ran as a Democrat, but won too! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:19, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Technically an "actor" for his role for in a few TV episodes, Jerry Springer was Democratic mayor of Cincy before becoming an actor, the reverse of your question. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:22, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Nice points everyone! I forgot about Springer and was wrong about Jones. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 10:36, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Ronald Reagan was a Democrat before becoming a Republican. Remember his line of him not leaving the Democrat party but of the Democrat party leaving him?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:58, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Is a candidate's military record relevant anymore?

2008-09-11T14:01:46Z

Roopilots6: /* Depends */

Look at recent elections. 1992: Bill Clinton (draft dodger) beats George Bush (combat veteran). 1996: Bill Clinton (draft doger) beats Bob Dole (wounded combat veteran). 2000: George W. Bush (draft dodger) beats Al Gore (veteran, did not see combat). 2004: George Bush (draft dodger) beats John Kerry (wounded combat veteran). Now in 2008 John McCain (former POW) is lagging behind Obama (never served). Are voters now more interested in a candidate's political record than their time in the military? [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 09:56, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

==RELEVANCY==
It is always a mistake to make broad assertions and generalizations based on stereotypes and prejudices. Especially when they contain errors based on a political misinformation campaign. The error of calling George W. Bush a draft dodger when he actually served in the Air National Guard. Or the incomplete assertion that names John Kerry as a wounded combat veteran without also mentioning his anti-military actions such as calling all American forces in Viet Nam as being war criminals. These differences in military service did make an impact on the elections. The relevance is especially pronounced to anyone who has ever served in the military or even had a family member that served. It also is relevant to the voter who sees their military service being belittled, slandered, lied about, or shown contempt for by those people who've never served their country. In the current election it has been attempted repeatedly to make John McCains military service record irrelevant since his opponent never served in the military. Which it looks to be as one of the goals of this debate, by the way. Everything is relevant in any election.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 09:07, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

:Correct, everything is relevant, but that does not answer the question as to what /ought/ be relevant. I think military service certainly helps, but it's not the end all be all that McCain wants it to be. Soldiers are people first, and people are fallible; there are bad soldiers just as there are bad people and pointing that out (such as when Kerry went before Congress) isn't a bad thing at all. The point? Serving your country doesn't make you better or worse than anyone else, it just adds variety. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 09:39, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::So then the addition of military service record as variety in an election is relevant. But then you say it is irrelevant in that it doesn't make you a better or worse candidate. So which one is it to be, relevant or irrelevant?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:20, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Do you not read? Indeed, EVERYTHING is relevant; that's the way things are, but here's the kicker, that says nothing of what /ought/ be relevant. Palin's daughter, for example, was highly relevant in the days after the story broke about her being pregnant, but it shouldn't have ever been broken in the first place: Bristol isn't going to be the vice president, and what happened to McCain in Vietnam doesn't suddenly make him a superior leader because Obama /hasn't/ served in the military. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 10:25, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

:::So you say it is irrelevant. But you also say everything is relevant. Here is my point to you. I served in the military for thirteen years. I know it made me a better person. I also know that for some people it will bring out the bad characteristics in them. Any hardship or challenge will do this and the challenges faced during a persons military service are very relevant towards their future tasks. To those who have a contempt for military service I doubt will be able to recognize what that relevance is for a candidate. You just get it, or you don't. It is an individual stance and not a collective one.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:45, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::::You seem to be not getting this on purpose, and now I am becoming annoyed but I shall persevere: Anything that can be reported is relevant, insofar as people will read/listen to it, I.e., Bristol's pregnancy. However, ''OUGHT'' it be relevant; should it really matter? The answer is no, not everything ''ought'' be relevant. When we're talking about McCain's military record being relevant, it is to a ''degree'', however, it isn't relevant as pitched by McCain et al; it's not the only relevant thing. If McCain had his way, then his military record is the only thing necessary to run President of the United States, but it's not; it's one of many areas that demonstrate the character and integrity of the person in question. McCain served his country, Barack served his community. Is there a difference? Maybe a superficial one. The Military is just another job; you can attach as much symbolism and meaning to that job as you want, but do the cold steely eyes of logic (and more importantly, God), a soldier is no different than a plumber; they are both but men.

::::I also disagree with the rather subtle assertion that I or anyone else have contempt for the military (for why else would you bother mentioning it?) simply because we disagree that McCain's service record necessarily makes him the second coming. You're 'you either get it or you don't' statement isn't even an argument; if we disagree we don't get it, whatever. That is essentially saying "if you argue you're wrong!" Well, denied. I'm a future marine, but just because that is the case doesn't mean I think all marines would make good presidents simply because they are marines. That's called a circle. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 13:00, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::I wasn't being subtle, but if it fits then go with it. If you think that the difference between community service and military service is merely a superficial one then this dialogue has just entered the realm of irrelevancy. I'm supposing you mean circular reasoning. So that's all I got to say about that.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 17:44, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::So you disagree? If so, then please, I enjoy these sort of discussions, though not when the other participant gives the equivalent of a throwing-their-hands-in-the-air response.[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 19:32, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

In a debate, when you've gone off topic and start focusing on the person you're debating with then you've already lost that debate. If you have anything "relevant" that relates to the topic then go ahead and type it down.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 09:15, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

==Depends==
I think the relevancy of the military record of a candidate depends on his role in the war. If the person was a regular soldier (I am not familiar with rank so excuse the layman's language, I believe it is the rank of Private, but am not sure) then honestly, no I don't think it does. I am not in anyway trying to lessen the sacrifice that privates make in battle; I respect them 100% for the sacrifices they make. These sacrifices, however, do not necessarily translate into superior ability to be commander in chief. A private in the military makes no strategical decisions in the larger picture, that is the job of majors, generals etc. A commander in chief is chiefly concerned with overall strategy. Thus a private really has no greater advantage in this situation. If the candidate, however, was a a major or general or some other strategical position, then yes, in the context of commander in chief, it does matter. That record as a strategy decider, however, cannot be the only attribute that makes a candidate successful. Being commander in chief is only one of the many responsibilities of a president. In a way, it is almost of slightly lesser importance (before you all scream, hear me out). As commander in chief, the president (once in a declared war in congress) has the ultimate authority on strategy. Thus he can listen to his advisors and generals and such, make a decision, and have it enacted. Domestic and foreign policy, however, must go through congress. A president needs tremendous political skill to work a plan through congress (vis a vis FDR). In policy decisions, the president must work with congress and satisfy congress. In military strategy, the president has practically free reign. My 2 cents --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 19:28, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

:There used to be a thing called the art of character building. Whether you started out as a regular enlisted rank or a wet behind the ears 0fficer just out of some elitest college didn't matter a lick. What you do with what you have does. Showing progress and staying out of trouble is more relevant than the worthless opinion of an elitest establishment looking down their collective noses at the lowly enlisted ranks. Let me repeat what I've already said before in the vain hope of it leaving an impression on someone. Unless you've actually served in the military, you really don't understand the level of sacrifice being offered by those serving or having served in the military. You will never understand the relevance it will give you in understanding others sacrifice in going into harms way today, tommorow or even past conflicts. If you think community service is like military service then you've proven my point. Progressing through the ranks and obtaining an Honorable Discharge is more relevant than to whether they obtained a high enough rank to qualify for an executive position. A candidate for any job will be asked what type of discharge and what rank was obtained. In the position of President of the United States of America, the Commander in Chief never has free reign with military strategy. The Chiefs of Staff will outline the choices to be made, A through Z, which the Commander in Chief then chooses from. Only dictators, or monarchs have free reign in such matters. Thank God we live in a Republic here in the U.S.A.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:00, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Is a candidate's military record relevant anymore?

2008-09-11T14:00:46Z

Roopilots6: /* Depends */

Look at recent elections. 1992: Bill Clinton (draft dodger) beats George Bush (combat veteran). 1996: Bill Clinton (draft doger) beats Bob Dole (wounded combat veteran). 2000: George W. Bush (draft dodger) beats Al Gore (veteran, did not see combat). 2004: George Bush (draft dodger) beats John Kerry (wounded combat veteran). Now in 2008 John McCain (former POW) is lagging behind Obama (never served). Are voters now more interested in a candidate's political record than their time in the military? [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 09:56, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

==RELEVANCY==
It is always a mistake to make broad assertions and generalizations based on stereotypes and prejudices. Especially when they contain errors based on a political misinformation campaign. The error of calling George W. Bush a draft dodger when he actually served in the Air National Guard. Or the incomplete assertion that names John Kerry as a wounded combat veteran without also mentioning his anti-military actions such as calling all American forces in Viet Nam as being war criminals. These differences in military service did make an impact on the elections. The relevance is especially pronounced to anyone who has ever served in the military or even had a family member that served. It also is relevant to the voter who sees their military service being belittled, slandered, lied about, or shown contempt for by those people who've never served their country. In the current election it has been attempted repeatedly to make John McCains military service record irrelevant since his opponent never served in the military. Which it looks to be as one of the goals of this debate, by the way. Everything is relevant in any election.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 09:07, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

:Correct, everything is relevant, but that does not answer the question as to what /ought/ be relevant. I think military service certainly helps, but it's not the end all be all that McCain wants it to be. Soldiers are people first, and people are fallible; there are bad soldiers just as there are bad people and pointing that out (such as when Kerry went before Congress) isn't a bad thing at all. The point? Serving your country doesn't make you better or worse than anyone else, it just adds variety. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 09:39, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::So then the addition of military service record as variety in an election is relevant. But then you say it is irrelevant in that it doesn't make you a better or worse candidate. So which one is it to be, relevant or irrelevant?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:20, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Do you not read? Indeed, EVERYTHING is relevant; that's the way things are, but here's the kicker, that says nothing of what /ought/ be relevant. Palin's daughter, for example, was highly relevant in the days after the story broke about her being pregnant, but it shouldn't have ever been broken in the first place: Bristol isn't going to be the vice president, and what happened to McCain in Vietnam doesn't suddenly make him a superior leader because Obama /hasn't/ served in the military. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 10:25, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

:::So you say it is irrelevant. But you also say everything is relevant. Here is my point to you. I served in the military for thirteen years. I know it made me a better person. I also know that for some people it will bring out the bad characteristics in them. Any hardship or challenge will do this and the challenges faced during a persons military service are very relevant towards their future tasks. To those who have a contempt for military service I doubt will be able to recognize what that relevance is for a candidate. You just get it, or you don't. It is an individual stance and not a collective one.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:45, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::::You seem to be not getting this on purpose, and now I am becoming annoyed but I shall persevere: Anything that can be reported is relevant, insofar as people will read/listen to it, I.e., Bristol's pregnancy. However, ''OUGHT'' it be relevant; should it really matter? The answer is no, not everything ''ought'' be relevant. When we're talking about McCain's military record being relevant, it is to a ''degree'', however, it isn't relevant as pitched by McCain et al; it's not the only relevant thing. If McCain had his way, then his military record is the only thing necessary to run President of the United States, but it's not; it's one of many areas that demonstrate the character and integrity of the person in question. McCain served his country, Barack served his community. Is there a difference? Maybe a superficial one. The Military is just another job; you can attach as much symbolism and meaning to that job as you want, but do the cold steely eyes of logic (and more importantly, God), a soldier is no different than a plumber; they are both but men.

::::I also disagree with the rather subtle assertion that I or anyone else have contempt for the military (for why else would you bother mentioning it?) simply because we disagree that McCain's service record necessarily makes him the second coming. You're 'you either get it or you don't' statement isn't even an argument; if we disagree we don't get it, whatever. That is essentially saying "if you argue you're wrong!" Well, denied. I'm a future marine, but just because that is the case doesn't mean I think all marines would make good presidents simply because they are marines. That's called a circle. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 13:00, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::I wasn't being subtle, but if it fits then go with it. If you think that the difference between community service and military service is merely a superficial one then this dialogue has just entered the realm of irrelevancy. I'm supposing you mean circular reasoning. So that's all I got to say about that.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 17:44, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::So you disagree? If so, then please, I enjoy these sort of discussions, though not when the other participant gives the equivalent of a throwing-their-hands-in-the-air response.[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 19:32, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

In a debate, when you've gone off topic and start focusing on the person you're debating with then you've already lost that debate. If you have anything "relevant" that relates to the topic then go ahead and type it down.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 09:15, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

==Depends==
I think the relevancy of the military record of a candidate depends on his role in the war. If the person was a regular soldier (I am not familiar with rank so excuse the layman's language, I believe it is the rank of Private, but am not sure) then honestly, no I don't think it does. I am not in anyway trying to lessen the sacrifice that privates make in battle; I respect them 100% for the sacrifices they make. These sacrifices, however, do not necessarily translate into superior ability to be commander in chief. A private in the military makes no strategical decisions in the larger picture, that is the job of majors, generals etc. A commander in chief is chiefly concerned with overall strategy. Thus a private really has no greater advantage in this situation. If the candidate, however, was a a major or general or some other strategical position, then yes, in the context of commander in chief, it does matter. That record as a strategy decider, however, cannot be the only attribute that makes a candidate successful. Being commander in chief is only one of the many responsibilities of a president. In a way, it is almost of slightly lesser importance (before you all scream, hear me out). As commander in chief, the president (once in a declared war in congress) has the ultimate authority on strategy. Thus he can listen to his advisors and generals and such, make a decision, and have it enacted. Domestic and foreign policy, however, must go through congress. A president needs tremendous political skill to work a plan through congress (vis a vis FDR). In policy decisions, the president must work with congress and satisfy congress. In military strategy, the president has practically free reign. My 2 cents --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 19:28, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

:There used to be a thing called the art of character building. Whether you started out as a regular enlisted rank or a wet behind the ears 0fficer just out of some elitest college doesn't matter a lick. What you do with what you have does. Showing progress and staying out of trouble is more relevant than the worthless opinion of an elitest establishment looking down their collective noses at the lowly elisted ranks. Let me repeat what I've already said before in the vain hope of it leaving an impression on someone. Unless you've actually served in the military, you really don't understand the level of sacrifice being offered by those serving or having served in the military. You will never understand the relevance it will give you in understanding others sacrifice in going into harms way today, tommorow or even past conflicts. If you think community service is like military service then you've proven my point. Progressing through the ranks and obtaining an Honorable Discharge is more relevant than to whether they obtained a high enough rank to qualify for an executive position. A candidate for any job will be asked what type of discharge and what rank was obtained. In the position of President of the United States of America, the Commander in Chief never has free reign with military strategy. The Chiefs of Staff will outline the choices to be made, A through Z, which the Commander in Chief then chooses from. Only dictators, or monarchs have free reign in such matters. Thank God we live in a Republic here in the U.S.A.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:00, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Is a candidate's military record relevant anymore?

2008-09-11T13:15:23Z

Roopilots6: /* RELEVANCY */

Debate:Is a candidate's military record relevant anymore?

2008-09-08T21:44:25Z

Roopilots6: /* RELEVANCY */

Debate:Is a candidate's military record relevant anymore?

2008-09-08T14:45:03Z

Roopilots6: /* RELEVANCY */

Debate:Is a candidate's military record relevant anymore?

2008-09-08T14:23:11Z

Roopilots6: /* RELEVANCY */

Debate:Is a candidate's military record relevant anymore?

2008-09-08T14:20:50Z

Roopilots6: /* RELEVANCY */

Debate:Should U.S. troops be subject to Iraqi law if that allows our continued presence there?

2008-09-08T14:07:20Z

Roopilots6: /* SOFA */

{{debate}}

== Background ==

The current presence of the USA and its coalition partners in Iraq is based on a United Nations authorization which expires at the end of 2008. The United States is currently in negotiations with the Iraqi government to develop an agreement directly between our two nations that would allow a U.S. presence and continued operations without requiring United Nations approval.

Negotiations towards such an agreement have stalled in June, 2008, with each side insisting on requirements that are considered unacceptable to the other. One of these issues is that the leadership of the Iraqi Parliament is calling for a American troops operating in Iraq to no longer be immune from prosecution as they are under the U.N. authorization.

For the Iraq government, this is an essential safeguard against abuses against its citizens that have been carried out by American soldiers or contractors like Blackwater operating under U.S. government authorization. For the U.S., this puts our troops at an unacceptable risk if they need to question every action based on whether it may or may not violate Iraqi law.

== Yes ==

This question is oddly phrased, and therefore I would have to answer Yes and No. Yes, if we are to continue our presence in Iraq, we should be subject to Iraqi law. But if I respond Yes, it seems to imply that I believe we should be subject if it allows our continued presence, which I am against.

But taken as a separate debate, whether or not U.S. troops should be subject to Iraqi law under a new security arrangement, I think it is a definitive Yes. To operate outside the realm of Iraqi law will continue to foster an insurgency that sees the U.S. forces as Occupiers. Look at the response by the Iraqis after the Blackwater fiasco. Not only did it inflame tensions between the citizens and the military, but the Blackwater forces aren't held responsible under U.S. law either. To continue to place ourselves outside the realm of the law of the country we are occupying would just continue to fan the flames of American discontent and would lead to a worsening of relations. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 17:35, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

:I agree with you in principle, but in practical terms a military force can't be effective if they need to be concerned with the civilian laws of foreign nations as well as the military laws and rules of engagement they are bound by. This is one reason that the training, missions and constraints of military and police forces are different, and why the former is not a substitute for the latter. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:43, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

:: You are absolutely correct in your last statement concerning the differences between a military and a police force. But, I would follow with our current situation requires a police force that adheres to the law of the nation, as opposed to a military force--at least the size that we have in there currently. If we were to have a minor military force, then I could understand your reasoning. But the majority of the occupation time-wise has been engaged in police force activities for which they are NOT trained. That is yet one more reason for anti-american sentiment. Ergo, I would argue for a transition in forces and an abiding by Iraqi law. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 18:13, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

:::The sooner they get their own police force working well enough to stop their citizens slaughtering each other, the sooner we can withdraw our own troops. Until that point comes, marshal law rules. - NewCrusader

== No ==

This is an unacceptable condition, and while the Iraq government has good reason to insist on it in order to maintain sovereign control of what happens within their nation, our military cannot operate on that basis. We are better off leaving if we can't agree on a waiver of immunity. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:29, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

And let the Iraqis who dislike America harass our troops with frivilous legal actions and false accusations? No. Out troops went there for one reason: To kick a part of the anatomy of our enemies which I would be banned for naming. Let them do their jobs. They beat the sand out of Saddam's army, they are doing the same to the reminants of Al Quaida right now, and to be un-PCly honest I don't care how many Muslims they kill if they are defending America and it's allies. They are not our citizens, we have no duty to protect them. Our own safety and interests have to come first. -- [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

:I hope you're just a parodist, because if you're not it's not very comforting. We've allowed the Iraqi's to re-establish themselves as a sovereign nation with their own elected government, and after the end of the year we'll have no right to be there unless they invite us, or we re-invade them. If we can't agree on the terms of being invited to stay, then we need to get out. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:38, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

::If we need to choose between keeping the newly formed Iraqi government happy and the well-being of America then, well, tough on Iraq. -- [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

:::How does our continued presence there, outside the law of the land we occupy, help the "well-being of America"? We would be occupying a sovereign nation, strike one. We would be operating outside the laws of said sovereign nation, creating antipathy amongst the population, strike two. Assuming this is a law passed by the Iraqi government, we'd be violating the laws of the nation we were supposedly invading to free them from dictatorial rule...strike three. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:44, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

==SOFA==
While still being the invited guests of the Iraqi government we are not an occupation force. To the lunatic fringe the military forces in the United States are an occupation force. To our enemies we will always be an occupation force. To any American serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of America who has been deployed by their government to a foreign country there is a little thing called a "SOFA" agreement. This Status Of Forces Agreement (SOFA) is an agreement that the host and sponsor countries agree upon as to the legal status of the sponsor while in the host country. This usually affords the sponsor the legal authority to prosecute legalities onto its own forces without the need for legal action by the host. There are sometimes exeptions made to especially heinous crimes such as rape that allow the sponsor to give over the legal responsibility to the host. This will mostly only happen when there is a legal system in place that can reasonably dispense with a certain standard of justice that is equitable to the sponsor. This system has already been in place for decades. As a person who has been under it while deployed to foreign lands by order of the Commander in Chief, I am grateful for its provisions. I find it not an amusing fact that there are those Americans who would wish me and my fellow service members fall victim to an archaic and backward system of kangaroo courts that would leave Americans stranded in barbaric conditions to be tortured by their captors unto death. I can only hope that such people will never be in a position of authority over anyone.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:06, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Should U.S. troops be subject to Iraqi law if that allows our continued presence there?

2008-09-08T14:06:22Z

Roopilots6:

{{debate}}

== Background ==

The current presence of the USA and its coalition partners in Iraq is based on a United Nations authorization which expires at the end of 2008. The United States is currently in negotiations with the Iraqi government to develop an agreement directly between our two nations that would allow a U.S. presence and continued operations without requiring United Nations approval.

Negotiations towards such an agreement have stalled in June, 2008, with each side insisting on requirements that are considered unacceptable to the other. One of these issues is that the leadership of the Iraqi Parliament is calling for a American troops operating in Iraq to no longer be immune from prosecution as they are under the U.N. authorization.

For the Iraq government, this is an essential safeguard against abuses against its citizens that have been carried out by American soldiers or contractors like Blackwater operating under U.S. government authorization. For the U.S., this puts our troops at an unacceptable risk if they need to question every action based on whether it may or may not violate Iraqi law.

== Yes ==

This question is oddly phrased, and therefore I would have to answer Yes and No. Yes, if we are to continue our presence in Iraq, we should be subject to Iraqi law. But if I respond Yes, it seems to imply that I believe we should be subject if it allows our continued presence, which I am against.

But taken as a separate debate, whether or not U.S. troops should be subject to Iraqi law under a new security arrangement, I think it is a definitive Yes. To operate outside the realm of Iraqi law will continue to foster an insurgency that sees the U.S. forces as Occupiers. Look at the response by the Iraqis after the Blackwater fiasco. Not only did it inflame tensions between the citizens and the military, but the Blackwater forces aren't held responsible under U.S. law either. To continue to place ourselves outside the realm of the law of the country we are occupying would just continue to fan the flames of American discontent and would lead to a worsening of relations. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 17:35, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

:I agree with you in principle, but in practical terms a military force can't be effective if they need to be concerned with the civilian laws of foreign nations as well as the military laws and rules of engagement they are bound by. This is one reason that the training, missions and constraints of military and police forces are different, and why the former is not a substitute for the latter. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:43, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

:: You are absolutely correct in your last statement concerning the differences between a military and a police force. But, I would follow with our current situation requires a police force that adheres to the law of the nation, as opposed to a military force--at least the size that we have in there currently. If we were to have a minor military force, then I could understand your reasoning. But the majority of the occupation time-wise has been engaged in police force activities for which they are NOT trained. That is yet one more reason for anti-american sentiment. Ergo, I would argue for a transition in forces and an abiding by Iraqi law. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 18:13, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

:::The sooner they get their own police force working well enough to stop their citizens slaughtering each other, the sooner we can withdraw our own troops. Until that point comes, marshal law rules. - NewCrusader

== No ==

This is an unacceptable condition, and while the Iraq government has good reason to insist on it in order to maintain sovereign control of what happens within their nation, our military cannot operate on that basis. We are better off leaving if we can't agree on a waiver of immunity. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:29, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

And let the Iraqis who dislike America harass our troops with frivilous legal actions and false accusations? No. Out troops went there for one reason: To kick a part of the anatomy of our enemies which I would be banned for naming. Let them do their jobs. They beat the sand out of Saddam's army, they are doing the same to the reminants of Al Quaida right now, and to be un-PCly honest I don't care how many Muslims they kill if they are defending America and it's allies. They are not our citizens, we have no duty to protect them. Our own safety and interests have to come first. -- [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

:I hope you're just a parodist, because if you're not it's not very comforting. We've allowed the Iraqi's to re-establish themselves as a sovereign nation with their own elected government, and after the end of the year we'll have no right to be there unless they invite us, or we re-invade them. If we can't agree on the terms of being invited to stay, then we need to get out. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:38, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

::If we need to choose between keeping the newly formed Iraqi government happy and the well-being of America then, well, tough on Iraq. -- [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

:::How does our continued presence there, outside the law of the land we occupy, help the "well-being of America"? We would be occupying a sovereign nation, strike one. We would be operating outside the laws of said sovereign nation, creating antipathy amongst the population, strike two. Assuming this is a law passed by the Iraqi government, we'd be violating the laws of the nation we were supposedly invading to free them from dictatorial rule...strike three. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:44, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

==SOFA==
While still being the invited guests of the Iraqi government we are not an occupation force. To the lunatic fringe the military forces in the United States are an occupation force. To our enemies we will always be an occupation force. To any American serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of America who has been deployed by their government to a foreign country there is a little thing called a "SOFA" agreement. This Status Of Forces Agreement (SOFA) is an agreement that the host and sponsor countries agree upon as to the legal status of the sponsor while in the host country. This usually affords the sponsor the legal authority to prosecute legalities onto its own forces without the need for legal action by the host. There are sometimes exeptions made to especially heinous crimes such as rape that allow the sponsor to give over the legal responsibility to the host. This will mostly only happen when there is a legal system in place that can reasonably dispense with a certain standard of justice that is equitable to the sponsor. This system has already been in place for decades. As a person who has been under it while deployed to foreign lands by order of the Commander in Chief, I am grateful for its provisions. I find it not an amusing fact that there are those Americans who would wish me and my fellow service members fall victim to an archaic and backward system of kangaroo courts that would leave Americans stranded in barbaric conditions to be tortured by the captors unto death. I can only hope that such people will never be in a position of authority over anyone.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:06, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Is a candidate's military record relevant anymore?

2008-09-08T13:15:31Z

Roopilots6: /* RELEVANCY */

Debate:Is a candidate's military record relevant anymore?

2008-09-08T13:07:45Z

Roopilots6:

Debate:The Declaration of Independence or Interdependence?

2008-08-13T22:53:06Z

Roopilots6:

==Your Declaration==
Which one do you fall under? The Declaration of Independence of 1776 that began this great country; or the declaration of interdependence which began the quest for global governance at the 1992 Earth Summit?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:55, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

You might need to include some links. I don't think many people are familiar with the latter. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 12:02, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

:One example to get you started - [http://www.davidsuzuki.org/About_us/Declaration_of_Interdependence.asp] and also look these phrases up on any search engine - Agenda 21 declaration of interdependence - earth charter declaration of interdependence - or Earth Charter.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 13:11, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

I don't think you have to be one or the other. I'm a proud American as well as a citizen of earth. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 14:27, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

:The difference being that one is the antithesis of the other. So that you can't claim to be both. If you do though you are more likely ascribing to the one over the other. Which is one of the points of this debate. The difference being the Declaration of Independence is one of the founding documents of the USA along with the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It affirms inalienable rights to individuals and limits governmental powers. The Declaration of Interdependence doesn't affirm any inalienable rights nor does it limit the power of the state over the individual. In fact it only mentions the collective of humanity as if it were a single element of nature. It seems to have more of a concern about humanities impact on nature and the ecological integrity of the Earth. In contrast with the Declaration of Independence it mandates the totalitarian role of government to control and regulate everything. Its language is that of collectivism and whose goal is nothing short of a worldwide socialist order. All packaged in warm and fuzzy, touchy feely wording meant to hide its despicable goals with fluffy doublespeak.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 15:33, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

==Choosing wisely==
Then pledge your allegiance. Which one will you choose? To live independently and free from
oppression? Or do you prefer dependency on others to have authority over your decisions? To
worship at the altar of interdependency which is representative of the Earth Charter which
is housed in the Ark of Hope? The revered Charter is transported in the Ark of Hope, a
blasphemous mimicry of the Judeo-Christian Ark of the Covenant, which held the two tablets
containing the Ten Commandments that God gave to Moses. The counterfeit Ark of Hope is
actually designed to look like the Ark of the Covenant and its devotees carry it around with
worshipful solemnity. It is marked with occultic devices inside as well as outside so as to
leave no doubt to any observer of what it truly represents. Make your declaration of
independence today. Or declare your interdependency to your oppressive masters who have
already declared you as a willing servant to their will. Will you be a self proclaimed citizen of the world or a citizen of the United States of America?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 09:33, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

==Citizen of the World or of the United States of America?==
For many people the emotional response has been conditioned by teachers and the media. Yet very few Americans can even see a difference between the two even though they are opposites. Unfortunately many Americans can't even tell the difference between capitalism or socialism. Moreover they most often will make decisions based on emotions and feelings rather than attempt to understand the differences between the two positions.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:53, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Is it okay for Conservapedia to have biased articles?

2008-08-06T16:56:08Z

Roopilots6: /* It's a meaningless question */

{{debate-project}}

==NO==

Wikipedia is accused of having a left tilt, and the remedy is not a competing site with a right tilt, but a competing site with the hard truth, properly documented. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 12:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Right on. If you see a bias on Conservapedia it is only you liberal nature exerting itself[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Neither Conservapedia nor Wikipedia has any right to twist the truth, to say that black is white. If abortion does '''not''' cause breast cancer, then we '''must not''' say so. But if it does, we certainly have a right to do so, and perhaps even a moral obligation. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:16, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

It is completely unacceptble for any source to twist facts horribly as is done here and then present them to impressionable school children as fact. This is one of the most morally unsound programs I have ever encountered and I intend to continue posting this opinion on debate topics in an attempt to expose how evil this site truly is.
Helios-Fear no God, fear only that which can be seen or heard, for no God will lay hands upon one who denies them. Here in lies the weakness of faith.

Hmmm. well it does say "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" impliying that its articles are truthful and unbiased but it also says right on the front page "A CONSERVETIVE encyclopedia you can trust. The truth shall set you free." theres an intresting contrast between these two.- RG :]

I can't believe this is a debate topic! Look to the upper left hand corner of this web page. See it? "Conservapedia, The Trustworthy Encyclopedia." Bias would not make it trustworthy or a good encyclopedia! Need I say more?--[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 02:10, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

==Yes==

If it's a bias in favor of good things like Christianity and the American Dream (see Martin Luther King's [[I Have a Dream]] speech), then I see nothing wrong with bias. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:24, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

What is this "The American Dream" accoridng to Ed Poor? Martin Luther King was '''NOT'''a conservative and I resent your citing his work on my beloved Conservapedia.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:14, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Its called Conservapedia as in Conservative. I think that gives it the ok to lean a little to the right and try to preserve the ideas of our founding fathers.

like invading the publics personal and private lives and violating privacy with no good reason- [[User:mrRandom|mrRandom]]

The website is called '''Conserva'''pedia. Of course there's going to be bias. However, calling yourself "trustworthy" and "better then those gossiping wikipedia fools" is not okay, in my opinian. {{unsigned|1984}}

i really have to agree to the person ahead of me it IS called conservapedia, if i made a website called www.super-man-is-awesome.com then it would be ok to be a little biased, but the bias is still quite annoying-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 00:26, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

What makes Conservapedia attractive to so many people is the fact that there are biased articles there. Biased with the truth and liberally bathed in facts and actual reality. All traditional conservative ideals. This may clash with those who think truth is relative to how facts and data are perceived through an individuals political filter. Conservatives require nor want such filters.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:44, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

==It's a meaningless question==

Whether or not it's okay, there *will* be biased articles. This is inevitable, particularly given the set up here and the nature of the sysops; and even without them, it's not possible. One person's ''hard truth, properly documented'' is someone else's conjecture and lies (see any of the the evolution/creation pages on here as evidence) [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 12:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Ok but, does it make this site any more right than what it is? I know the man who made this and he's a hard christian so you can see where he's going wrong. At the threat of a liberal bias in the world...sir... you answer to that was a conservative bias? Eye for Eye? Interesting philsophy. It is true that you will come across many bias titles/articles but, if thats the case DONT SAY YOUR THE ONLY TRUTH! I hate there liberal examples... they have all the BAD of Liberal and 'good' of Conservative. Which actually isn't that great. Reasons why homeschooling is THE WAY. There's MANY reasons why it's wrong. As a person you aren't as ready for the world. Teens have trouble socially. Vaccines was one the arguments. ARE YOU KDDING ME! "I refute having a healthy child!" Ok, you just as controling as you say the government is and as bad as the reiligon you cling to. Talk about control. What makes conservatives more right than liberals? [[Unbiased2008]] 20:51, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

:Truth isn't a relative term. I seek the only truth which endures the test of time. These days people really have a problem with that concept. For thousands of years children have been homeschooled. The teens that have socially related problems are more likely to gotten them from a non-homeschool environment. Mostly derived from the secular humanist religious teachings found in government run public schools that some people cling to. What makes a conservative more right than a liberal. Well, probably the reason why it is said that conservatives are on the right. Or why liberals have problems even defining what truth actually means.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:56, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

== Bias and Credibility ==
One of the good things that Conservapedia has done is to make Wikipedia look at some of its own practices and articles. However, this ability to critique Wikipedia and affect changes is completely dependent upon Conservapedia being regarded as a creditable site. As Conservapedia becomes more biased and more fringe (further from the open ideals of being able to edit articles on a wiki and with more extreme conservative rhetoric), its impact upon Wikipedia becomes lost and it becomes more of a target of mockery. It may not be possible to completely remove the conservative bias from the articles, but one would hope that this bias is not written into the article. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:42, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:The Declaration of Independence or Interdependence?

2008-07-30T13:33:13Z

Roopilots6: /* Choosing wisely */

Debate:Is the Conservapedia Logo in violation of US Flag Code?

2008-07-16T14:44:35Z

Roopilots6: /* Yes, but */

{{debate}}

Being a member of the [[Civil Air Patrol]], I know the Flag Code pretty well. After skimming over it again today, I saw what may have been a breach of Section I, Title IV of the United States Code (Flag Code). I think that being a pro-American website, we should take care not to desecrate the Colors of the United States. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 16:05, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:Link to section of Flag Code in question: [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/4/3.html]. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 16:05, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

==Yes, but==

::Technically it would seem that the CP logo would be in violation, but I wouldn't expect an outcry of condemnation over it. This topic brings up two different questions regarding the logo I've recalled seeing elsewhere on CP.

::: - First, is the concept of "conservative" here such that it's a distinctly American perspective, or one that could be shared worldwide. Some significant contributors like [[Philip J Rayment]] are from other countries, and their views express conservativism without being American.

::: - Second, the use of the flag scheme in the CP logo seems to imply that being Conservative is American and that somehow being non-conservative is being un-American (it comes across that way in some comments here, anyway).

::That said, it would be an interesting project/assignment for the homeschoolers who contribute to CP to have a competition to design an alternate CP logo that does not use the U.S. Flag in its theme, but conveys the ideals of being a Conservative in a more direct way instead. It doesn't have to necessarily replace the current CP logo unless folks want it to, but it would be a great opportunity to see how the kids express what being Conservative means to them. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:59, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

==NO==
This code is only valid within the District of Columbia. It is a FEDERAL CODE only valid if you are a FEDERAL EMPLOYEE or live as a resident in the District of Columbia. It doesn't apply to any citizen of the fifty states who all have their own particular flag codes. Firstly, Conservapedia is based in the U.S.A. which is an open society and doesn't exclude the viewpoints of people from other countries. Secondly, there is no implication of exclusion by the Conservapedia logo that would label any U.S. Citizen un-American. There is something in the U.S.A. called freedom of speech which allows U.S. Citizens to make comments that may make them appear to be free from any single official viewpoint and still be considered an American. This whole attempt to want to change the Conservapedia logo sounds more like a reason to get rid of the American flag of the United States. Perhaps it is too jingoistic? Maybe a logo more representative of the global community would be more suitable? No, I think they got it right with the current one being used now.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:44, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Is environmentalism mostly about preserving natural resources?

2008-07-08T20:11:47Z

Roopilots6: /* NO */

{{debate}}

==YES==

The desire to conserve natural resources for human appreciation and use was extended to treating the entire planet as the human "environment". So environmentalism just means taking care of nature in the sense of Genesis 1:28, some say. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:27, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

==NO==
*The purpose of today's environmentalism is to consolidate power structures into NGO's (Non Governmental Organinisations). These NGO's will be used to influence corporate, legislative, and judicial bodies in the regulatory manipulation of the worlds societies to conform to their sustainable development vision of the world. Sustainable development in this case means the redistribution of wealth from rich nations to the third world. The elimination of privately owned property by individual citizens. Thereby creating a Human-made utopian Garden of Eden... without God, of course. That is what is meant by the term environmentalism. I, myself prefer conservationalism of a conservative nature instead.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 22:40, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

*If you want to go on bible verses try Revelations 7:3 " Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads." Environmentalism Isn't just about saving resources.-[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 22:08, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:Environmentalism is all about controlling natural resources. More specifically the restraint from accessing those resources. If you want to know some of the reasons you can read the Earth Charter to start with and find out what sustainable development means to you.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 16:11, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Debate:The Declaration of Independence or Interdependence?

2008-07-08T16:44:32Z

Roopilots6: /* Your Declaration */

==Your Declaration==
Which one do you fall under? The Declaration of Independence of 1776 that began this great country; or the declaration of interdependence which began the quest for global governance at the 1992 Earth Summit?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:55, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

You might need to include some links. I don't think many people are familiar with the latter. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 12:02, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

:One example to get you started - [http://www.davidsuzuki.org/About_us/Declaration_of_Interdependence.asp] and also look these phrases up on any search engine - Agenda 21 declaration of interdependence - earth charter declaration of interdependence - or Earth Charter.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 13:11, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

I don't think you have to be one or the other. I'm a proud American as well as a citizen of earth. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 14:27, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

:The difference being that one is the antithesis of the other. So that you can't claim to be both. If you do though you are more likely ascribing to the one over the other. Which is one of the points of this debate. The difference being the Declaration of Independence is one of the founding documents of the USA along with the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It affirms inalienable rights to individuals and limits governmental powers. The Declaration of Interdependence doesn't affirm any inalienable rights nor does it limit the power of the state over the individual. In fact it only mentions the collective of humanity as if it were a single element of nature. It seems to have more of a concern about humanities impact on nature and the ecological integrity of the Earth. In contrast with the Declaration of Independence it mandates the totalitarian role of government to control and regulate everything. Its language is that of collectivism and whose goal is nothing short of a worldwide socialist order. All packaged in warm and fuzzy, touchy feely wording meant to hide its despicable goals with fluffy doublespeak.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 15:33, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

==Choosing wisely==
Then pledge your allegiance. Which one will you choose? To live independently and free from
oppression? Or do you prefer dependency on others to have authority over your decisions? To
worship at the altar of interdependency which is representative of the Earth Charter which
is housed in the Ark of Hope? The revered Charter is transported in the Ark of Hope, a
blasphemous mimicry of the Judeo-Christian Ark of the Covenant, which held the two tablets
containing the Ten Commandments that God gave to Moses. The counterfeit Ark of Hope is
actually designed to look like the Ark of the Covenant and its devotees carry it around with
worshipful solemnity. It is marked with occultic devices inside as well as outside so as to
leave no doubt to any observer of what it truly represents. Make your declaration of
independence today. Or declare your interdependency to your oppressive masters who have
already declared you as a willing servant to their will. Remaining silent will only define
your compliance with the latter.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:44, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Debate:The Declaration of Independence or Interdependence?

2008-07-05T14:51:50Z

Roopilots6: /* Your Declaration */

Debate:The Declaration of Independence or Interdependence?

2008-07-04T19:34:37Z

Roopilots6: /* Your Declaration */

Debate:The Declaration of Independence or Interdependence?

2008-07-04T19:34:00Z

Roopilots6: /* Your Declaration */

Debate:The Declaration of Independence or Interdependence?

2008-07-04T17:11:17Z

Roopilots6: /* Your Declaration */

Debate:The Declaration of Independence or Interdependence?

2008-07-04T15:55:18Z

Roopilots6: New page: ==Your Declaration== Which one do you fall under? The Declaration of Independence of 1776 that began this great country; or the declaration of interdependence which began the quest for gl...

Conservapedia:Debate Topics

2008-07-04T15:49:21Z

Roopilots6: /* Political debates */

'''Debate topic suggestions, organized so that it's not necessary to delete them.'''

(Note: If some topic is miscategorized, it can be cut and pasted without affecting the relevant links.)

==Philosophical debates==
# [[ Can conservapedia become the next wikipedia, is this good or bad]]
# [[Conservapedia:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?|If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does History Matter?|Does History Matter?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?|Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?|Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can any man live without some code of morality?|Can any man live without some code of morality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?|Does the known physical universe exhaust all that can exist, or does something exist beyond known physical boundaries?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why is there something rather than nothing?|Why is there something rather than nothing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Stem Cells| Embryonic Stem Cells: Why or why not?]]
# [[Debate:Why Reason?]]
# [[Debate:Why does the conservative media often an ugly undertone?]]
# [[Debate:Should pharmacists be forced to fill legal prescriptions they personally object to on moral grounds?]]

==Religious debates==
# [[Debate: Should certain books be banned from libraries?]]
# [[Debate: Is communism founded on Christian doctrine?]]
# [[Should the first story of creation be read allegorically or literally?]]
# [[Debate:Is Scientology a false religion]]
# [[Why do Moses, Ezra, Jesus, and Paul all disagree on divorce? Moses allowed divorce, Jesus disallowed it and also allowed it, Paul allowed it, and Ezra actually commanded it to appease God (Ezra 10)??? im confused!! whats a christian to do??]]
#[[Did Jesus ever claim to be God?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Grave errors/inconsistencies in the Bible make literal translation worthless.]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was Jesus born in the right time and place?| Was Jesus born in the right time and place?]]
# [[Conservapedia : What does Christianity say about homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?|If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?|Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did God create evil?|Did God create evil?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?|Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?]]
# [[Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?|If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?|Is religion relevant in todays society? / Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?|Bible (New and Old Testament) Words of God]]
# [[Conservapedia: AntiSemitism|AntiSemitism]]
# [[Does Intelligent Design deny the Existence of God?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?|Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?|If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Natural Disaster versus Act of God|Natural Disaster versus Act of God]]
# [[Conservapedia:What is the Sabbath day?|What is the Sabbath day?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?|Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still perform Baptisms?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_the_Resurrection_negate_Gods_Sacrifice_of_his_only_son%3F|Does the Resurrection negate Gods Sacrifice of his only son?|Does the Resurrection negate God's Sacrifice of his only son?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If_most_Muslims_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Christians%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|If most Muslims learned their religion from their parents, just like us Christians, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If_most_Christians_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Muslims%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|If most Christians learned their religion from their parents, just like us Muslims, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_mainstream_Islam_endorse_violence%3F|Does mainstream Islam endorse violence?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is religion morally wrong?|Is religion morally wrong?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?|Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why the Bible|What makes the Bible a reliable source of knowledge besides tradition?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why should we be afraid of God?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Do conservative Christians have an unquestioning faith which is comparable to that of the Party in the book 1984?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Antisemitism]]
# [[Conservapedia:Are Christianity and the Bible superior to other religions and scriptures?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is "Coercive Interrogation" consistent with Christian Values?]]
# [[Should all access to Conservapedia be banned on Sundays?]]
# [[Either God is indecisive or the world's major religions have ALL got it wrong]]
# [[Mary Magdalene - First Witness to the Resurrection - Significance?]]
# [[Debate:Was Christ a fundamentalist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Atheism vs. Deism]]
# [[Atheism vs. Pastafarianism]]
# [[Why is homosexuality so bad?]]
# [[Debate:Are Young Earth Creationists detracting others from the Faith?]]
# [[If Noah only brought two of every animal on the ark, wouldn't subsequent generations of animals have become increasingly inbred?]]
# [[Debate:Is there 1 God or are there many gods?]]
# [[Debate: Can you be a true Christian and believe in evolution?]]
# [[Debate:Should gay marriage be allowed?]]
# [[Debate:Is atheism a religion]]
# [[Adoption and Abortion]]
# [[Debate: If not naturalism, how do we decide which supernatural explanation is correct?]]
# [[Debate: Are Mormons Christians?]]
# [[Debate: Mormons. Are they Christians?]]
# [[Debate: Are Catholics Christians?]]

==Historical debates==
# [[Conservapedia:Was Benjamin Franklin a deist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the European colonization of the Americas good for the native people?]]
# [[Was President George H. W. Bush wrong to leave Saddam in power in 1991?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Which was worse? the Civil War and it's effects or slavery?]]
# [[Why are most actors turned politicians Republicans?]]

==Political debates==
# [[Debate: To what extent should we have obscenity laws]]
# [[Debate: Is communism founded on Christian doctrine?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why do we still have an embargo on Cuba?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Has Britain Declined?| Quoting Conservapedia's front page; "The British government just affirmed its ban on mentioning Intelligent Design to students.[3] No one there seems to notice how Britain's decline coincided with its promotion of evolution frauds like the Piltdown Man." - Has Britain REALLY declined?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?|Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?|Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?]]
# [[Conservapedia:You think these Phd's are nuts?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the European Union pose a threat to the United States?| Does the European Union pose a threat to United States Security?]]
# [[Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Define torture]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War I?|Should the United States have entered World War I?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War II?|Should the United States have entered World War II?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea|Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea as General Douglas MacArthur wanted?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|If President Roosevelt had known about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?|Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was world war inevitable?|Was world war inevitable?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?|Does "free trade" increase wealth or simply redistribute it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?|Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?|Is democracy even possible in Iraq?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?|Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States leave the United Nations?|Should the United States leave the United Nations?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Crusades... Good or Bad?|Crusades... Good or Bad?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?|Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?]] See [[Michael New]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?|Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or Communism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?|Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?|Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?|Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?|Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?|Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?|Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?]]
# [[conservapedia:Women in the Military?|Women in the Military?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Should students learn a foreign language?|Should students learn a foreign language?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?|Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religious?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should there be a consistent standard on human rights applied to left and right?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?|Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.|Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_President_Bush_good_for_America?|Is President Bush good for America?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_the_Iraq_War_a_success%3F|Is the Iraq War a success?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_single_sex_schooling_promotes_homesexuality%3F|Does Single sex schooling promotes homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_the_murder_of_3%2C000_people_just_a_few_or_is_it_a_lot%3F_Does_it_make_a_difference_if_the_murdered_people_are_Americans%3F|Is the murder of 3,000 people just a few or is it a lot? Does it make a difference if the murdered people are Americans?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the media really have a liberal bias?|Does the media really have a liberal bias?]]
# [[Who was the last Democrat to quit due to ethics and what year was it? Is it fair for Republicans to due the same?]]
# [[What kind of leader will Democrats make if they run from debates on Fox?]]
# [[Are the Democrats capable of fighting terrorism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Porn or guns?|Does porn actually cause (not merely correlate to) violence?]]
# [[Can a rogue nation be thought of as a sovereign nation?]]
# [[ Has Russia reinstalled stealth communism?]]
# [[Do we all know what Democrat Presidential candidates stand for yet?]]
# [[Define Civil War]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?|Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who would you support for President in 2008?|Who would you support for President in 2008?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?|Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?]]
# [[Debate:Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?|Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?]]
# [[Restoring the USA image in the world, just a fancy phrase that means zilch?]]
# [[Placing the blame on how America got polarized]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is most government criticism really patriotic?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is environmentalism mostly about preserving natural resources?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the conservative stance on illegal immigration going to loose the Hispanic vote for the GOP in the 08' election?]]
# [[Should President Bush Condemn Armenian Genocide? ]] ''New as of October 10, 2007''
# [[Third Party Debate]]
# [[Debate:Who kills more innocent people: religious believers or atheists?]]
# [[Was congress right to override president Bush's veto on the water projects bill?]]
# [[Is opening the borders the solution to the social security crisis?]]
# [[Debate:Preferred Democrat for the White House?]]
# [[Does Republican equal conservative? Does Democrat equal liberal?]]
# [[Obama's preacher.]]
# [[Is president Bush ignoring human rights violations in China?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States begin Colonizing Space?]]
# [[Debate:Should the federal government have the power to define marriage?|Should the federal government have the power to define marriage?]]
# [[Debate:The Declaration of Independence or Interdependence?]]

==Scientific debates==
# [[Conservapedia:Why haven't intelligent designists published a single scientific article?|If intelligent design is just as valid as evolution, where are all their scientific findings and publishings?]]

# [[Conservapedia:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?|Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a species?|Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a species?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?|Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the theory of macroevolution true?|Is the theory of macroevolution true?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is Giving Birth the Bible Way Better?| Is Giving Birth the Bible Way Better?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?|Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?|Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?|If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?]]
# [[Conservapedia:God, Earth and Global Warming|God, Earth and Global Warming]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?|Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?|If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?|Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who feels that scientific related articles should only reference published research papers instead of websites when dealing with research instead of application?|Who feels that scientific related articles should only reference published research papers instead of websites when dealing with research instead of application?]]
# [[Conservapedia: If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal, then would this support or refute ther idea of Creation by God?| If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal]]
# [[Why are God's works always questioned?]]
#[[Conservapedia:Are there any elements of choice, when it comes to carrying out homosexual acts?|Are there any elements of choice]]
# [[Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is homosexuality a mental illness?|Is homosexuality a mental illness?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can the science of evolution be separated from the philosophy of it?|Can the science of evolution be separated from the philosophy of it?]]

==Debates about Conservapedia==
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia representing a conservative POV or a Young Earth Creationist POV?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia anti-British?|Is Conservapedia anti-British?]]
# [[The liberal quotient of Conservapedia; what is it? Does it matter?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?|Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?|Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?|How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Conservapedia Succeed?|Can Conservapedia Succeed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?|Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?|How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?]]
# [[Conservapedia:What exactly is Conservapedia?|What exactly is Conservapedia?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the media attention needed?|Was the media attention needed?]]
# [[Conservapedia Debate Topics full of far left liberal netroots]]
# [[Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Conservapedia:Where do you personally look for facts and information on topics "When did Brahms live" or "Why did Monet paint grainstacks?"]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it okay for Conservapedia to have biased articles?]]
# [[Conservapedia:On whether certain articles on human anatomy should be pre-emptively blanked and protected]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who deletes entire discussion items from here? And why?]]
# [[Why do users, who contribute substantially, choose to leave this community?]]
# [[Why do the creators of Conservapedia see Wikipedia as un-American?]]
# [[Is the use of copyrighted photographs without permission stealing?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Are there too many debates on Conservapedia? | Are there too many debates on Conservapedia?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it tasteless for Conservapedia to critique the Virginia Tech poem on the Main Page?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Has anyone ever been been banned for pointing out that many of the other entries on this site are in need of citation and evidence to back up statements?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does an encyclopedia define complex subjects, or insert more bias into them?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Do sysops block editing on pages when it seems their opponents are making strong points?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is Conservapedia a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia'?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Does altering the record of debate in a wiki 'Encyclopedia' render the entire thing a farce?]]
# [[Democrats next move, link more stories of heartache like those from Kansas to Gulf Coast.]]
# [[Do quotes used to support a theory just make an article look stupid?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia blinkered?|Is Conservapedia blinkered?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does Conservapedia censor opponents the way Expelled says ID advocates are censored?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Conservapedia Logo in violation of US Flag Code?]]
# [[Conservapedia:The 90/10 rule exists soley to squash debate, and should be eliminated]]

==Funny, maybe?==

# [[Conservapedia:Are cats just useless Dogs|Are cats just useless dogs?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Platypus evidence that God has a sense of humour?|Is the Platypus evidence that God has a sense of humour?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault?|Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault? (kind of like he caused hurricane Katrina)]]
# [[Are video games getting better or worse as graphics, sound, and gameplay complexity improve?]]
# [[Debate:Favorite old time radio show]]

==Other==
# [[Conservapedia:Are alcohol, marijuana, and nicotine gateway drugs?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Rap music torture?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should marijuana be legalized?]]
# [[Debate:What are the lessons that we should take away from the Milgram Experiment]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Theory of Evolution promote atheism?]]
# [[Discussion:Colorado Mall Shootings]]
# [[Discussion:Creationist]]
# [[Debate:Is the Theory of Evolution a conspiricy?]]
# [[Debate:How should we view the fact leading scientists do not believe in god?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does modern music negatively influence children]]

[[Category:Conservapedia]]

Debate:Is it okay for Conservapedia to have biased articles?

2008-07-04T15:44:41Z

Roopilots6: /* Yes */

{{debate-project}}

==NO==

Wikipedia is accused of having a left tilt, and the remedy is not a competing site with a right tilt, but a competing site with the hard truth, properly documented. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 12:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Right on. If you see a bias on Conservapedia it is only you liberal nature exerting itself[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Neither Conservapedia nor Wikipedia has any right to twist the truth, to say that black is white. If abortion does '''not''' cause breast cancer, then we '''must not''' say so. But if it does, we certainly have a right to do so, and perhaps even a moral obligation. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:16, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

It is completely unacceptble for any source to twist facts horribly as is done here and then present them to impressionable school children as fact. This is one of the most morally unsound programs I have ever encountered and I intend to continue posting this opinion on debate topics in an attempt to expose how evil this site truly is.
Helios-Fear no God, fear only that which can be seen or heard, for no God will lay hands upon one who denies them. Here in lies the weakness of faith.

Hmmm. well it does say "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" impliying that its articles are truthful and unbiased but it also says right on the front page "A CONSERVETIVE encyclopedia you can trust. The truth shall set you free." theres an intresting contrast between these two.- RG :]

I can't believe this is a debate topic! Look to the upper left hand corner of this web page. See it? "Conservapedia, The Trustworthy Encyclopedia." Bias would not make it trustworthy or a good encyclopedia! Need I say more?--[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 02:10, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

==Yes==

If it's a bias in favor of good things like Christianity and the American Dream (see Martin Luther King's [[I Have a Dream]] speech), then I see nothing wrong with bias. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:24, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

What is this "The American Dream" accoridng to Ed Poor? Martin Luther King was '''NOT'''a conservative and I resent your citing his work on my beloved Conservapedia.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:14, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Its called Conservapedia as in Conservative. I think that gives it the ok to lean a little to the right and try to preserve the ideas of our founding fathers.

like invading the publics personal and private lives and violating privacy with no good reason- [[User:mrRandom|mrRandom]]

The website is called '''Conserva'''pedia. Of course there's going to be bias. However, calling yourself "trustworthy" and "better then those gossiping wikipedia fools" is not okay, in my opinian. {{unsigned|1984}}

i really have to agree to the person ahead of me it IS called conservapedia, if i made a website called www.super-man-is-awesome.com then it would be ok to be a little biased, but the bias is still quite annoying-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 00:26, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

What makes Conservapedia attractive to so many people is the fact that there are biased articles there. Biased with the truth and liberally bathed in facts and actual reality. All traditional conservative ideals. This may clash with those who think truth is relative to how facts and data are perceived through an individuals political filter. Conservatives require nor want such filters.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:44, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

==It's a meaningless question==

Whether or not it's okay, there *will* be biased articles. This is inevitable, particularly given the set up here and the nature of the sysops; and even without them, it's not possible. One person's ''hard truth, properly documented'' is someone else's conjecture and lies (see any of the the evolution/creation pages on here as evidence) [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 12:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Ok but, does it make this site any more right than what it is? I know the man who made this and he's a hard christian so you can see where he's going wrong. At the threat of a liberal bias in the world...sir... you answer to that was a conservative bias? Eye for Eye? Interesting philsophy. It is true that you will come across many bias titles/articles but, if thats the case DONT SAY YOUR THE ONLY TRUTH! I hate there liberal examples... they have all the BAD of Liberal and 'good' of Conservative. Which actually isn't that great. Reasons why homeschooling is THE WAY. There's MANY reasons why it's wrong. As a person you aren't as ready for the world. Teens have trouble socially. Vaccines was one the arguments. ARE YOU KDDING ME! "I refute having a healthy child!" Ok, you just as controling as you say the government is and as bad as the reiligon you cling to. Talk about control. What makes conservatives more right than liberals? [[Unbiased2008]] 20:51, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

== Bias and Credibility ==
One of the good things that Conservapedia has done is to make Wikipedia look at some of its own practices and articles. However, this ability to critique Wikipedia and affect changes is completely dependent upon Conservapedia being regarded as a creditable site. As Conservapedia becomes more biased and more fringe (further from the open ideals of being able to edit articles on a wiki and with more extreme conservative rhetoric), its impact upon Wikipedia becomes lost and it becomes more of a target of mockery. It may not be possible to completely remove the conservative bias from the articles, but one would hope that this bias is not written into the article. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:42, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Should pharmacists be forced to fill legal prescriptions they personally object to on moral grounds?

2008-06-29T22:53:38Z

Roopilots6: /* No */

{{debate}}
== Premise ==

Pharmacists are expected to fill any valid, legal prescription issued by a physician. However, dispensing some drugs, like Plan-B, puts some pro-life pharmacists into a personal moral dilemma. If they do not fill the prescription they are interfering with a doctor-patient relationship, but if they do, they are facilitating something they consider immoral.

== Yes ==

Pharmacists made a choice to work in that profession, and that choice comes with an obligation to support doctor-patient relationships instead of interfering with them. They have no right to prevent a valid, legal prescription from being filled just because they object to it on a personal level. If they can't find employment in a scenario where they will never face that choice, then they need to find another way to make a living. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 15:49, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:Well, there's a difference between not personally filling a prescription and preventing it from being filled, I'd say. If a pharmacist has moral objections, and stands aside so another pharmacist can fill the prescription, I think that's a lot different than actively stopping someone from receiving a prescription. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:53, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::That only works when there's a non-objecting pharmacist on hand to fill the prescription, so if you're in a one-person pharmacy or they all have the same convictions you're out of luck. When there's no other option the prescription should be filled.
:::As an aside, I'd think I could safely place a bet that the same pharmacists who object to filling Plan-B prescriptions have no problem ringing up cigarettes for their customers. You never see an outcry from smokers who can't get cashiers to sell them tobacco.--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:11, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::::As I see it, the issue isn't whether the pharmacist has the right to refuse to act against his conscience. Of course he has that right. The issue is whether his employer has the right to fire an employee who refuses to perform the duties for which he was hired. Again, I say: of course the employer has that right. Sometimes, acting according to your conscience carries consequences. If someone worked in the PR department of a tobacco company, and decided that their conscience required them to put the words "OUR PRODUCT WILL KILL YOU!" in every PR release, I would applaud the courage required to put conscience ahead of career--but I would also support the right of the company to fire that person for not doing the job he was hired to do. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:18, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::How about a doctor who works at an abortion clinic, who refuses to perform an abortion, because he is pro-life? That would just be stupid, and the same goes for pharmacists. Do your job or find another one. [[User:Etc|Etc]] 17:19, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Lawyers defend murderers and the like, police will arrest people when I am sure sometimes they disagree with the law they are upholding, Army generals make descions that they may have moral problems with...why should pharmacists be any differant. If you cant stand the heat..... [[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 17:24, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:''Army generals make descions that they may have moral problems with...''Ah yes, the Nuremberg defence. "I voz only follovink orders..." [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:27, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Thats irrelevant. How about lawyers?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 17:28, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:Lawyers decline to defend murderers who refuse to plead guilty. Lawyers may defend people accused of murder, who may or may not be murderers, There is a difference. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:33, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) I suppose I should refine the premise somewhat. A store has the right to sell or not sell a given product, including any type of prescription drug. If Drugstore X has a "no Plan-B" sales policy that's their right, just as they don't have to sell tobacco or adult magazines. If they do offer it for sale, then there should be a way for a patient to get it filled during business hours regardless of who's on duty - Plan-B has a short time window of effectiveness, so telling a customer to come back later can have consequences. A pharmacist who keeps a patient from getting a med when it's available is interfering with the doctor-patient relationship, and should be fired. The only legitimate intervention a pharmacist should be concerned with is drug interactions. I don't want them deciding what I should or shouldn't take because of their personal values, whether it's Plan-B, morphine, etc. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:46, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

And, as Bugler pointed out gods law, we live in a society of laws and one of them is that you can fire someone for not doing thier job. Gods law is irrelevant here. My employer could fire me for a transgression, gods law or not. Also, its the doctors that make these descions, not pharamcists as DinsdaleP points out.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 17:49, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

'''Yes!''' The pharmacist has no right to interfere in someone else's life. I may find vanity morally objectionable, but that doesn't mean I should block your right to purchase Crest Whitestrips.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]]

==No==
Christian - or other religion - pharmacists who feel that the handing out of contraceptive pills would encourage or facilitate pre-marital or extra-marital intercourse are not only within their rights, but indeed fulfilling their moral and religious duties, in declining to co-operate. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:22, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

A pharmacist is not a machine. He is a human being dispensing certain materials that, used improperly, are highly dangerous. If he has any reason to believe that a prescribing physician has failed to account for the dangers, moral or other, of any prescription, he has the right—he has the duty—not to fill that prescription.

Some of the very ones wanting pharmacists to behave as though they were little more than "automatic pharmacy machines" would likely be among the first to scream for the scalp of any pharmacist who had the bad luck, or the bad sense, to fill a prescription for Viagra (sildenafil/Pfizer) for an elderly man who then died of a [[heart attack]] in the arms of his illicit mistress that very evening. Or if those activists did not so scream, then his widow's [[attorney]] might.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 17:28, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
: Well said, Terry. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:34, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::However, gentlemen, let me pose this question to you: do I, as an employer, have the right to make it clear to prospective employees that I expect them to fulfill certain obligations, and then to fire them if they fail to fulfill those obligations? In short, if I hire someone with the understanding that he will fill all lawful prescriptions, and then he does not, should I be required to continue to employ him? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:37, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::God's law should have priority over that of Caesar. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:39, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::::I'm very uneasy with that line of argument, Bugler. It sounds good in theory, but in practice, it leads to problems. Should a Muslim pharmacist have the right to deny prescriptions based on religious faith, for instance? What about an orthodox Jewish pharmacist who notes that certain medications technically violate the laws of Kosher? And again, should I as an employer be required to employ those whose conscience prevents them from doing the job I want done? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:51, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::But wasn't that the whole principle behind "render unto Caesar...", that you can have dual obligations? Anyway, it's the ''doctor'' who is supposed to be ensuring a medication is appropriate for a patient, and aside from interaction-checks, a pharmacist is not supposed to second-guess the decisions of doctors. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:52, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Pharmacists cannot be forced to fill any prescription, period. Nor can any person be forced to do anything that violates their freedom of conscience. Like consciensuous objectors that aren't required to serve in a position that might require them to kill another person. Or medical personel put into a position that requires them to participate in the killing of an unborn baby or the euthanasia (assisted suicide) of another person. That's if you live in the United States of America of course.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:12, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

:Correct. On the other hand, if I am the owner of the pharmacy, I should not be required to ''employ'' a person who cannot or will not do the job I need done. That's the issue here. While the pharmacist is free to choose to follow or not follow their conscience, Big Government has no right to compel employers to hire or retain that pharmacist. If someone joins the Army voluntarily with the understanding that the job will involve fighting, and then refuses to fight when the time comes on the grounds that it violates their conscience, you'd better believe there are consequences for that...consequences a lot more serious than simply losing a job. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:13, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

::::No. Saying you can't work here as a Pharmacist because of your religious beliefs isn't correct. When 'the job to be done' is infanticide or euthanasia then nobody can 'force' you to commit or assist in either action. Without fear of consequences or retribution. If someone denies you employment because of your convictions not to destroy another persons life then you better believe then they will suffer a serious consequence for their actions. Also, individuals can be legally excempted from military service due to their moral or religious convictions if they can prove their beliefs are longstanding ones. Refusing to serve due to a political stance however is not legal. The filling of a legally precribed drug isn't something you can 'force' a Pharmicist to do. It is legal for you to go to another pharmacy that does carry drugs that end life. What is being suggested here is that you can 'force' someone to do something that is against their will. Do you want to live in a society like that?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 09:00, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Employment in most cases is "at will", unless there's an underlying contract. This means that the employee has the right to resign, and the the employer has the right to fire, "at will", provided that no laws are being broken (you can't fire based on race, gender, etc.). The owner of a pharmacy has every right to screen potential employees based on their willingness to fill any legal, valid prescription presented - that's the business after all, and someone who is not able or willing to help the company operate legally does not have to be hired. A pharmacist does not have to be forced to fill a legal prescription they are morally opposed to, but they cannot force a drugstore to hire them, either. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 06:16, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::Actually, in the USA, if the employer violates anti-discrimatory law by not accepting an employee due to their religious convictions, then they may be forced to hire them anyway. Because that is the law. You cannot willfully exclude an otherwise qualified candidate for a position due to their religious convictions. Just like a Muslim that won't handle pork products at their job in a grocery store but will be able to handle just about every other task. Some people assume that you can now begin to exclude people from society because of their religious beliefs. This is incorrect. Unless you live under the tyranny of any number of totalitarian nations that still are able to exist.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:22, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::The key to the employment rules is that religion may not be used to discriminate, ''provided the candidate is otherwise able to perform the required duties of the job''. For example, it's not discrimination to turn down a candidate who won't work on a Saturday or Sunday sabbath, when the position requires working weekend hours. If a drugstore only staffs one pharmacist on duty at a time, and by policy they fill all valid prescriptions, then it's not discrimination to refuse to hire someone who refuses to fill certain prescriptions based n their religious views - if there's no one else on site to do it, the operation of the business and customer relationships are disrupted. No one is trying to exclude religious people from society, but people do not have a right to be paid for not performing the required duties of a job. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 09:54, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::''Actually, in the USA, if the employer violates anti-discrimatory law by not accepting an employee due to their religious convictions, then they may be forced to hire them anyway. Because that is the law.
''

::::::::The question here is not whether big-government interventionism in areas not permitted to it by the Constitution exists; of course it does. Attempting to dictate to an employer that they must hire a less-fit candidate (one who cannot or will not perform all of the tasks associated with the position) over a more fit candidate (one who can and will do the same) is pure liberal big-government interventionism. The question is whether it ''should'' exist. I say that, manifestly, it should not. Moreover, as Dinsdale points out, there are (happily) limits on this form of interventionism. The owner of a non-Kosher deli cannot be compelled to convert his entire deli to a Kosher one so that an orthodox Jew can work there; nor can he be compelled to hire that same orthodox Jew when the latter indicates that he will not handle the merchandise because it is non-Kosher.

::::::::A pharmacist who refuses to fill certain lawful prescriptions is less fit for the job than one who does not refuse to fill those prescriptions. Any government policy forcing an employer to hire him would simply be Affirmative Action in a pretty poor disguise.--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:47, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::A pharmacist is perfectly within his rights to refuse to fill a prescription based on a moral objection. However, the employer is also perfectly within his rights to fire such an employee. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:16, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::So now we are reframing the question to should the employer, of a pharmacist, be forced to make their employee, the pharmacist, fill any prescription they object to? I have a question whether an Orthodox Jew would wish to seek employment at a non-Kosher deli? I'm pretty sure they wouldn't unless someone was trying to 'force' them. You can't exclude any person due to there observance of religious days. This isn't the application of reverse discrimination or the filling of quotas, a.k.a. affirmative action. This is merely the protection of a citizens rights as outlined in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights. The equal application under the law to anyone irregardless of their beliefs. If an employee tells their employer they can't work on such days that are religiously observed by them and then the employer tells them they must work on those days or they will be fired, quess what? The employee may sue the employer. Some people don't like having to accomodate another person's religious practices. That's why there have to be laws to protect our rights to practice our beliefs without being persecuted by our employer, public servants, and the rest of society. Which is one of the main reasons so many people either want to come to the United States and why so many Americans are thankful for being so blessed.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:20, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

(Unindent)

"Irrespective" or "regardless," please. "Irregardless" isn't a word.

You're quite correct: an Orthodox Jew would be foolish to seek employment in a non-Kosher deli, because working there without violating the tenets of his faith would cause him serious problems. Likewise, a pharmacist who is morally opposed to filling legal prescriptions (regardless of what those specific prescriptions may be) would be foolish to seek employment in a pharmacy that fills those prescriptions.

A pharmacist who finds the substances dispensed by a given pharmacy morally objectionable ''should not seek employment at that pharmacy.'' He should instead seek out an employer whose morals are compatible with his own. When I was in college, I refused to work in a number of establishments that sold lottery tickets, because I consider gambling to be sinful. Had I instead chosen to accept employment at such an establishment, would I have been justified in complaining when they expected me to sell lottery tickets?

Keep in mind also that such Big Government intervention works both ways--not just when the employee's views are in line with our own. If the government stepped in to force a pro-life pharmacy owner to continue to employ a pharmacist who was giving referrals to Planned Parenthood on the grounds that his faith compelled him to be up-front with them about their options, would you applaud? Or would you say that the employer should be able to terminate such an employee? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 11:54, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:Was that a ad hominem attack? I found plenty of definitions for those words. Just because your etymological dictionary doesn't have a word won't negate the fact that it is a word. Diachronic linguistics has shown that words are changing constantly. I like these words and will continue to use them whenever necessary. Or any other nonstandard words, terms, or phrases that I feel will convey the appropriate message.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:15, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

::Pointing out to someone that they are making a common grammatical error is hardly an ad hominem attack. Mr. Schlafly himself points out such errors all the time. The fact that language is dynamic does not change the fact that there are generally-agreed upon standards. You are, of course, perfectly free to flout those standards if you so choose; however, the message that you are likely to convey in so doing is a lack of facility with standard English. Someone who insists on using "ain't" on a resume, on the grounds that it's a word and he has a right to use it, is still likely to get his job application tossed in the circular file in short order. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:29, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

:I would say what I've been saying all along throughout this debate. The key to this that seems to have blown past just about everyone here is the 'being forced' part. It has nothing to do with "Big Government" and instead has everything to do with individual rights. Evidently this is something not taught in the school systems these days. It has to do with inalienable rights endowed by a Creator. Anybody ever heard of those?

::Yes. Moreover, I can enumerate them. Allow me to point out that, contrary to the beliefs of a great many people today, those inalienable rights do ''not'' include the "right to employment." As an aside, I truly wish that all of those who feel the need to talk about their "Constitutional rights" would take the time to become educated on precisely what those rights are; the level of ignorance in this country concerning the supreme law of the land is shocking.

:You cannot be forced to do anything, and I mean nobody can force you to do anything that's against your own conscience. Because it is against the law! It is against the law because it violates your inumerated rights as defined by the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights.

::As a matter of fact, it does not. Could you please show me where in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights the right to "not do anything that's against your own conscience" is spelled out? In fact, there are many things that you can be forced to do, regardless of whether they're "against your own conscience." Someone who decides that taxes are morally wrong and therefore refuses to pay them is quite likely to go to jail for doing so. Someone whose conscience tells them that a suspected rapist who gets out on a technicality deserves to die, and shoots said rapist, is still going to face severe legal consequences. During time of war, those whose conscience leads them to give material aid and comfort to the enemy can face consequences up to and including execution as a result.

:The Pharmacist that has worked in a position for years or a couple decades cannot then be forced to then dispense a drug that violates their conscience. I would applaud if only some people would get this. The employee that has worked in a position for years or decades shouldn't have to be 'forced' or coerced to do anything they deem to be wrong just because of some political wind change. Nothin to do with big government, or affirmative action, but just plain 'ol common sense basic rights necessary for a civil society that affords equal protections under the law of the land.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:19, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

::So you don't believe the employer has the basic right to decide who he will or will not employ. Thank you for clarifying that. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:29, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

::Let's say, Roo, that I am a doctor. In fact, let's make it even more specific. Let's say I'm Terry Schiavo's doctor. I, as her doctor, listen to her husband who says she doesn't want to be on a feeding tube, and so I take out the tube. Then, let's say the FL legislature passed a law stating she has to be put back on the feeding tube. But I, as her doctor, believe it is wrong to go against what I believe her wishes are. Would you agree with my decision not to reinsert her feeding tube. I mean, I've been a doctor for years, and I can't be forced to do something I believe is wrong just because of some political wind change. Would you applaud my decision to stand firm on my beliefs, or would you expect me to follow the law and expect me to carry out the duties of my job? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:24, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

:::To do no harm. Isn't that one of the oaths doctors take? The right of Terry Schiavo to live will supplant any doctor's lack ethics. The instance of Terry Schiavo that anybody with a shred of compassion could see was there wasn't a family consensus to end her life. That it can't be seen that the differance between forcing someone to kill or forcing someone not to kill is probably a moral dilema that some cannot fathom. It only proves that you can shop around for a lawyer, or a judge, or even a doctor who will euthanize anybody for any reason and is therefore a mute point. Again I'll say this one more time then that you cannot force an individual to do something that violates their conscience. Whether they are a murderer or not is still up to them. By the way, the laws created by men sometimes violate those rights. Remember that everything Hitler did he made it legal (in German law) first.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:15, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Oh, so a family consensus is necessary to end someone's life? Interesting. Of course, legally the family's consensus means squat. What the judge was enforcing wasn't the "family's consensus" but rather, the will of Terry Schiavo.
::::According to your rationale, I assume you support all the "draft-dodgers" of Vietnam? And the soldiers who have refused to fight in Iraq?--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:46, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::I suggest you find out the whole story about Terry Schindler. But yes, a family consensus should be a legitimate constraint. That's why I wrote the last sentence of my last comment. Your way off base on the draft dodgers which has absolutely nothing to do with what this debate is supposed to be about. The topic is about forcing someone, in this case a pharmacist from doing something that violates their own conscience. If you want to debate about draft dodgers, or Terry. Nothing to do with not letting an employer hire who they want either. This is all about whether you or anybody can force a Pharmacist to give you something that will violate his conscience. The answer to that is that you can't for the reasons I've already spent too much time trying to explain to people who don't want to know. I didn't spend thirteen years as a Marine Infantryman to be called a supporter of all draft dodgers either. You are way off base on that one too.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:53, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Should pharmacists be forced to fill legal prescriptions they personally object to on moral grounds?

2008-06-29T15:15:13Z

Roopilots6: /* No */

{{debate}}
== Premise ==

Pharmacists are expected to fill any valid, legal prescription issued by a physician. However, dispensing some drugs, like Plan-B, puts some pro-life pharmacists into a personal moral dilemma. If they do not fill the prescription they are interfering with a doctor-patient relationship, but if they do, they are facilitating something they consider immoral.

== Yes ==

Pharmacists made a choice to work in that profession, and that choice comes with an obligation to support doctor-patient relationships instead of interfering with them. They have no right to prevent a valid, legal prescription from being filled just because they object to it on a personal level. If they can't find employment in a scenario where they will never face that choice, then they need to find another way to make a living. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 15:49, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:Well, there's a difference between not personally filling a prescription and preventing it from being filled, I'd say. If a pharmacist has moral objections, and stands aside so another pharmacist can fill the prescription, I think that's a lot different than actively stopping someone from receiving a prescription. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:53, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::That only works when there's a non-objecting pharmacist on hand to fill the prescription, so if you're in a one-person pharmacy or they all have the same convictions you're out of luck. When there's no other option the prescription should be filled.
:::As an aside, I'd think I could safely place a bet that the same pharmacists who object to filling Plan-B prescriptions have no problem ringing up cigarettes for their customers. You never see an outcry from smokers who can't get cashiers to sell them tobacco.--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:11, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::::As I see it, the issue isn't whether the pharmacist has the right to refuse to act against his conscience. Of course he has that right. The issue is whether his employer has the right to fire an employee who refuses to perform the duties for which he was hired. Again, I say: of course the employer has that right. Sometimes, acting according to your conscience carries consequences. If someone worked in the PR department of a tobacco company, and decided that their conscience required them to put the words "OUR PRODUCT WILL KILL YOU!" in every PR release, I would applaud the courage required to put conscience ahead of career--but I would also support the right of the company to fire that person for not doing the job he was hired to do. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:18, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::How about a doctor who works at an abortion clinic, who refuses to perform an abortion, because he is pro-life? That would just be stupid, and the same goes for pharmacists. Do your job or find another one. [[User:Etc|Etc]] 17:19, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Lawyers defend murderers and the like, police will arrest people when I am sure sometimes they disagree with the law they are upholding, Army generals make descions that they may have moral problems with...why should pharmacists be any differant. If you cant stand the heat..... [[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 17:24, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:''Army generals make descions that they may have moral problems with...''Ah yes, the Nuremberg defence. "I voz only follovink orders..." [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:27, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Thats irrelevant. How about lawyers?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 17:28, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:Lawyers decline to defend murderers who refuse to plead guilty. Lawyers may defend people accused of murder, who may or may not be murderers, There is a difference. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:33, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) I suppose I should refine the premise somewhat. A store has the right to sell or not sell a given product, including any type of prescription drug. If Drugstore X has a "no Plan-B" sales policy that's their right, just as they don't have to sell tobacco or adult magazines. If they do offer it for sale, then there should be a way for a patient to get it filled during business hours regardless of who's on duty - Plan-B has a short time window of effectiveness, so telling a customer to come back later can have consequences. A pharmacist who keeps a patient from getting a med when it's available is interfering with the doctor-patient relationship, and should be fired. The only legitimate intervention a pharmacist should be concerned with is drug interactions. I don't want them deciding what I should or shouldn't take because of their personal values, whether it's Plan-B, morphine, etc. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:46, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

And, as Bugler pointed out gods law, we live in a society of laws and one of them is that you can fire someone for not doing thier job. Gods law is irrelevant here. My employer could fire me for a transgression, gods law or not. Also, its the doctors that make these descions, not pharamcists as DinsdaleP points out.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 17:49, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

'''Yes!''' The pharmacist has no right to interfere in someone else's life. I may find vanity morally objectionable, but that doesn't mean I should block your right to purchase Crest Whitestrips.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]]

==No==
Christian - or other religion - pharmacists who feel that the handing out of contraceptive pills would encourage or facilitate pre-marital or extra-marital intercourse are not only within their rights, but indeed fulfilling their moral and religious duties, in declining to co-operate. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:22, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

A pharmacist is not a machine. He is a human being dispensing certain materials that, used improperly, are highly dangerous. If he has any reason to believe that a prescribing physician has failed to account for the dangers, moral or other, of any prescription, he has the right—he has the duty—not to fill that prescription.

Some of the very ones wanting pharmacists to behave as though they were little more than "automatic pharmacy machines" would likely be among the first to scream for the scalp of any pharmacist who had the bad luck, or the bad sense, to fill a prescription for Viagra (sildenafil/Pfizer) for an elderly man who then died of a [[heart attack]] in the arms of his illicit mistress that very evening. Or if those activists did not so scream, then his widow's [[attorney]] might.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 17:28, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
: Well said, Terry. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:34, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::However, gentlemen, let me pose this question to you: do I, as an employer, have the right to make it clear to prospective employees that I expect them to fulfill certain obligations, and then to fire them if they fail to fulfill those obligations? In short, if I hire someone with the understanding that he will fill all lawful prescriptions, and then he does not, should I be required to continue to employ him? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:37, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::God's law should have priority over that of Caesar. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:39, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::::I'm very uneasy with that line of argument, Bugler. It sounds good in theory, but in practice, it leads to problems. Should a Muslim pharmacist have the right to deny prescriptions based on religious faith, for instance? What about an orthodox Jewish pharmacist who notes that certain medications technically violate the laws of Kosher? And again, should I as an employer be required to employ those whose conscience prevents them from doing the job I want done? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:51, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::But wasn't that the whole principle behind "render unto Caesar...", that you can have dual obligations? Anyway, it's the ''doctor'' who is supposed to be ensuring a medication is appropriate for a patient, and aside from interaction-checks, a pharmacist is not supposed to second-guess the decisions of doctors. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:52, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Pharmacists cannot be forced to fill any prescription, period. Nor can any person be forced to do anything that violates their freedom of conscience. Like consciensuous objectors that aren't required to serve in a position that might require them to kill another person. Or medical personel put into a position that requires them to participate in the killing of an unborn baby or the euthanasia (assisted suicide) of another person. That's if you live in the United States of America of course.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:12, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

:Correct. On the other hand, if I am the owner of the pharmacy, I should not be required to ''employ'' a person who cannot or will not do the job I need done. That's the issue here. While the pharmacist is free to choose to follow or not follow their conscience, Big Government has no right to compel employers to hire or retain that pharmacist. If someone joins the Army voluntarily with the understanding that the job will involve fighting, and then refuses to fight when the time comes on the grounds that it violates their conscience, you'd better believe there are consequences for that...consequences a lot more serious than simply losing a job. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:13, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

::::No. Saying you can't work here as a Pharmacist because of your religious beliefs isn't correct. When 'the job to be done' is infanticide or euthanasia then nobody can 'force' you to commit or assist in either action. Without fear of consequences or retribution. If someone denies you employment because of your convictions not to destroy another persons life then you better believe then they will suffer a serious consequence for their actions. Also, individuals can be legally excempted from military service due to their moral or religious convictions if they can prove their beliefs are longstanding ones. Refusing to serve due to a political stance however is not legal. The filling of a legally precribed drug isn't something you can 'force' a Pharmicist to do. It is legal for you to go to another pharmacy that does carry drugs that end life. What is being suggested here is that you can 'force' someone to do something that is against their will. Do you want to live in a society like that?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 09:00, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Employment in most cases is "at will", unless there's an underlying contract. This means that the employee has the right to resign, and the the employer has the right to fire, "at will", provided that no laws are being broken (you can't fire based on race, gender, etc.). The owner of a pharmacy has every right to screen potential employees based on their willingness to fill any legal, valid prescription presented - that's the business after all, and someone who is not able or willing to help the company operate legally does not have to be hired. A pharmacist does not have to be forced to fill a legal prescription they are morally opposed to, but they cannot force a drugstore to hire them, either. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 06:16, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::Actually, in the USA, if the employer violates anti-discrimatory law by not accepting an employee due to their religious convictions, then they may be forced to hire them anyway. Because that is the law. You cannot willfully exclude an otherwise qualified candidate for a position due to their religious convictions. Just like a Muslim that won't handle pork products at their job in a grocery store but will be able to handle just about every other task. Some people assume that you can now begin to exclude people from society because of their religious beliefs. This is incorrect. Unless you live under the tyranny of any number of totalitarian nations that still are able to exist.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:22, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::The key to the employment rules is that religion may not be used to discriminate, ''provided the candidate is otherwise able to perform the required duties of the job''. For example, it's not discrimination to turn down a candidate who won't work on a Saturday or Sunday sabbath, when the position requires working weekend hours. If a drugstore only staffs one pharmacist on duty at a time, and by policy they fill all valid prescriptions, then it's not discrimination to refuse to hire someone who refuses to fill certain prescriptions based n their religious views - if there's no one else on site to do it, the operation of the business and customer relationships are disrupted. No one is trying to exclude religious people from society, but people do not have a right to be paid for not performing the required duties of a job. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 09:54, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::''Actually, in the USA, if the employer violates anti-discrimatory law by not accepting an employee due to their religious convictions, then they may be forced to hire them anyway. Because that is the law.
''

::::::::The question here is not whether big-government interventionism in areas not permitted to it by the Constitution exists; of course it does. Attempting to dictate to an employer that they must hire a less-fit candidate (one who cannot or will not perform all of the tasks associated with the position) over a more fit candidate (one who can and will do the same) is pure liberal big-government interventionism. The question is whether it ''should'' exist. I say that, manifestly, it should not. Moreover, as Dinsdale points out, there are (happily) limits on this form of interventionism. The owner of a non-Kosher deli cannot be compelled to convert his entire deli to a Kosher one so that an orthodox Jew can work there; nor can he be compelled to hire that same orthodox Jew when the latter indicates that he will not handle the merchandise because it is non-Kosher.

::::::::A pharmacist who refuses to fill certain lawful prescriptions is less fit for the job than one who does not refuse to fill those prescriptions. Any government policy forcing an employer to hire him would simply be Affirmative Action in a pretty poor disguise.--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:47, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::A pharmacist is perfectly within his rights to refuse to fill a prescription based on a moral objection. However, the employer is also perfectly within his rights to fire such an employee. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:16, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::So now we are reframing the question to should the employer, of a pharmacist, be forced to make their employee, the pharmacist, fill any prescription they object to? I have a question whether an Orthodox Jew would wish to seek employment at a non-Kosher deli? I'm pretty sure they wouldn't unless someone was trying to 'force' them. You can't exclude any person due to there observance of religious days. This isn't the application of reverse discrimination or the filling of quotas, a.k.a. affirmative action. This is merely the protection of a citizens rights as outlined in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights. The equal application under the law to anyone irregardless of their beliefs. If an employee tells their employer they can't work on such days that are religiously observed by them and then the employer tells them they must work on those days or they will be fired, quess what? The employee may sue the employer. Some people don't like having to accomodate another person's religious practices. That's why there have to be laws to protect our rights to practice our beliefs without being persecuted by our employer, public servants, and the rest of society. Which is one of the main reasons so many people either want to come to the United States and why so many Americans are thankful for being so blessed.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:20, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

(Unindent)

"Irrespective" or "regardless," please. "Irregardless" isn't a word.

You're quite correct: an Orthodox Jew would be foolish to seek employment in a non-Kosher deli, because working there without violating the tenets of his faith would cause him serious problems. Likewise, a pharmacist who is morally opposed to filling legal prescriptions (regardless of what those specific prescriptions may be) would be foolish to seek employment in a pharmacy that fills those prescriptions.

A pharmacist who finds the substances dispensed by a given pharmacy morally objectionable ''should not seek employment at that pharmacy.'' He should instead seek out an employer whose morals are compatible with his own. When I was in college, I refused to work in a number of establishments that sold lottery tickets, because I consider gambling to be sinful. Had I instead chosen to accept employment at such an establishment, would I have been justified in complaining when they expected me to sell lottery tickets?

Keep in mind also that such Big Government intervention works both ways--not just when the employee's views are in line with our own. If the government stepped in to force a pro-life pharmacy owner to continue to employ a pharmacist who was giving referrals to Planned Parenthood on the grounds that his faith compelled him to be up-front with them about their options, would you applaud? Or would you say that the employer should be able to terminate such an employee? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 11:54, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:Was that a ad hominem attack? I found plenty of definitions for those words. Just because your etymological dictionary doesn't have a word won't negate the fact that it is a word. Diachronic linguistics has shown that words are changing constantly. I like these words and will continue to use them whenever necessary. Or any other nonstandard words, terms, or phrases that I feel will convey the appropriate message.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:15, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

:I would say what I've been saying all along throughout this debate. The key to this that seems to have blown past just about everyone here is the 'being forced' part. It has nothing to do with "Big Government" and instead has everything to do with individual rights. Evidently this is something not taught in the school systems these days. It has to do with inalienable rights endowed by a Creator. Anybody ever heard of those? You cannot be forced to do anything, and I mean nobody can force you to do anything that's against your own conscience. Because it is against the law! It is against the law because it violates your inumerated rights as defined by the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights. The Pharmacist that has worked in a position for years or a couple decades cannot then be forced to then dispense a drug that violates their conscience. I would applaud if only some people would get this. The employee that has worked in a position for years or decades shouldn't have to be 'forced' or coerced to do anything they deem to be wrong just because of some political wind change. Nothin to do with big government, or affirmative action, but just plain 'ol common sense basic rights necessary for a civil society that affords equal protections under the law of the land.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:19, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

::Let's say, Roo, that I am a doctor. In fact, let's make it even more specific. Let's say I'm Terry Schiavo's doctor. I, as her doctor, listen to her husband who says she doesn't want to be on a feeding tube, and so I take out the tube. Then, let's say the FL legislature passed a law stating she has to be put back on the feeding tube. But I, as her doctor, believe it is wrong to go against what I believe her wishes are. Would you agree with my decision not to reinsert her feeding tube. I mean, I've been a doctor for years, and I can't be forced to do something I believe is wrong just because of some political wind change. Would you applaud my decision to stand firm on my beliefs, or would you expect me to follow the law and expect me to carry out the duties of my job? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:24, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

:::To do no harm. Isn't that one of the oaths doctors take? The right of Terry Schiavo to live will supplant any doctor's lack ethics. The instance of Terry Schiavo that anybody with a shred of compassion could see was there wasn't a family consensus to end her life. That it can't be seen that the differance between forcing someone to kill or forcing someone not to kill is probably a moral dilema that some cannot fathom. It only proves that you can shop around for a lawyer, or a judge, or even a doctor who will euthanize anybody for any reason and is therefore a mute point. Again I'll say this one more time then that you cannot force an individual to do something that violates their conscience. Whether they are a murderer or not is still up to them. By the way, the laws created by men sometimes violate those rights. Remember that everything Hitler did he made it legal (in German law) first.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:15, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Should pharmacists be forced to fill legal prescriptions they personally object to on moral grounds?

2008-06-29T14:19:56Z

Roopilots6: /* No */

{{debate}}
== Premise ==

Pharmacists are expected to fill any valid, legal prescription issued by a physician. However, dispensing some drugs, like Plan-B, puts some pro-life pharmacists into a personal moral dilemma. If they do not fill the prescription they are interfering with a doctor-patient relationship, but if they do, they are facilitating something they consider immoral.

== Yes ==

Pharmacists made a choice to work in that profession, and that choice comes with an obligation to support doctor-patient relationships instead of interfering with them. They have no right to prevent a valid, legal prescription from being filled just because they object to it on a personal level. If they can't find employment in a scenario where they will never face that choice, then they need to find another way to make a living. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 15:49, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:Well, there's a difference between not personally filling a prescription and preventing it from being filled, I'd say. If a pharmacist has moral objections, and stands aside so another pharmacist can fill the prescription, I think that's a lot different than actively stopping someone from receiving a prescription. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:53, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::That only works when there's a non-objecting pharmacist on hand to fill the prescription, so if you're in a one-person pharmacy or they all have the same convictions you're out of luck. When there's no other option the prescription should be filled.
:::As an aside, I'd think I could safely place a bet that the same pharmacists who object to filling Plan-B prescriptions have no problem ringing up cigarettes for their customers. You never see an outcry from smokers who can't get cashiers to sell them tobacco.--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:11, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::::As I see it, the issue isn't whether the pharmacist has the right to refuse to act against his conscience. Of course he has that right. The issue is whether his employer has the right to fire an employee who refuses to perform the duties for which he was hired. Again, I say: of course the employer has that right. Sometimes, acting according to your conscience carries consequences. If someone worked in the PR department of a tobacco company, and decided that their conscience required them to put the words "OUR PRODUCT WILL KILL YOU!" in every PR release, I would applaud the courage required to put conscience ahead of career--but I would also support the right of the company to fire that person for not doing the job he was hired to do. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:18, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::How about a doctor who works at an abortion clinic, who refuses to perform an abortion, because he is pro-life? That would just be stupid, and the same goes for pharmacists. Do your job or find another one. [[User:Etc|Etc]] 17:19, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Lawyers defend murderers and the like, police will arrest people when I am sure sometimes they disagree with the law they are upholding, Army generals make descions that they may have moral problems with...why should pharmacists be any differant. If you cant stand the heat..... [[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 17:24, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:''Army generals make descions that they may have moral problems with...''Ah yes, the Nuremberg defence. "I voz only follovink orders..." [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:27, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Thats irrelevant. How about lawyers?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 17:28, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:Lawyers decline to defend murderers who refuse to plead guilty. Lawyers may defend people accused of murder, who may or may not be murderers, There is a difference. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:33, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) I suppose I should refine the premise somewhat. A store has the right to sell or not sell a given product, including any type of prescription drug. If Drugstore X has a "no Plan-B" sales policy that's their right, just as they don't have to sell tobacco or adult magazines. If they do offer it for sale, then there should be a way for a patient to get it filled during business hours regardless of who's on duty - Plan-B has a short time window of effectiveness, so telling a customer to come back later can have consequences. A pharmacist who keeps a patient from getting a med when it's available is interfering with the doctor-patient relationship, and should be fired. The only legitimate intervention a pharmacist should be concerned with is drug interactions. I don't want them deciding what I should or shouldn't take because of their personal values, whether it's Plan-B, morphine, etc. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:46, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

And, as Bugler pointed out gods law, we live in a society of laws and one of them is that you can fire someone for not doing thier job. Gods law is irrelevant here. My employer could fire me for a transgression, gods law or not. Also, its the doctors that make these descions, not pharamcists as DinsdaleP points out.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 17:49, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

'''Yes!''' The pharmacist has no right to interfere in someone else's life. I may find vanity morally objectionable, but that doesn't mean I should block your right to purchase Crest Whitestrips.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]]

==No==
Christian - or other religion - pharmacists who feel that the handing out of contraceptive pills would encourage or facilitate pre-marital or extra-marital intercourse are not only within their rights, but indeed fulfilling their moral and religious duties, in declining to co-operate. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:22, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

A pharmacist is not a machine. He is a human being dispensing certain materials that, used improperly, are highly dangerous. If he has any reason to believe that a prescribing physician has failed to account for the dangers, moral or other, of any prescription, he has the right—he has the duty—not to fill that prescription.

Some of the very ones wanting pharmacists to behave as though they were little more than "automatic pharmacy machines" would likely be among the first to scream for the scalp of any pharmacist who had the bad luck, or the bad sense, to fill a prescription for Viagra (sildenafil/Pfizer) for an elderly man who then died of a [[heart attack]] in the arms of his illicit mistress that very evening. Or if those activists did not so scream, then his widow's [[attorney]] might.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 17:28, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
: Well said, Terry. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:34, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::However, gentlemen, let me pose this question to you: do I, as an employer, have the right to make it clear to prospective employees that I expect them to fulfill certain obligations, and then to fire them if they fail to fulfill those obligations? In short, if I hire someone with the understanding that he will fill all lawful prescriptions, and then he does not, should I be required to continue to employ him? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:37, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::God's law should have priority over that of Caesar. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:39, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::::I'm very uneasy with that line of argument, Bugler. It sounds good in theory, but in practice, it leads to problems. Should a Muslim pharmacist have the right to deny prescriptions based on religious faith, for instance? What about an orthodox Jewish pharmacist who notes that certain medications technically violate the laws of Kosher? And again, should I as an employer be required to employ those whose conscience prevents them from doing the job I want done? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:51, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::But wasn't that the whole principle behind "render unto Caesar...", that you can have dual obligations? Anyway, it's the ''doctor'' who is supposed to be ensuring a medication is appropriate for a patient, and aside from interaction-checks, a pharmacist is not supposed to second-guess the decisions of doctors. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:52, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Pharmacists cannot be forced to fill any prescription, period. Nor can any person be forced to do anything that violates their freedom of conscience. Like consciensuous objectors that aren't required to serve in a position that might require them to kill another person. Or medical personel put into a position that requires them to participate in the killing of an unborn baby or the euthanasia (assisted suicide) of another person. That's if you live in the United States of America of course.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:12, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

:Correct. On the other hand, if I am the owner of the pharmacy, I should not be required to ''employ'' a person who cannot or will not do the job I need done. That's the issue here. While the pharmacist is free to choose to follow or not follow their conscience, Big Government has no right to compel employers to hire or retain that pharmacist. If someone joins the Army voluntarily with the understanding that the job will involve fighting, and then refuses to fight when the time comes on the grounds that it violates their conscience, you'd better believe there are consequences for that...consequences a lot more serious than simply losing a job. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:13, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

::::No. Saying you can't work here as a Pharmacist because of your religious beliefs isn't correct. When 'the job to be done' is infanticide or euthanasia then nobody can 'force' you to commit or assist in either action. Without fear of consequences or retribution. If someone denies you employment because of your convictions not to destroy another persons life then you better believe then they will suffer a serious consequence for their actions. Also, individuals can be legally excempted from military service due to their moral or religious convictions if they can prove their beliefs are longstanding ones. Refusing to serve due to a political stance however is not legal. The filling of a legally precribed drug isn't something you can 'force' a Pharmicist to do. It is legal for you to go to another pharmacy that does carry drugs that end life. What is being suggested here is that you can 'force' someone to do something that is against their will. Do you want to live in a society like that?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 09:00, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Employment in most cases is "at will", unless there's an underlying contract. This means that the employee has the right to resign, and the the employer has the right to fire, "at will", provided that no laws are being broken (you can't fire based on race, gender, etc.). The owner of a pharmacy has every right to screen potential employees based on their willingness to fill any legal, valid prescription presented - that's the business after all, and someone who is not able or willing to help the company operate legally does not have to be hired. A pharmacist does not have to be forced to fill a legal prescription they are morally opposed to, but they cannot force a drugstore to hire them, either. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 06:16, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::Actually, in the USA, if the employer violates anti-discrimatory law by not accepting an employee due to their religious convictions, then they may be forced to hire them anyway. Because that is the law. You cannot willfully exclude an otherwise qualified candidate for a position due to their religious convictions. Just like a Muslim that won't handle pork products at their job in a grocery store but will be able to handle just about every other task. Some people assume that you can now begin to exclude people from society because of their religious beliefs. This is incorrect. Unless you live under the tyranny of any number of totalitarian nations that still are able to exist.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:22, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::The key to the employment rules is that religion may not be used to discriminate, ''provided the candidate is otherwise able to perform the required duties of the job''. For example, it's not discrimination to turn down a candidate who won't work on a Saturday or Sunday sabbath, when the position requires working weekend hours. If a drugstore only staffs one pharmacist on duty at a time, and by policy they fill all valid prescriptions, then it's not discrimination to refuse to hire someone who refuses to fill certain prescriptions based n their religious views - if there's no one else on site to do it, the operation of the business and customer relationships are disrupted. No one is trying to exclude religious people from society, but people do not have a right to be paid for not performing the required duties of a job. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 09:54, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::''Actually, in the USA, if the employer violates anti-discrimatory law by not accepting an employee due to their religious convictions, then they may be forced to hire them anyway. Because that is the law.
''

::::::::The question here is not whether big-government interventionism in areas not permitted to it by the Constitution exists; of course it does. Attempting to dictate to an employer that they must hire a less-fit candidate (one who cannot or will not perform all of the tasks associated with the position) over a more fit candidate (one who can and will do the same) is pure liberal big-government interventionism. The question is whether it ''should'' exist. I say that, manifestly, it should not. Moreover, as Dinsdale points out, there are (happily) limits on this form of interventionism. The owner of a non-Kosher deli cannot be compelled to convert his entire deli to a Kosher one so that an orthodox Jew can work there; nor can he be compelled to hire that same orthodox Jew when the latter indicates that he will not handle the merchandise because it is non-Kosher.

::::::::A pharmacist who refuses to fill certain lawful prescriptions is less fit for the job than one who does not refuse to fill those prescriptions. Any government policy forcing an employer to hire him would simply be Affirmative Action in a pretty poor disguise.--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:47, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::A pharmacist is perfectly within his rights to refuse to fill a prescription based on a moral objection. However, the employer is also perfectly within his rights to fire such an employee. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:16, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::So now we are reframing the question to should the employer, of a pharmacist, be forced to make their employee, the pharmacist, fill any prescription they object to? I have a question whether an Orthodox Jew would wish to seek employment at a non-Kosher deli? I'm pretty sure they wouldn't unless someone was trying to 'force' them. You can't exclude any person due to there observance of religious days. This isn't the application of reverse discrimination or the filling of quotas, a.k.a. affirmative action. This is merely the protection of a citizens rights as outlined in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights. The equal application under the law to anyone irregardless of their beliefs. If an employee tells their employer they can't work on such days that are religiously observed by them and then the employer tells them they must work on those days or they will be fired, quess what? The employee may sue the employer. Some people don't like having to accomodate another person's religious practices. That's why there have to be laws to protect our rights to practice our beliefs without being persecuted by our employer, public servants, and the rest of society. Which is one of the main reasons so many people either want to come to the United States and why so many Americans are thankful for being so blessed.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:20, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

(Unindent)

"Irrespective" or "regardless," please. "Irregardless" isn't a word.

You're quite correct: an Orthodox Jew would be foolish to seek employment in a non-Kosher deli, because working there without violating the tenets of his faith would cause him serious problems. Likewise, a pharmacist who is morally opposed to filling legal prescriptions (regardless of what those specific prescriptions may be) would be foolish to seek employment in a pharmacy that fills those prescriptions.

A pharmacist who finds the substances dispensed by a given pharmacy morally objectionable ''should not seek employment at that pharmacy.'' He should instead seek out an employer whose morals are compatible with his own. When I was in college, I refused to work in a number of establishments that sold lottery tickets, because I consider gambling to be sinful. Had I instead chosen to accept employment at such an establishment, would I have been justified in complaining when they expected me to sell lottery tickets?

Keep in mind also that such Big Government intervention works both ways--not just when the employee's views are in line with our own. If the government stepped in to force a pro-life pharmacy owner to continue to employ a pharmacist who was giving referrals to Planned Parenthood on the grounds that his faith compelled him to be up-front with them about their options, would you applaud? Or would you say that the employer should be able to terminate such an employee? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 11:54, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:I would say what I've been saying all along throughout this debate. The key to this that seems to have blown past just about everyone here is the 'being forced' part. It has nothing to do with "Big Government" and instead has everything to do with individual rights. Evidently this is something not taught in the school systems these days. It has to do with inalienable rights endowed by a Creator. Anybody ever heard of those? You cannot be forced to do anything, and I mean nobody can force you to do anything that's against your own conscience. Because it is against the law! It is against the law because it violates your inumerated rights as defined by the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights. The Pharmacist that has worked in a position for years or a couple decades cannot then be forced to then dispense a drug that violates their conscience. I would applaud if only some people would get this. The employee that has worked in a position for years or decades shouldn't have to be 'forced' or coerced to do anything they deem to be wrong just because of some political wind change. Nothin to do with big government, or affirmative action, but just plain 'ol common sense basic rights necessary for a civil society that affords equal protections under the law of the land.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:19, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Is atheism a religion?

2008-06-28T16:22:25Z

Roopilots6:

{{Debate}}
This is a debate about whether or not atheism is a religion (as can be shown by the title). Well, don't just read this sentence, go read what other people have to say and rebuttle them or back them up you dolt. Yeesh. Don't deleate what someone else has written, please. 
 
:'''Answer''': this is not a debate topic since the answer can already be found at [[religion]]. Depending on the definition one goes by, atheism may or may not be considered a religion. --[[User:Elton|Elton]] 14:24, 30 April 2008 (EDT){{Debate-religion}}

==Yes==
Athiesm is a religion. This is because, to a certain extent, they are worshipping something. As Christians, Jews, and Muslims are one god, atheists worship the fact that there is no god. This might sound contradicting and might make no sense, but bare with me. If you are a Christian, you take to heart the fact that Jesus was the savior of man. You believe that Jesus is the savior. However, if you are athiest, you are taking to heart the fact that there is no god. --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]
:As an atheist, I also have to sleep denying Mohammemed, Buddha, Jesus, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's hard, but it must also e hard for you Rocky, having your religion defined as ''not'' believing in everything but Jesus. It must also be hard taking to heart that there are no super-intelligent aliens living among us, no unicorns, and no centaurs. All of those things are believed by some in a religious sense, so what does it feel like to say "I am a Christian, defined by not believing in x,y,z,... for 10 minutes". Boy, your definition really makes sense!--[[User:Mariowhaa|Mariowhaa]] 02:04, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Obviously, atheism is a religion. Once cannot scientifically prove or disprove the existance of a god. Therefore, there must be some leap of faith, to some degree, to get from agnoticism to atheism. Therefore, I consider atheism to be the belief in no gods, rather than no belief in gods. This is a religious belief. [[User:Sunyatsen|Sunyatsen]] 16:15, 28 May 2008 (EDT)
:While you may not agree in that proof, many people believe that all evidence suggests there is no god, and that the logical position in the absence of evidence is not "there may be X or there may not be X," but rather "there is no X unless you can prove X." In other words, it depends on what you consider to be the "default" position on matters of existence. You are not an agnostic when it comes to magical teapots in outer space, you are an atheist... you would say "there is no teapot out there unless you can prove it." In the same way, many individuals feel that "maybe there's a god" is not a reasonable position in the absence of anything to suggest there might be.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 16:19, 28 May 2008 (EDT)
:The belief that there is no God may be a religious belief, but a religious belief is not necessarily a religion. Belief in angels is a religious belief, but there is no religion of angelism. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 16:27, 28 May 2008 (EDT)

==No==
Atheism does not fit the definition of religion:
<blockquote>1.a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.<ref>"religion." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 30 Apr. 2008. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion>.</ref></blockquote>

One could argue that for some atheists atheism fits definition number four, but that is really a metaphorical usage of the word. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 14:35, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

"Atheism is a belief the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby." (Overheard on another forum) --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 20:41, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:In the same vein: "Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color." --Don Hirschberg [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:17, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

No, although there have been Atheistic quasi-religions, such as the positivist 'Church of Humanity' in the late 19th/early 20th century. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:18, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

==Impossible to Say==
Lacking a concrete definition of "religion," it is impossible to say whether or not atheism is a religion. The first step in this debate should be to determine such a definition. And in this case, that's probably also the last step.
*''A religion is a set of beliefs designed to explain natural phenomena.'' Atheism is not a religion.
*''A religion is a worldview.'' Atheism is a religion.
And so on. So before you try to answer this, preface your argument with your definition of "religion."--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 16:22, 28 May 2008 (EDT)

==The "R" Word==
What constitutes a religion: any system of attitudes, practices, principles, requiring an adherence to belief in and faith of an order of actions. Whether they be theistic or non-theistic in their origins. An atheist is thereby conforming to religious principles. You can also look up the definition of 'Religion' in conservapedia to help explain the meaning of the word. Unfortunately atheists detest the application of the word 'Religion' that they exclusively like to apply only to theistic beliefs such as Judaism, Christianity, ...etc. Therefore the reason for the liberal redifining of the term. To the atheist, this is a derogatory term meant to only apply to others and rejected for the use to their own set of beliefs. This can be argued is why when someone mentions the "R" word it is accepted they are describing Judaism, Christianity, and not the secular world.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:22, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

===References===
{{reflist}}

Debate:Should pharmacists be forced to fill legal prescriptions they personally object to on moral grounds?

2008-06-28T15:20:09Z

Roopilots6: /* No */

Debate:Should pharmacists be forced to fill legal prescriptions they personally object to on moral grounds?

2008-06-25T14:22:09Z

Roopilots6: /* No */

Debate:Should pharmacists be forced to fill legal prescriptions they personally object to on moral grounds?

2008-06-22T13:00:17Z

Roopilots6: /* No */

Debate:Should pharmacists be forced to fill legal prescriptions they personally object to on moral grounds?

2008-06-21T15:12:02Z

Roopilots6: /* No */

Debate:Which was worse, the Civil War or effects or slavery?

2008-06-02T14:20:11Z

Roopilots6: /* Flawed Question */

{{debate}}
[[Slavery]] was undoubtedly an evil thing, and the [[Civil War]] was brutal.
If you take one position it needn't mean you're negating the gravity of the war or that we should have kept slavery because it wasn't worth abolishing. The purpose of this discussion is to learn more about the War and slavery, perhaps lead us to talk of whether the current war is worth fighting. --[[User:StevenM|Steve]] 22:42, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

I think that because of the affects of the Amendments resulting from the War, the Civil War was worse. The [[Fourteenth Amendment]] in particular, was the beginning of when the [[Bill of Rights]] stopped protecting the people from the government, and became a tool of the government to limit other citizens. --[[User:StevenM|Steve]] 22:55, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

:Maybe, but slavery in itself wasn't a means of restricting rights? Any rights that might have been restricted under a different interpretations of the bill of rights don't even begin to compare with the restriction of rights that result from slavery. I can't think of anything worse than having your life completely owned and being subject to brutality and losing all free will. Even losing your right to bear arms or freedom of speech would be much, much better than being a slave? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:42, 11 April 2008 (EDT)
::Wow. Dan is absolutely right. And I left you a comment [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:StevenM#Your_Fourteenth_Amendment_Issues here].-[[User:Murgatroyd|Murgatroyd]] 00:32, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

Honestly, I can see both sides of this issue, but I wanted to argue for the one on which less people would side. I think [[Abraham Lincoln]] would have been more likely to say that slavery was worse. In a speech to a delegation of ''free blacks at the White House'', August 14, 1862, Lincoln said: <blockquote>
Your race suffers very greatly, many of them by living among us while ours suffers from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each sid. If this be admitted, it affords a reason at least, why we should be separated.
</blockquote>

Unfortunately, I will quickly tire of playing the "[[Devil's Advocate]]," and join the side that I believe. I argued the way I did, not because I'm racist; I thought I'd learn more and you guys gave me some great information. This "debate" will probably run out of gas after I stop disagreeing with you, but it was educational while it lasted. Thanks. --[[User:StevenM|Steve]] 07:25, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

==Slavery==
Ultimately the effect of slavery on the U.S. was a civil war between slave states and free states. Slavery still exists in other countries around the world. But it isn't any question of whether military action was necessary at that time. It was unique to this country and that it holds no relation to other wars since then.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:54, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

==Flawed Question==
This question implies two untrue statements: (1. The Civil War was fought to end slavery. (2. Slavery could not have been abolished without it. Neither of these is true, so the question is flawed.--[[User:Lordofthemarsh|Lordofthemarsh]] 00:44, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

::The reasons for secession all led back to the question of slavery. Slaves were considered property in slave states. The question as to then whether the Federal Government was able to take a persons private property was paramount for the reason to secede. The selective picking of events while ignoring the reasons they happened is a political tact common since the end of the American Civil War. If not after the first State seceded. That slavery could have been abolished without a Civil War is mute since secession was in fact a Declaration of War against the Union.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:20, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Who feels that scientific related articles should only reference published research papers instead of websites when dealing with research instead of application?

2008-04-18T13:29:18Z

Roopilots6: /* No */

It seems that many of the science topics are only using PoV websites for sources instead of actual publications and peer reviewed research papers. When scientists write science publications they cite peer reviewed papers and published works only when dealing with the research aspect of the science. When dealing with the application they will sometimes use a website to better illustrate the application of the method. When a quote is used the context of the quote is secondary to the research and used to support the topic, not the other way around.

In doing so the science based topics would have a structure like below -

: Description and Mechanisms of Topic
: Method and Experimentation
: Supporting Quotes
: Criticisms of Research
: Criticism Evidence

This can be used for students to learn and also provide opposing evidence so that both sides can be better informed.

Should we follow this method, at conservapedia?

== Yes ==
--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 09:30, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

==Yes & No==

In theory it would be better that way, but sources like that are hard to find, have not always been put on the internet at all, or are protected (only accessible from universities or with a password).

In addition many of those articles are incomprehensible to just about everyone, except for specialists in that field.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

: I can understand that, application is where other sources could be cited for the layman. Pubmed and other science journals are pretty easy to use and link to. Personaly I see this as a way of making sure that people will only edit what they have taken the time out to understand.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 09:42, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, articles from accessible science journals should be included as often as possible, I agree.

I also propose a rule that in the case of quotes, demands a link to a text in which the entire quote and its original context are included, to avoid quote mining or misinterpretations.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:I would agree as well. The quote mining thing is an issue. If you are using a quote from Darwin's book then link to the book online not some website that gives a POV without a link to the book.

Perhaps just the structure for science articles should be used, that way we could distinguish the difference between science articles and philosophical POV articles?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 09:50, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, not sure everyone hear knows how to write a solid scientific article though.
Maybe there should be a new commandment, or a guide on how to structure scientific articles, with an example on how to, and how NOT to go about it?

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

== No ==
Nope, too hard. And trying to define "acceptable references/unacceptable references" tends to encourage disputes.

The '''important thing''' about a reference is that the reader should be able to trace where the item came from, and enough information should be provided so that readers can judge for themselves whether ''they'' trust the reference.

(That doesn't mean no guidelines at all. I was recently involved in an issue on Wikipedia in which there was a dispute over sourcing an item—the text of some graffiti in Barrington Hall on the Berkeley campus—which was there solely on an editor's personal recollection. After the editor argued for many days that no source was required, and losing the argument, suddenly a new blog appeared on the Web which quoted the exact list of graffiti with the exact wording that the editor had wanted to have in the article... as well as saying how important those graffiti were and that they were essential to any account of Barrington Hall's history. That editor then immediately put the material back, citing the blog as a reliable source both for the content of the graffiti and their importance. Much discussion ensued...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:51, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Just in case this whole discussion might possibly about, um, let's say evolution versus creationism, there's nothing wrong with citing creationist websites as long as it's obvious to the reader what they are... and that the article is intellectually honest. Darwin was wrong"[#]" won't do, but "The creationist website so-and-so says "Darwin was wrong"[#], while scientific journal so-and-so says "Darwin was right"[#]" is OK. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:57, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:Good point but it seems the issue we are having is the substantiation of claims. The POV issue is the problem that we are finding on many of the pages here. By having the citations as accurate as the science it would reduce the POV and provide an objective stance to the reader. Right now many of the science based articles on this site could not be used by a student to pass any science exams since they are riddled with POV and quote mines without providing an accurate description of the science.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:17, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::Also the problem of who publishes the research. Which religious POV published it? Evolutionism or Creation? Also scientific related? Or just pure physical science? Sounds more like this is a fishing expedition then a sound query. Well you can always set up enough rules and regulations on anything to get a desired affect.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:16, 20 December 2007 (EST)

:::I'm all for stating both sides to an issue, so long as both sides are explained ACCURATELY! I am sick and tired of people going around preaching that Evolution says that there is no god, science can not prove or disprove the existance of god. I've also heard that Evolution says that life originated on it's own, it does not, that is the study of abiogenesis. Facts must plainly stated on there own. I don't rant about false claims about Creation, because anybody with half a brain cell can type in "Genesis" on [http://www.google.com google], and get the entire statement. Confusion about facts is bad, the bible even says so. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 14:14, 11 February 2008 (EST)

::::Where exactly does it say that in the Bible? I would like to see that. I would also like to see how half a brain cell is still able to operate. Or is it that people who google it are operating on half a brain cell versus someone that uses the dewey decimal system? Sorry about the sarcasm. Funny what people also think of as facts these days.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 09:29, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Are Young Earth Creationists detracting others from the Faith?

2008-04-17T22:26:47Z

Roopilots6: /* That Old Double Standard */

{{debate}}
The reason I ask this is in referance to a quote about six paragraphs down [http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070427/27114_Protests_Planned_for_Grand_Opening_of_Creation_Museum.htm here]. Are Young-Earth Creationists causing others to not convert? Asking opinions. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 14:59, 26 November 2007 (EST)
:The quote in question is this: ''"My brothers and sisters in the faith who embrace [the creationist] understanding call into question the whole Christian concept," expressed the Rev. Mendle Adams, pastor of St. Peter's United Church of Christ in Cincinnati, according to the Enquirer. "They make us a laughingstock.”'' --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 18:37, 26 November 2007 (EST)

==NO!==
Members of church denominations that tote the politically correct mantra no longer have the "Faith". For that, they have become the laughingstocks. They have already gone with the way of the world and abandoned the Word of God. They have chosen to join the apostate church which has turned against our Heavenly Father so that they worship at the alter of the god of this age and of this current world. If the truth makes you a laughingstock then first you should make sure those doing the laughing aren't just plain nuts. Mostly though, reverend Adams statement is illogical in that he professes a certain faith in Creator while in the same breath denouncing HIM! Maybe, in fact, that is what people are laughing at? "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator who is forever praised. Amen" Romans 2:25 So for some people the BIG LIE is easier to believe then the TRUTH.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:55, 2 December 2007 (EST)
:QED, Roopilots. Tirades like that do nothing for the kind of people who want to actively discuss their faith. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:15, 18 February 2008 (EST)
:But that is not what I asked, I asked if Young-Earth creationists are disuading others to convert to Christianity, not which belief is correct. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 14:15, 3 December 2007 (EST)
::The correct Faith? Isn't that the point of the museum? If you don't believe then you won't have Faith. Being able to prove your beliefs won't detract others. Showing how a younger earth can be scientifically proven would have the effect of attracting more believers. Belief requires Faith. The Truth confirms that belief and Faith. What detracter or disuader are you refering too then? Quotation of Bible verses? Or believing them to be correct?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 15:28, 6 December 2007 (EST)
:::You can't say science can prove that until a reproducible experiment is demonstrated showing that. I would also like to point out that Fundalmentalism as a concept is more recent than Evolution. It has been stated in other debates that theistic-evoultioninsts can recieve salvation. Some of the displays in the museum in question can be treated as stupid to somebody in a non-young-earth upbringing (ie: belief in an old-earth leads to abortions). I am not saying that anybody who believes in a Young-Earth is dissuading potential converts. I am saying that pushers of ID theory being taught in public schools (when it has not produced ''one'' testible hypothesis) are dissuading potential converts. Once ID theory produces a testible hypothesis, than I have to support it. Until then, no. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 09:14, 9 December 2007 (EST)
:::I'm seeing alot of logical fallacies there. The assumption of fundamentalism being more recent than the non-reproducible theory of Evolution is a mistaken one. Theistic-evolutionists receive salvation from what? The theory of evolution hasn't produced a single 'scientifically proven' hypothesis that is reproducible. But then when it is the only theory being taught then there won't be very much dissention to it, will there? This is the whole point between ID or evolutionary theorists, that neither meet any criteria of being proven. We can agree to be able to go back and forth on that point. But then how does that detract from either point of view? Other then one is officially mandated by the state? Unfalsifiable as it is.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 15:20, 9 December 2007 (EST)
:::Are you saying that salvation comes from Young-Earth creationism, Last time I checked, that was not so. Consider this: If you were God and had to reveal your entire message to Homo sapians sapians, a species that has a very short attention span, would you put in a long detailed explanation, or would you put in a simple short story that doesn't require an degree in biology to understand? --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 10:32, 17 December 2007 (EST)

::::I can tell you that salvation from spiritual death only comes from accepting that Yeshua Messiach, the Son of God, already died for your sin and conquered death. I also do not presume the role of God, since He has already given His entire message through His chosen Hebrew people whose homeland is Israel. The whole world is pretty aware of that, aren't they? No biology degree necesary to understand it unless you wish to see just how deep the rabbit hole goes. So go ahead, take the red pill Neo!--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 13:38, 19 December 2007 (EST)
:::::And I am not saying that you are wrong. Christ is Lord. you did ask "Theistic-Evolutionists receive salvation from what?" From that it sounded that you stated that belief in Creationism was a prerequisite for Salvation. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 23:46, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Ah do you reckon we can get back on topic? Do you think that young earth creationists are discouraging others from becoming christian because people they know consider YEC's to be a laughing stock? That has nothing to do with whether evolution or ID is right or wrong, falsifiable or non-falisfiable. Thanks. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 14:02, 22 December 2007
:Thanks, I would like to clarify what [[User:Bolly|nice person who posted above me]] said: This is not a debate about if Evolution is correct or not, it is asking if potential converts to Christianity are being detered by YECpov-ists. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 23:46, 1 January 2008 (EST)

==YES!==
Young Earth Creationists do indeed detract others from the faith - of Evolutionism. Here is also a warning to those who don't want to believe in the inerrant Word of God from Genesis to Revelations within the Judeo-Christian Bible: Evolutionism view is the complete opposite stance from an intelligently designed universe by a Creator. Hence why we call it universe, or single(UNI) sentence(VERSE) from which it was created. Evolutionism and the Young Earth Creation both require a religious viewpoint. The laughingstocks are those willingly ignorant of these facts, Pastor Adams. Christians who believe in Evolutionism and therefore the Humanist religion are actually apostates, or false believers. They have already renounced their faith and embraced the nemesis of Judeo-Christianity. A Created Young Earth and Evolutionism are polar opposite beliefs. You can only pick one side or the other where you will stand, and you certainly can't have both unless your just playing politics. Which is maybe what people such as Pastor Adams have chosen to become.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:44, 10 January 2008 (EST)

:Actually, Universe comes from the old French "univers" which in turn comes from the latin "universum" which is a compound of unus (meaning one) and versum (meaning somthing rolled, changed). Therefore Universe literally means "everything rolled into one." Not single sentence. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 14:02, 11 February 2008 (EST)

::Uni is from the latin unus meaning one, single, and verse comes from the latin versus and means line, verse, as in a verse of words. The meaning may have been liberally twisted by subsequent generations of people but the original latin meaning hasn't changed.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:22, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, I would say that YEC deters people from Christianity. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 19:42, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:{{remove personal remark|MakeTomorrow, thanks for making my point even more valid.}}--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 09:49, 12 January 2008 (EST)

::{{remove personal remark|Thank you for failing to utilize basic cognitive abilities.}} --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 10:11, 12 January 2008 (EST)

I would say yes, it does. While theories such as evolution and the Big Bang are taught in the public education system, the contrast with YEC is too stark and non-YEC tends to win. YEC apologists essentially claim that any scientific theories that conflict with the literal Biblical account must be wrong, which is where the conflict arises. Contrast this with apologists for OEC and you will find more compatibility with their religious beliefs and mainstream consensus science.

However, it should be noted that non-literal Biblical interpretation can also have negative effects on faith. While the arguments for YEC are fairly straightforward (simplified: what the Bible says is an accurate historical account and is the last word in any argument), the OEC enterpretation is theologically much more complex. This makes it more difficult to understand for the layman and subsequently faith can suffer if the opposing scientific theories are clearly promoted.

So, I'm not sure if YEC has an overall negative effect on faith. I think it might do in Europe where evolution, old earth, the Big Bang, etc. are almost universally accepted. A sudden campaign by mainstream religious leaders to push YEC would probably be met with derision and faith might be undermined. In the US, however, where YEC is comparatively common and different Christian sects are more diverse and visible, it might be considered yet another "Pick & Mix" option of their faith that can be accepted or discarded depending upon one's scientific education and preacher. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 10:36, 12 January 2008 (EST)

:We need an article comparing (1) [[Evolutionism]], (2) [[Old Earth Creationism]] and (3) [[Young Earth Creationism]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:44, 12 January 2008 (EST)

::I would accept that, Ed, if the term Evolutionism wasn't often used by YE Creationists to equate belief in evolution (and other scientific theories) with any other religion. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:00, 12 January 2008 (EST)

:I just now wrote [[Evolution and creation]]. Sorry if you don't like the terms [[evolutionism]] and [[evolutionist]]. I am using them without prejudice to indicate support for (or supporter of) the naturalistic [[theory of evolution]]. I hope the context can make clear whether any specific partisan "equates" that support with "belief in religion". [[Link title]]

::Sure, Ed. Just to clarify, I don't dislike the term. I dislike the way the term is often used by YECers to equate belief in evolution with religion. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:19, 12 January 2008 (EST)

:Hmm. That probably leads to another topic like [[Debate:Is belief in evolution equivalent to belief in religion?]] I hope to see you there. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:37, 12 January 2008 (EST)
::I have left my mark upon it :) [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:03, 12 January 2008 (EST)

An example of where YEC ''might'' detract others from the faith is evidenced in CP's very own discussion on the Theory of Evolution. See [[Talk:Theory_of_Evolution#What_if...3F|here]]. Two Christians are having a fairly acrimonious discussion over who is right, a Young Earth Creationist or a evolution-believing Roman Catholic. Phrases such as "Your god used millions of years of death and suffering to produce man." and "Hardly the work of a just and benevolent deity." This must be one of the most damaging aspects of YEC. It's dogmatic and fundamentalist, essentially claiming that if you believe in anything older than a young earth, or evolution or the Big Bang, or if you don't read the Bible literally, then you are not a true Christian. That will not only challenge the faithful but make it much harder to convince non-Christians that there's any merit in Christianity at all. Debate is one thing. Dogmatic accusations of heresy are another. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 07:53, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Yes, when religion tries to intrude upon science, it does so to the detraction of religion. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 22:49, 18 February 2008 (EST)

{{cquote|Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts
of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and
distances, . . . and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience.
It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense
about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do
all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only
ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn."
- St. Augustine, "De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim"}}
--[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 19:30, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

YEC casts God as either an intentional deceiver or at least a negligent deceiver.... that can not be true, science must guide us to the truth of God!! [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 22:23, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

==That Old Double Standard==
This whole debate perfectly frames a basic problem with both sides of the same coin of YEC and ET(Evolutionism). It is no small wonder that the problem lies with the Evolutionists. Their refusal to acknowledge that their total faith in Evolutionism belies the fact that it is religion they profess. This isn't surprising either. The foisting of the Humanist religion onto western societies advances without it having to even identify itself in a forthright manner. Nonetheless it is a religous movement whose adherents have used Evolutionism to extoll itself with. Nowhere has Evolutionism been proclaimed as a scientific fact except by those who religiously profess it. But when real scientific proof is demanded, these facts evaporate into thin air. Both YEC and ET require faith in order for them to be upheld. So when the question comes it is dependent upon which religion are you hailing from? Unfortunately it seems that there is an assumption made when religion and faith are used that is based on prejudice and ignorance. I can only request it that some presumptions be re-evaluated instead of the invocations that my religious views are right and yours aren't conundrum of that old double standard line. That is that neither one can stand without taking their polar opposite religious view first. Well, that ain't gonna happen so go ahead and continue your religious war against each other.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:37, 13 January 2008 (EST)

:I simply don't agree with that at all. Yes, there may be plenty of secularists/humanists who treat their belief system as a faith - that they can't even in principle believe in anything else because it conflicts with their beliefs that it is impossible for God to exist.

:But that is not a majority view, in my experience, of people who believe in evolution and the Big Bang.

:To repeat my illustration I made above, most people who accept the "evolutionist" theories are religious - Christians, Jews, whatever. Almost all Christians in Europe, for example, are so-called "evolutionists". This must surely preclude belief in evolution and associated theories from being a religion.

:And these theories change. YEC, as a faith position, doesn't change. The ultimate evidence for it is an unchanging literal interpretation of the Bible. Scientific theories, while often protected more than they should be, do change through application of the scientific method.

:So, while I accept that there are various militant atheists who profess belief in "evolutionism" and use it to attack religion and are therefore in some ways as religious as the "religionists" they are attacking, most people who accept the theory of evolution and the Big Bang do not fall into that category. Indeed, they are more likely to be religious than atheist. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:08, 13 January 2008 (EST)

::The majority view? I'm not concerned with the mob rule mentality of any professional culture of peers. Never did I buy into the 'that everybody else believes it so it must be true' equation. True scientific endeavor shouldn't be worried by world opinion polls but only in the truth. That after some evidences have been proven false they continue to be taught in childrens school textbooks as scientific fact is unacceptable. Evolutionism as well the Big Bang Theory have both been dead for some time now and are only being kept alive by those having the faith equal to some of the most ardent Evangelicals. But I wasn't expecting any agreement on religious points of view. Whether they be from either of the two polar opposite religious views that dominate the scientific community. The major hurdle is to whether one understands what constitutes a non-theistic or theistic religious viewpoint. Then the double standard would disolve. This is a point that some will never concede to while holding onto the commanding heights of their professions and the money keeps pouring into their pockets.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:15, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:::My comment on the majority view was in relation to the majority of people who accept evolution and the Big Bang are also religious, therefore "Evolutionism" cannot be a religion (according to my previous argument of exclusivity).

:::I don't know what you mean by evolution and the Big Bang being dead. Whatever your views on them they are the scientific consensus in their respective fields. That is not is dispute. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 13:04, 14 January 2008 (EST)

::::That's my point of being a consensus. Not to everybody. It is based on a faith in it since it still, since 1859, has not been scientifically been proven. Science, and not faith.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:14, 17 January 2008 (EST)

:::::Proof is actually an alien concept in empirical science. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 07:39, 18 January 2008 (EST)

:::This also leads to another debate, [[Debate:Is the Theory of Evolution a conspiricy?]]. Thought I should point this out. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 21:57, 7 February 2008 (EST)

::::So that we have a Scientific Dictatorship through the direction of empirical scientism. Knowledge must first be able to pass through the empirical bookkeeping systems to ensure only one type of methodology is used. In this way total control is applied to which knowledge is disseminated and which is suppressed. If it doesn't agree with certain criteria of the bookkeeper then it is discarded and marginalized. Conspirators of this Scientific Dictatorship are then able to exercise total control of all knowledge deemed acceptable for their followers to worship after. The Empirical misinformation system that is active today can be seen everywhere and at anytime in our society. Eugenics, Social Biology, Evolutionism, with the latest being the man-made global warming scam. The 'means' of the Scientific Dictatorship is knowledge while the 'end' being the total control of the society. This is where we are today.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:33, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::ROFL! [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 14:44, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::''Darn it! You found us out. We pocket protecting, geeky scientists are actually just making up "empirical" evidence in order to manipulate society. We had it going so well until '''you''' had to stop the fun. Thanks.'' No really, Scientists are not trying to start a dictatorship. Alarmists and anti-consumerists are. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 15:03, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::Since this evidently flew over a few heads let me site a recent example of how science gets hijacked. Man-made global warming that is sold as actual scientific fact. When in fact the only thing keeping it alive is the deep pockets of its benefactors. They even tried Nuremberg style rallies in order to gain supporters. Yep, I'm rolling on the floor over that one. The Kyoto Protocols didn't work so instead of it they infused massive funding to create an actual industry to market it with. Only one small problem though. Everyone isn't stupid to believe the marketing hype that doesn't face close scrutiny. No, it isn't the scientists creating the scientific dictatorship but it is rather their employers who control where the funding goes. This technique of using scientists for propaganda purposes isn't a new one. A fact that some people seem to be ignorant of too.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:26, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Is "Coercive Interrogation" consistent with Christian Values?

2008-04-17T15:49:12Z

Roopilots6: /* Transference */

[[Image:Brainradio.gif|thumb|right|200px|"[http://www.funtrivia.com/playquiz/quiz123084e194a8.html I must kill Frank Drebin]" ]]

"Coercive Interrogation" can refer to a number of methods currently being used in the War Against Terror. Some are "minor"(e.g. sleep deprivation), others "major" (e.g. waterboarding, physical abuse). Sometimes they are used to extract immediately vital information, sometimes for less immediate needs.
Where do Christian values intersect with these practices?

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matthew 7:12. Not consistent with waterboarding unless ye would that men should waterboard you. No exceptions made for hypothetical situations in which waterboarding someone would prevent a greater evil. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:33, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

::It's all done with mind control through brain chip implants and nowadays. We've come along way since old fashioned waterboarding. And that stuff was never needed, anyway. Heroin in your breakfast Cornflakes does the trick, they'll sell their own mother for another bowl of Cornflakes. Most of this stuff you read about waterboarding is just disinformation. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:49, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Is this a joke? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 21:08, 12 November 2007 (EST)

==No==

I just can't picture Jesus beating someone up to make them confess, or piling up naked prisoners and take a picture of it.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

All I could think of when I read the question was... "forty lashes". Although, I guess, they weren't asking questions, they were trying to get away with not executing him for the Pharisees purposes of silencing him. How can anyone even mildly versed in the stories about Jesus even think this could be a debate? [[User:Human|Human]] 02:49, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:Get people scared enough, and they can rationalize [[Holocaust|ANYTHING]], as long as it's being done to someone outside their [[Monkeysphere]]. --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 02:54, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

==Transference==
This is not even relevant for argument. Christian values are inapplicable with coercive interrogation. As unrelated to Christian values as using a bayonet on someone or flying a civilian airliner into a building full of civilians. What is being attempted here is just another attempt to attribute coercive interrogation with Christian values. Maybe we can give the Christian value attribute to ritualized decapitation, mutalization, use of human shields (non-combatants). But tell me honestly, which values did you use when someone came to murder you and your family because their leaders ordered them too? Of course there weren't any exept the value of your life over your would be killers. It is only those that hold a hatred for Christianity who will use a war that someone else is waging to devalue it. It is absolutely just another way to make political rants about two things that someone has absolutely no knowledge about. This propaganda technique is known as TRANSFER (Institute for Propaganda Analysis, 1938). This technique of trying to attribute something negative to an apposing religious view is only too common in the religion debate category and usually with all of the usual suspects.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:09, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
:I do not see anyone arguing "Christian values support torture" or even "Christians torture".... seems to me that the question under discussion is "''ought'' Christians support torture" -- and the answer immediately presents itself, '''''Thou shalt not!!''''' for "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." Matthew 25:40.... it is better that we should allow ourselves to be the recipients of torture than to inflict it upon another, better that we should allow ourselves to be murdered than murder another.... for the torture of another is a sin that will not be washed off our hands, and those that condone it, in their hearts, words, or acts, are as guilty and as condemned as those who beat, burn, and humiliate, no matter the "value" of the information sought!! [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 12:06, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
::The debate question is whether coercive interrogation is consistent with a certain ideology. Meaning are the two compatible with each other? Nothing about torture is being mentioned here, by the way. Let's not misdirect on the topic of discussion. Also that Matthew 25:40 has nothing to do with the application of coercive interrogation techniques used to save lives during a time of war is only proving one of my points perfectly. Make sure that your not wanting to sin isn't an act of sedition that causes others to suffer for it. I hope you'll see the value of this information and to apply it accordingly.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:41, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
:::What you call "coercive interrogation techniques used to save lives during a time of war" are nonetheless "coercive interrogation techniques" (and if we are not talking about torture, then what do we mean?).... if someone were to demand that you renounce your faith and blaspheme against the name of God, and threatened to kill your entire family if you refused to do so, what would you do? [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 21:04, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
::::I would've declared a war against terror on them. Oh, darn it, someone already beat me too it. I hate it when I have to make the same point over and over again. Look up 'coercive interrogation techniques' so that you will be able to tell the difference between coercion and torture. Also the differences between military combatants and religious marterdym would also be something to make a distinction between. Historically we haven't reach the point where we don't have to learn war no more.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:19, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
:::::Besides, in that line Jesus was reffering to the poor. Not Terrorists who want to kill us. Besides who is ''really'' at fault The inhuman terrorist who desires the destruction of all that we Americans hold dear (and/or Americans), or the Intelligence Officer who seeks to prevent Terrorist attacks by any means necessary. I believe that in this case, the Ends surely justify the means. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 21:45, 7 February 2008 (EST)
:::::: You're presuming guilt, Capercorn, and the only reason anyone is even pretending it's a legitimate argument is because noone has any idea what detainees' legal status actually is. If they're criminals, then they must be presumed innocent and be given due process (a fair and public trial) - this means no 'coercive interrogation'. If they're prisoners of war, they have to be treated in accord with the Geneva convention - again, no 'coercive interrogation'. Honestly, this shouldn't even be an issue. And to return to the original topic, Jesus said to turn the other cheek - or perhaps it's just that part of the Bible which isn't meant literally?[[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:08, 18 February 2008 (EST)
:::::: Is going against the very ideals of america to protect americans okay. What if you were put in jail for some perceived crime and had habeus corpus suspended so you had no trial, and no hope of getting out? Is that okay with you I mean there is a chance you could be a threat and there is no way to know unless you perform some crime. The reason the Salem witch trials are perceived as being bad is not only that they were listening to hysterical children, but the accused were presumed guilty until proven innocent. Perhaps if Americans treated the world as we love to be treated our international standing may be much better. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 00:01, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::The record of the 'worlds' standing when compared to that of the United States of America is simply pathetic. Those who love to bash the U.S. do so only because of their hatred for it. No other country has ever contributed more to the 'world' in recent history then the U.S. There is no other country that protects the rights of people better with its legal system then the United States. The United States legal system presumes innocence before guilt. Not like most of the 'world' that presumes a person guilty until they prove or buy their innocence. Such has always been the 'world'. The United States of Americas international standing is what it has always been of that shining light and bastion of freedom and liberty that sets it apart from the darkness of the rest of the 'world'.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 09:45, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::::You can't possibly be serious, Roo. The United States leaves plenty to be desired in terms of legal protection, especially since the introduction of the Patriot Act. There are very few checks and balances to ensure individuals have the same legal standing as corporations, short of class action suits. And I'm afraid that habeas corpus and the presumption of innocence is not so unique to the US - it's been embraced in pretty much every country in the first world since the 19th century. And if we want to talk international relations, there's the Bay of Pigs, Iran/Contra, the destabilisation and overthrow of the Sandanista government, arms sales to Israel and Iraq... I don't dispute for a moment that America has had a huge effect on the events of the 20th century, but it's not quite the "shining light and bastion of freedom and liberty" that you describe. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 20:03, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::::You have to understand that whatever you have been taught about how great america was in the first half of the 20th century the rest of the world has either equalled or exceeded the accomplishments of America while we have either remained stagnant or regressed in some areas. I hope you understand that I am grateful that I live in America, but to just stand back and not say anything is the most unpatriotic thing you can do. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 23:39, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::So that my statement still stands from the standpoint of the rest of the world. The myopic vision of merely focusing on a single entity with ignorance to the whole seems the popular approach these days. This isn't jingoistic but just a reality check. If you know of a better country in todays world please tell us so that we may move there. Oh, but that's right, there aren't any.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:49, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

==Rebuttal to RobS==
Disinformation? The CIA admit do doing it. In a similar manner they violated Italy's soverignity by kidnapping an Imam instead of extradition being requested.[[User:AlephNull|AlephNull]] 19:03, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

::Also, the CIA which is the acronym for Central Intelligence Agency, has nothing to do with Christian values. This just in case anyone is confused with techniques of interrogation and Christian values. I'm afraid someone might be thinking of fighting a war based on Christian values. You must forgive me if I've burst someone's bubble. This might be another instance of the sheepdogs having to explain themselves to the sheep. You should read what Dave Grossman had to say on that.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 09:59, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Are Young Earth Creationists detracting others from the Faith?

2008-04-17T15:22:56Z

Roopilots6: /* YES! */

Debate:Why are God's works always questioned?

2008-04-16T16:22:34Z

Roopilots6: /* How is this a scientific debate? */

{{debate}}

Why not? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 21:30, 10 December 2007 (EST)

God's works are always questioned because He gave us a free will to do with what we wish and to question and believe, to love and to hate, to agree and disagree. We question because we are human and we are human because we questioned.--[[User:CRD|CRD]] 22:04, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

[[Category:Essays]]

I think that God's works are questioned because our perception of God is so limited. The majority of people view God as a benevolent, loving, but stearn creator/magician/father figure. If that is what God is all about then we constantly have to wonder why God's creation contains pain, suffering and death. We also have to stuff our beliefs about how the world works into a creator/created way of thinking. Other cultures have had complex mythologies that essentially show God as having many faces; some good, some bad, some loving, some destroying, etc. The Old Testament God was more like that type of being. Maybe if our God were bigger, we might realize that the important questions aren't concerning God's works at all but our own. Like the Buddha we would simply set it aside and concentrate our efforts on living the right life in the here and now. [[User:Wismike|Wismike]]

== How is this a scientific debate? ==

Science has not shown any proofs for existence of god. Also science questions every thing. From perspective of science, there is no god. Man made god in man's image (at least one group)--[[User:JBuscombe|JBuscombe]] 14:31, 18 November 2007 (EST)

:Within or without? Half full or half empty? There is no such thing as science having a perspective. Only individuals are in a position to gain a perspective. The proof of the existence of God is the created universe. There are those that would prefer that God never existed so that their own works won't be questioned. Of course they may be wrong. Whether you believe you evolved from a pool of slime or are an intelligently created being will be your own choice. The real question is whether you will ever recognize it when the answer to this question has been given to you?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:22, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Which was worse, the Civil War or effects or slavery?

2008-04-16T15:54:04Z

Roopilots6: /* Slavery */

Debate:Which was worse, the Civil War or effects or slavery?

2008-04-16T15:53:38Z

Roopilots6:

Debate:Are Young Earth Creationists detracting others from the Faith?

2008-04-10T16:33:27Z

Roopilots6: /* That Old Double Standard */

{{debate}}
The reason I ask this is in referance to a quote about six paragraphs down [http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070427/27114_Protests_Planned_for_Grand_Opening_of_Creation_Museum.htm here]. Are Young-Earth Creationists causing others to not convert? Asking opinions. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 14:59, 26 November 2007 (EST)
:The quote in question is this: ''"My brothers and sisters in the faith who embrace [the creationist] understanding call into question the whole Christian concept," expressed the Rev. Mendle Adams, pastor of St. Peter's United Church of Christ in Cincinnati, according to the Enquirer. "They make us a laughingstock.”'' --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 18:37, 26 November 2007 (EST)

==NO!==
Members of church denominations that tote the politically correct mantra no longer have the "Faith". For that, they have become the laughingstocks. They have already gone with the way of the world and abandoned the Word of God. They have chosen to join the apostate church which has turned against our Heavenly Father so that they worship at the alter of the god of this age and of this current world. If the truth makes you a laughingstock then first you should make sure those doing the laughing aren't just plain nuts. Mostly though, reverend Adams statement is illogical in that he professes a certain faith in Creator while in the same breath denouncing HIM! Maybe, in fact, that is what people are laughing at? "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator who is forever praised. Amen" Romans 2:25 So for some people the BIG LIE is easier to believe then the TRUTH.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:55, 2 December 2007 (EST)
:QED, Roopilots. Tirades like that do nothing for the kind of people who want to actively discuss their faith. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:15, 18 February 2008 (EST)
:But that is not what I asked, I asked if Young-Earth creationists are disuading others to convert to Christianity, not which belief is correct. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 14:15, 3 December 2007 (EST)
::The correct Faith? Isn't that the point of the museum? If you don't believe then you won't have Faith. Being able to prove your beliefs won't detract others. Showing how a younger earth can be scientifically proven would have the effect of attracting more believers. Belief requires Faith. The Truth confirms that belief and Faith. What detracter or disuader are you refering too then? Quotation of Bible verses? Or believing them to be correct?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 15:28, 6 December 2007 (EST)
:::You can't say science can prove that until a reproducible experiment is demonstrated showing that. I would also like to point out that Fundalmentalism as a concept is more recent than Evolution. It has been stated in other debates that theistic-evoultioninsts can recieve salvation. Some of the displays in the museum in question can be treated as stupid to somebody in a non-young-earth upbringing (ie: belief in an old-earth leads to abortions). I am not saying that anybody who believes in a Young-Earth is dissuading potential converts. I am saying that pushers of ID theory being taught in public schools (when it has not produced ''one'' testible hypothesis) are dissuading potential converts. Once ID theory produces a testible hypothesis, than I have to support it. Until then, no. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 09:14, 9 December 2007 (EST)
:::I'm seeing alot of logical fallacies there. The assumption of fundamentalism being more recent than the non-reproducible theory of Evolution is a mistaken one. Theistic-evolutionists receive salvation from what? The theory of evolution hasn't produced a single 'scientifically proven' hypothesis that is reproducible. But then when it is the only theory being taught then there won't be very much dissention to it, will there? This is the whole point between ID or evolutionary theorists, that neither meet any criteria of being proven. We can agree to be able to go back and forth on that point. But then how does that detract from either point of view? Other then one is officially mandated by the state? Unfalsifiable as it is.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 15:20, 9 December 2007 (EST)
:::Are you saying that salvation comes from Young-Earth creationism, Last time I checked, that was not so. Consider this: If you were God and had to reveal your entire message to Homo sapians sapians, a species that has a very short attention span, would you put in a long detailed explanation, or would you put in a simple short story that doesn't require an degree in biology to understand? --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 10:32, 17 December 2007 (EST)

::::I can tell you that salvation from spiritual death only comes from accepting that Yeshua Messiach, the Son of God, already died for your sin and conquered death. I also do not presume the role of God, since He has already given His entire message through His chosen Hebrew people whose homeland is Israel. The whole world is pretty aware of that, aren't they? No biology degree necesary to understand it unless you wish to see just how deep the rabbit hole goes. So go ahead, take the red pill Neo!--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 13:38, 19 December 2007 (EST)
:::::And I am not saying that you are wrong. Christ is Lord. you did ask "Theistic-Evolutionists receive salvation from what?" From that it sounded that you stated that belief in Creationism was a prerequisite for Salvation. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 23:46, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Ah do you reckon we can get back on topic? Do you think that young earth creationists are discouraging others from becoming christian because people they know consider YEC's to be a laughing stock? That has nothing to do with whether evolution or ID is right or wrong, falsifiable or non-falisfiable. Thanks. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 14:02, 22 December 2007
:Thanks, I would like to clarify what [[User:Bolly|nice person who posted above me]] said: This is not a debate about if Evolution is correct or not, it is asking if potential converts to Christianity are being detered by YECpov-ists. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 23:46, 1 January 2008 (EST)

==YES!==
Young Earth Creationists do indeed detract others from the faith - of Evolutionism. Here is also a warning to those who don't want to believe in the inerrant Word of God from Genesis to Revelations within the Judeo-Christian Bible: Evolutionism view is the complete opposite stance from an intelligently designed universe by a Creator. Hence why we call it universe, or single(UNI) sentence(VERSE) from which it was created. Evolutionism and the Young Earth Creation both require a religious viewpoint. The laughingstocks are those willingly ignorant of these facts, Pastor Adams. Christians who believe in Evolutionism and therefore the Humanist religion are actually apostates, or false believers. They have already renounced their faith and embraced the nemesis of Judeo-Christianity. A Created Young Earth and Evolutionism are polar opposite beliefs. You can only pick one side or the other where you will stand, and you certainly can't have both unless your just playing politics. Which is maybe what people such as Pastor Adams have chosen to become.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:44, 10 January 2008 (EST)

:Actually, Universe comes from the old French "univers" which in turn comes from the latin "universum" which is a compound of unus (meaning one) and versum (meaning somthing rolled, changed). Therefore Universe literally means "everything rolled into one." Not single sentence. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 14:02, 11 February 2008 (EST)

Yeah, I would say that YEC deters people from Christianity. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 19:42, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:{{remove personal remark|MakeTomorrow, thanks for making my point even more valid.}}--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 09:49, 12 January 2008 (EST)

::{{remove personal remark|Thank you for failing to utilize basic cognitive abilities.}} --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 10:11, 12 January 2008 (EST)

I would say yes, it does. While theories such as evolution and the Big Bang are taught in the public education system, the contrast with YEC is too stark and non-YEC tends to win. YEC apologists essentially claim that any scientific theories that conflict with the literal Biblical account must be wrong, which is where the conflict arises. Contrast this with apologists for OEC and you will find more compatibility with their religious beliefs and mainstream consensus science.

However, it should be noted that non-literal Biblical interpretation can also have negative effects on faith. While the arguments for YEC are fairly straightforward (simplified: what the Bible says is an accurate historical account and is the last word in any argument), the OEC enterpretation is theologically much more complex. This makes it more difficult to understand for the layman and subsequently faith can suffer if the opposing scientific theories are clearly promoted.

So, I'm not sure if YEC has an overall negative effect on faith. I think it might do in Europe where evolution, old earth, the Big Bang, etc. are almost universally accepted. A sudden campaign by mainstream religious leaders to push YEC would probably be met with derision and faith might be undermined. In the US, however, where YEC is comparatively common and different Christian sects are more diverse and visible, it might be considered yet another "Pick & Mix" option of their faith that can be accepted or discarded depending upon one's scientific education and preacher. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 10:36, 12 January 2008 (EST)

:We need an article comparing (1) [[Evolutionism]], (2) [[Old Earth Creationism]] and (3) [[Young Earth Creationism]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:44, 12 January 2008 (EST)

::I would accept that, Ed, if the term Evolutionism wasn't often used by YE Creationists to equate belief in evolution (and other scientific theories) with any other religion. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:00, 12 January 2008 (EST)

:I just now wrote [[Evolution and creation]]. Sorry if you don't like the terms [[evolutionism]] and [[evolutionist]]. I am using them without prejudice to indicate support for (or supporter of) the naturalistic [[theory of evolution]]. I hope the context can make clear whether any specific partisan "equates" that support with "belief in religion". [[Link title]]

::Sure, Ed. Just to clarify, I don't dislike the term. I dislike the way the term is often used by YECers to equate belief in evolution with religion. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:19, 12 January 2008 (EST)

:Hmm. That probably leads to another topic like [[Debate:Is belief in evolution equivalent to belief in religion?]] I hope to see you there. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:37, 12 January 2008 (EST)
::I have left my mark upon it :) [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:03, 12 January 2008 (EST)

An example of where YEC ''might'' detract others from the faith is evidenced in CP's very own discussion on the Theory of Evolution. See [[Talk:Theory_of_Evolution#What_if...3F|here]]. Two Christians are having a fairly acrimonious discussion over who is right, a Young Earth Creationist or a evolution-believing Roman Catholic. Phrases such as "Your god used millions of years of death and suffering to produce man." and "Hardly the work of a just and benevolent deity." This must be one of the most damaging aspects of YEC. It's dogmatic and fundamentalist, essentially claiming that if you believe in anything older than a young earth, or evolution or the Big Bang, or if you don't read the Bible literally, then you are not a true Christian. That will not only challenge the faithful but make it much harder to convince non-Christians that there's any merit in Christianity at all. Debate is one thing. Dogmatic accusations of heresy are another. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 07:53, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Yes, when religion tries to intrude upon science, it does so to the detraction of religion. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 22:49, 18 February 2008 (EST)

YEC casts God as either an intentional deceiver or at least a negligent deceiver.... that can not be true, science must guide us to the truth of God!! [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 22:23, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

==That Old Double Standard==
This whole debate perfectly frames a basic problem with both sides of the same coin of YEC and ET(Evolutionism). It is no small wonder that the problem lies with the Evolutionists. Their refusal to acknowledge that their total faith in Evolutionism belies the fact that it is religion they profess. This isn't surprising either. The foisting of the Humanist religion onto western societies advances without it having to even identify itself in a forthright manner. Nonetheless it is a religous movement whose adherents have used Evolutionism to extoll itself with. Nowhere has Evolutionism been proclaimed as a scientific fact except by those who religiously profess it. But when real scientific proof is demanded, these facts evaporate into thin air. Both YEC and ET require faith in order for them to be upheld. So when the question comes it is dependent upon which religion are you hailing from? Unfortunately it seems that there is an assumption made when religion and faith are used that is based on prejudice and ignorance. I can only request it that some presumptions be re-evaluated instead of the invocations that my religious views are right and yours aren't conundrum of that old double standard line. That is that neither one can stand without taking their polar opposite religious view first. Well, that ain't gonna happen so go ahead and continue your religious war against each other.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:37, 13 January 2008 (EST)

:I simply don't agree with that at all. Yes, there may be plenty of secularists/humanists who treat their belief system as a faith - that they can't even in principle believe in anything else because it conflicts with their beliefs that it is impossible for God to exist.

:But that is not a majority view, in my experience, of people who believe in evolution and the Big Bang.

:To repeat my illustration I made above, most people who accept the "evolutionist" theories are religious - Christians, Jews, whatever. Almost all Christians in Europe, for example, are so-called "evolutionists". This must surely preclude belief in evolution and associated theories from being a religion.

:And these theories change. YEC, as a faith position, doesn't change. The ultimate evidence for it is an unchanging literal interpretation of the Bible. Scientific theories, while often protected more than they should be, do change through application of the scientific method.

:So, while I accept that there are various militant atheists who profess belief in "evolutionism" and use it to attack religion and are therefore in some ways as religious as the "religionists" they are attacking, most people who accept the theory of evolution and the Big Bang do not fall into that category. Indeed, they are more likely to be religious than atheist. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:08, 13 January 2008 (EST)

::The majority view? I'm not concerned with the mob rule mentality of any professional culture of peers. Never did I buy into the 'that everybody else believes it so it must be true' equation. True scientific endeavor shouldn't be worried by world opinion polls but only in the truth. That after some evidences have been proven false they continue to be taught in childrens school textbooks as scientific fact is unacceptable. Evolutionism as well the Big Bang Theory have both been dead for some time now and are only being kept alive by those having the faith equal to some of the most ardent Evangelicals. But I wasn't expecting any agreement on religious points of view. Whether they be from either of the two polar opposite religious views that dominate the scientific community. The major hurdle is to whether one understands what constitutes a non-theistic or theistic religious viewpoint. Then the double standard would disolve. This is a point that some will never concede to while holding onto the commanding heights of their professions and the money keeps pouring into their pockets.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:15, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:::My comment on the majority view was in relation to the majority of people who accept evolution and the Big Bang are also religious, therefore "Evolutionism" cannot be a religion (according to my previous argument of exclusivity).

:::I don't know what you mean by evolution and the Big Bang being dead. Whatever your views on them they are the scientific consensus in their respective fields. That is not is dispute. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 13:04, 14 January 2008 (EST)

::::That's my point of being a consensus. Not to everybody. It is based on a faith in it since it still, since 1859, has not been scientifically been proven. Science, and not faith.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:14, 17 January 2008 (EST)

:::::Proof is actually an alien concept in empirical science. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 07:39, 18 January 2008 (EST)

:::This also leads to another debate, [[Debate:Is the Theory of Evolution a conspiricy?]]. Thought I should point this out. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 21:57, 7 February 2008 (EST)

::::So that we have a Scientific Dictatorship through the direction of empirical scientism. Knowledge must first be able to pass through the empirical bookkeeping systems to ensure only one type of methodology is used. In this way total control is applied to which knowledge is disseminated and which is suppressed. If it doesn't agree with certain criteria of the bookkeeper then it is discarded and marginalized. Conspirators of this Scientific Dictatorship are then able to exercise total control of all knowledge deemed acceptable for their followers to worship after. The Empirical misinformation system that is active today can be seen everywhere and at anytime in our society. Eugenics, Social Biology, Evolutionism, with the latest being the man-made global warming scam. The 'means' of the Scientific Dictatorship is knowledge while the 'end' being the total control of the society. This is where we are today.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:33, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Is "Coercive Interrogation" consistent with Christian Values?

2008-03-31T13:59:33Z

Roopilots6: /* Rebuttal to RobS */

[[Image:Brainradio.gif|thumb|right|200px|"[http://www.funtrivia.com/playquiz/quiz123084e194a8.html I must kill Frank Drebin]" ]]

"Coercive Interrogation" can refer to a number of methods currently being used in the War Against Terror. Some are "minor"(e.g. sleep deprivation), others "major" (e.g. waterboarding, physical abuse). Sometimes they are used to extract immediately vital information, sometimes for less immediate needs.
Where do Christian values intersect with these practices?

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matthew 7:12. Not consistent with waterboarding unless ye would that men should waterboard you. No exceptions made for hypothetical situations in which waterboarding someone would prevent a greater evil. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:33, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

::It's all done with mind control through brain chip implants and nowadays. We've come along way since old fashioned waterboarding. And that stuff was never needed, anyway. Heroin in your breakfast Cornflakes does the trick, they'll sell their own mother for another bowl of Cornflakes. Most of this stuff you read about waterboarding is just disinformation. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:49, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Is this a joke? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 21:08, 12 November 2007 (EST)

==No==

I just can't picture Jesus beating someone up to make them confess, or piling up naked prisoners and take a picture of it.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

All I could think of when I read the question was... "forty lashes". Although, I guess, they weren't asking questions, they were trying to get away with not executing him for the Pharisees purposes of silencing him. How can anyone even mildly versed in the stories about Jesus even think this could be a debate? [[User:Human|Human]] 02:49, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:Get people scared enough, and they can rationalize [[Holocaust|ANYTHING]], as long as it's being done to someone outside their [[Monkeysphere]]. --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 02:54, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

==Transference==
This is not even relevant for argument. Christian values are inapplicable with coercive interrogation. As unrelated to Christian values as using a bayonet on someone or flying a civilian airliner into a building full of civilians. What is being attempted here is just another attempt to attribute coercive interrogation with Christian values. Maybe we can give the Christian value attribute to ritualized decapitation, mutalization, use of human shields (non-combatants). But tell me honestly, which values did you use when someone came to murder you and your family because their leaders ordered them too? Of course there weren't any exept the value of your life over your would be killers. It is only those that hold a hatred for Christianity who will use a war that someone else is waging to devalue it. It is absolutely just another way to make political rants about two things that someone has absolutely no knowledge about. This propaganda technique is known as TRANSFER (Institute for Propaganda Analysis, 1938). This technique of trying to attribute something negative to an apposing religious view is only too common in the religion debate category and usually with all of the usual suspects.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:09, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
:I do not see anyone arguing "Christian values support torture" or even "Christians torture".... seems to me that the question under discussion is "''ought'' Christians support torture" -- and the answer immediately presents itself, '''''Thou shalt not!!''''' for "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." Matthew 25:40.... it is better that we should allow ourselves to be the recipients of torture than to inflict it upon another, better that we should allow ourselves to be murdered than murder another.... for the torture of another is a sin that will not be washed off our hands, and those that condone it, in their hearts, words, or acts, are as guilty and as condemned as those who beat, burn, and humiliate, no matter the "value" of the information sought!! [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 12:06, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
::The debate question is whether coercive interrogation is consistent with a certain ideology. Meaning are the two compatible with each other? Nothing about torture is being mentioned here, by the way. Let's not misdirect on the topic of discussion. Also that Matthew 25:40 has nothing to do with the application of coercive interrogation techniques used to save lives during a time of war is only proving one of my points perfectly. Make sure that your not wanting to sin isn't an act of sedition that causes others to suffer for it. I hope you'll see the value of this information and to apply it accordingly.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:41, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
:::What you call "coercive interrogation techniques used to save lives during a time of war" are nonetheless "coercive interrogation techniques" (and if we are not talking about torture, then what do we mean?).... if someone were to demand that you renounce your faith and blaspheme against the name of God, and threatened to kill your entire family if you refused to do so, what would you do? [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 21:04, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
::::I would've declared a war against terror on them. Oh, darn it, someone already beat me too it. I hate it when I have to make the same point over and over again. Look up 'coercive interrogation techniques' so that you will be able to tell the difference between coercion and torture. Also the differences between military combatants and religious marterdym would also be something to make a distinction between. Historically we haven't reach the point where we don't have to learn war no more.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:19, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
:::::Besides, in that line Jesus was reffering to the poor. Not Terrorists who want to kill us. Besides who is ''really'' at fault The inhuman terrorist who desires the destruction of all that we Americans hold dear (and/or Americans), or the Intelligence Officer who seeks to prevent Terrorist attacks by any means necessary. I believe that in this case, the Ends surely justify the means. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 21:45, 7 February 2008 (EST)
:::::: You're presuming guilt, Capercorn, and the only reason anyone is even pretending it's a legitimate argument is because noone has any idea what detainees' legal status actually is. If they're criminals, then they must be presumed innocent and be given due process (a fair and public trial) - this means no 'coercive interrogation'. If they're prisoners of war, they have to be treated in accord with the Geneva convention - again, no 'coercive interrogation'. Honestly, this shouldn't even be an issue. And to return to the original topic, Jesus said to turn the other cheek - or perhaps it's just that part of the Bible which isn't meant literally?[[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:08, 18 February 2008 (EST)
:::::: Is going against the very ideals of america to protect americans okay. What if you were put in jail for some perceived crime and had habeus corpus suspended so you had no trial, and no hope of getting out? Is that okay with you I mean there is a chance you could be a threat and there is no way to know unless you perform some crime. The reason the Salem witch trials are perceived as being bad is not only that they were listening to hysterical children, but the accused were presumed guilty until proven innocent. Perhaps if Americans treated the world as we love to be treated our international standing may be much better. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 00:01, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::The record of the 'worlds' standing when compared to that of the United States of America is simply pathetic. Those who love to bash the U.S. do so only because of their hatred for it. No other country has ever contributed more to the 'world' in recent history then the U.S. There is no other country that protects the rights of people better with its legal system then the United States. The United States legal system presumes innocence before guilt. Not like most of the 'world' that presumes a person guilty until they prove or buy their innocence. Such has always been the 'world'. The United States of Americas international standing is what it has always been of that shining light and bastion of freedom and liberty that sets it apart from the darkness of the rest of the 'world'.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 09:45, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

==Rebuttal to RobS==
Disinformation? The CIA admit do doing it. In a similar manner they violated Italy's soverignity by kidnapping an Imam instead of extradition being requested.[[User:AlephNull|AlephNull]] 19:03, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

::Also, the CIA which is the acronym for Central Intelligence Agency, has nothing to do with Christian values. This just in case anyone is confused with techniques of interrogation and Christian values. I'm afraid someone might be thinking of fighting a war based on Christian values. You must forgive me if I've burst someone's bubble. This might be another instance of the sheepdogs having to explain themselves to the sheep. You should read what Dave Grossman had to say on that.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 09:59, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Is "Coercive Interrogation" consistent with Christian Values?

2008-03-31T13:45:49Z

Roopilots6: /* Transference */

[[Image:Brainradio.gif|thumb|right|200px|"[http://www.funtrivia.com/playquiz/quiz123084e194a8.html I must kill Frank Drebin]" ]]

"Coercive Interrogation" can refer to a number of methods currently being used in the War Against Terror. Some are "minor"(e.g. sleep deprivation), others "major" (e.g. waterboarding, physical abuse). Sometimes they are used to extract immediately vital information, sometimes for less immediate needs.
Where do Christian values intersect with these practices?

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matthew 7:12. Not consistent with waterboarding unless ye would that men should waterboard you. No exceptions made for hypothetical situations in which waterboarding someone would prevent a greater evil. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:33, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

::It's all done with mind control through brain chip implants and nowadays. We've come along way since old fashioned waterboarding. And that stuff was never needed, anyway. Heroin in your breakfast Cornflakes does the trick, they'll sell their own mother for another bowl of Cornflakes. Most of this stuff you read about waterboarding is just disinformation. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:49, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Is this a joke? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 21:08, 12 November 2007 (EST)

==No==

I just can't picture Jesus beating someone up to make them confess, or piling up naked prisoners and take a picture of it.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

All I could think of when I read the question was... "forty lashes". Although, I guess, they weren't asking questions, they were trying to get away with not executing him for the Pharisees purposes of silencing him. How can anyone even mildly versed in the stories about Jesus even think this could be a debate? [[User:Human|Human]] 02:49, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:Get people scared enough, and they can rationalize [[Holocaust|ANYTHING]], as long as it's being done to someone outside their [[Monkeysphere]]. --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 02:54, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

==Transference==
This is not even relevant for argument. Christian values are inapplicable with coercive interrogation. As unrelated to Christian values as using a bayonet on someone or flying a civilian airliner into a building full of civilians. What is being attempted here is just another attempt to attribute coercive interrogation with Christian values. Maybe we can give the Christian value attribute to ritualized decapitation, mutalization, use of human shields (non-combatants). But tell me honestly, which values did you use when someone came to murder you and your family because their leaders ordered them too? Of course there weren't any exept the value of your life over your would be killers. It is only those that hold a hatred for Christianity who will use a war that someone else is waging to devalue it. It is absolutely just another way to make political rants about two things that someone has absolutely no knowledge about. This propaganda technique is known as TRANSFER (Institute for Propaganda Analysis, 1938). This technique of trying to attribute something negative to an apposing religious view is only too common in the religion debate category and usually with all of the usual suspects.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:09, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
:I do not see anyone arguing "Christian values support torture" or even "Christians torture".... seems to me that the question under discussion is "''ought'' Christians support torture" -- and the answer immediately presents itself, '''''Thou shalt not!!''''' for "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." Matthew 25:40.... it is better that we should allow ourselves to be the recipients of torture than to inflict it upon another, better that we should allow ourselves to be murdered than murder another.... for the torture of another is a sin that will not be washed off our hands, and those that condone it, in their hearts, words, or acts, are as guilty and as condemned as those who beat, burn, and humiliate, no matter the "value" of the information sought!! [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 12:06, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
::The debate question is whether coercive interrogation is consistent with a certain ideology. Meaning are the two compatible with each other? Nothing about torture is being mentioned here, by the way. Let's not misdirect on the topic of discussion. Also that Matthew 25:40 has nothing to do with the application of coercive interrogation techniques used to save lives during a time of war is only proving one of my points perfectly. Make sure that your not wanting to sin isn't an act of sedition that causes others to suffer for it. I hope you'll see the value of this information and to apply it accordingly.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:41, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
:::What you call "coercive interrogation techniques used to save lives during a time of war" are nonetheless "coercive interrogation techniques" (and if we are not talking about torture, then what do we mean?).... if someone were to demand that you renounce your faith and blaspheme against the name of God, and threatened to kill your entire family if you refused to do so, what would you do? [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 21:04, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
::::I would've declared a war against terror on them. Oh, darn it, someone already beat me too it. I hate it when I have to make the same point over and over again. Look up 'coercive interrogation techniques' so that you will be able to tell the difference between coercion and torture. Also the differences between military combatants and religious marterdym would also be something to make a distinction between. Historically we haven't reach the point where we don't have to learn war no more.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:19, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
:::::Besides, in that line Jesus was reffering to the poor. Not Terrorists who want to kill us. Besides who is ''really'' at fault The inhuman terrorist who desires the destruction of all that we Americans hold dear (and/or Americans), or the Intelligence Officer who seeks to prevent Terrorist attacks by any means necessary. I believe that in this case, the Ends surely justify the means. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 21:45, 7 February 2008 (EST)
:::::: You're presuming guilt, Capercorn, and the only reason anyone is even pretending it's a legitimate argument is because noone has any idea what detainees' legal status actually is. If they're criminals, then they must be presumed innocent and be given due process (a fair and public trial) - this means no 'coercive interrogation'. If they're prisoners of war, they have to be treated in accord with the Geneva convention - again, no 'coercive interrogation'. Honestly, this shouldn't even be an issue. And to return to the original topic, Jesus said to turn the other cheek - or perhaps it's just that part of the Bible which isn't meant literally?[[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:08, 18 February 2008 (EST)
:::::: Is going against the very ideals of america to protect americans okay. What if you were put in jail for some perceived crime and had habeus corpus suspended so you had no trial, and no hope of getting out? Is that okay with you I mean there is a chance you could be a threat and there is no way to know unless you perform some crime. The reason the Salem witch trials are perceived as being bad is not only that they were listening to hysterical children, but the accused were presumed guilty until proven innocent. Perhaps if Americans treated the world as we love to be treated our international standing may be much better. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 00:01, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::The record of the 'worlds' standing when compared to that of the United States of America is simply pathetic. Those who love to bash the U.S. do so only because of their hatred for it. No other country has ever contributed more to the 'world' in recent history then the U.S. There is no other country that protects the rights of people better with its legal system then the United States. The United States legal system presumes innocence before guilt. Not like most of the 'world' that presumes a person guilty until they prove or buy their innocence. Such has always been the 'world'. The United States of Americas international standing is what it has always been of that shining light and bastion of freedom and liberty that sets it apart from the darkness of the rest of the 'world'.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 09:45, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

==Rebuttal to RobS==
Disinformation? The CIA admit do doing it. In a similar manner they violated Italy's soverignity by kidnapping an Imam instead of extradition being requested.[[User:AlephNull|AlephNull]] 19:03, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Are Young Earth Creationists detracting others from the Faith?

2008-01-17T16:14:24Z

Roopilots6: /* That Old Double Standard */

{{debate}}
The reason I ask this is in referance to a quote about six paragraphs down [http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070427/27114_Protests_Planned_for_Grand_Opening_of_Creation_Museum.htm here]. Are Young-Earth Creationists causing others to not convert? Asking opinions. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 14:59, 26 November 2007 (EST)
:The quote in question is this: ''"My brothers and sisters in the faith who embrace [the creationist] understanding call into question the whole Christian concept," expressed the Rev. Mendle Adams, pastor of St. Peter's United Church of Christ in Cincinnati, according to the Enquirer. "They make us a laughingstock.”'' --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 18:37, 26 November 2007 (EST)

==NO!==
Members of church denominations that tote the politically correct mantra no longer have the "Faith". For that, they have become the laughingstocks. They have already gone with the way of the world and abandoned the Word of God. They have chosen to join the apostate church which has turned against our Heavenly Father so that they worship at the alter of the god of this age and of this current world. If the truth makes you a laughingstock then first you should make sure those doing the laughing aren't just plain nuts. Mostly though, reverend Adams statement is illogical in that he professes a certain faith in Creator while in the same breath denouncing HIM! Maybe, in fact, that is what people are laughing at? "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator who is forever praised. Amen" Romans 2:25 So for some people the BIG LIE is easier to believe then the TRUTH.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:55, 2 December 2007 (EST)
:But that is not what I asked, I asked if Young-Earth creationists are disuading others to convert to Christianity, not which belief is correct. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 14:15, 3 December 2007 (EST)
::The correct Faith? Isn't that the point of the museum? If you don't believe then you won't have Faith. Being able to prove your beliefs won't detract others. Showing how a younger earth can be scientifically proven would have the effect of attracting more believers. Belief requires Faith. The Truth confirms that belief and Faith. What detracter or disuader are you refering too then? Quotation of Bible verses? Or believing them to be correct?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 15:28, 6 December 2007 (EST)
:::You can't say science can prove that until a reproducible experiment is demonstrated showing that. I would also like to point out that Fundalmentalism as a concept is more recent than Evolution. It has been stated in other debates that theistic-evoultioninsts can recieve salvation. Some of the displays in the museum in question can be treated as stupid to somebody in a non-young-earth upbringing (ie: belief in an old-earth leads to abortions). I am not saying that anybody who believes in a Young-Earth is dissuading potential converts. I am saying that pushers of ID theory being taught in public schools (when it has not produced ''one'' testible hypothesis) are dissuading potential converts. Once ID theory produces a testible hypothesis, than I have to support it. Until then, no. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 09:14, 9 December 2007 (EST)
:::I'm seeing alot of logical fallacies there. The assumption of fundamentalism being more recent than the non-reproducible theory of Evolution is a mistaken one. Theistic-evolutionists receive salvation from what? The theory of evolution hasn't produced a single 'scientifically proven' hypothesis that is reproducible. But then when it is the only theory being taught then there won't be very much dissention to it, will there? This is the whole point between ID or evolutionary theorists, that neither meet any criteria of being proven. We can agree to be able to go back and forth on that point. But then how does that detract from either point of view? Other then one is officially mandated by the state? Unfalsifiable as it is.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 15:20, 9 December 2007 (EST)
:::Are you saying that salvation comes from Young-Earth creationism, Last time I checked, that was not so. Consider this: If you were God and had to reveal your entire message to Homo sapians sapians, a species that has a very short attention span, would you put in a long detailed explanation, or would you put in a simple short story that doesn't require an degree in biology to understand? --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 10:32, 17 December 2007 (EST)

::::I can tell you that salvation from spiritual death only comes from accepting that Yeshua Messiach, the Son of God, already died for your sin and conquered death. I also do not presume the role of God, since He has already given His entire message through His chosen Hebrew people whose homeland is Israel. The whole world is pretty aware of that, aren't they? No biology degree necesary to understand it unless you wish to see just how deep the rabbit hole goes. So go ahead, take the red pill Neo!--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 13:38, 19 December 2007 (EST)
:::::And I am not saying that you are wrong. Christ is Lord. you did ask "Theistic-Evolutionists receive salvation from what?" From that it sounded that you stated that belief in Creationism was a prerequisite for Salvation. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 23:46, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Ah do you reckon we can get back on topic? Do you think that young earth creationists are discouraging others from becoming christian because people they know consider YEC's to be a laughing stock? That has nothing to do with whether evolution or ID is right or wrong, falsifiable or non-falisfiable. Thanks. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 14:02, 22 December 2007
:Thanks, I would like to clarify what [[User:Bolly|nice person who posted above me]] said: This is not a debate about if Evolution is correct or not, it is asking if potential converts to Christianity are being detered by YECpov-ists. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 23:46, 1 January 2008 (EST)

==YES!==
Young Earth Creationists do indeed detract others from the faith - of Evolutionism. Here is also a warning to those who don't want to believe in the inerrant Word of God from Genesis to Revelations within the Judeo-Christian Bible: Evolutionism view is the complete opposite stance from an intelligently designed universe by a Creator. Hence why we call it universe, or single(UNI) sentence(VERSE) from which it was created. Evolutionism and the Young Earth Creation both require a religious viewpoint. The laughingstocks are those willingly ignorant of these facts, Pastor Adams. Christians who believe in Evolutionism and therefore the Humanist religion are actually apostates, or false believers. They have already renounced their faith and embraced the nemesis of Judeo-Christianity. A Created Young Earth and Evolutionism are polar opposite beliefs. You can only pick one side or the other where you will stand, and you certainly can't have both unless your just playing politics. Which is maybe what people such as Pastor Adams have chosen to become.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:44, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Yeah, I would say that YEC deters people from Christianity. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 19:42, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:{{remove personal remark|MakeTomorrow, thanks for making my point even more valid.}}--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 09:49, 12 January 2008 (EST)

::{{remove personal remark|Thank you for failing to utilize basic cognitive abilities.}} --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 10:11, 12 January 2008 (EST)

I would say yes, it does. While theories such as evolution and the Big Bang are taught in the public education system, the contrast with YEC is too stark and non-YEC tends to win. YEC apologists essentially claim that any scientific theories that conflict with the literal Biblical account must be wrong, which is where the conflict arises. Contrast this with apologists for OEC and you will find more compatibility with their religious beliefs and mainstream consensus science.

However, it should be noted that non-literal Biblical interpretation can also have negative effects on faith. While the arguments for YEC are fairly straightforward (simplified: what the Bible says is an accurate historical account and is the last word in any argument), the OEC enterpretation is theologically much more complex. This makes it more difficult to understand for the layman and subsequently faith can suffer if the opposing scientific theories are clearly promoted.

So, I'm not sure if YEC has an overall negative effect on faith. I think it might do in Europe where evolution, old earth, the Big Bang, etc. are almost universally accepted. A sudden campaign by mainstream religious leaders to push YEC would probably be met with derision and faith might be undermined. In the US, however, where YEC is comparatively common and different Christian sects are more diverse and visible, it might be considered yet another "Pick & Mix" option of their faith that can be accepted or discarded depending upon one's scientific education and preacher. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 10:36, 12 January 2008 (EST)

:We need an article comparing (1) [[Evolutionism]], (2) [[Old Earth Creationism]] and (3) [[Young Earth Creationism]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:44, 12 January 2008 (EST)

::I would accept that, Ed, if the term Evolutionism wasn't often used by YE Creationists to equate belief in evolution (and other scientific theories) with any other religion. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:00, 12 January 2008 (EST)

:I just now wrote [[Evolution and creation]]. Sorry if you don't like the terms [[evolutionism]] and [[evolutionist]]. I am using them without prejudice to indicate support for (or supporter of) the naturalistic [[theory of evolution]]. I hope the context can make clear whether any specific partisan "equates" that support with "belief in religion". [[Link title]]

::Sure, Ed. Just to clarify, I don't dislike the term. I dislike the way the term is often used by YECers to equate belief in evolution with religion. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:19, 12 January 2008 (EST)

:Hmm. That probably leads to another topic like [[Debate:Is belief in evolution equivalent to belief in religion?]] I hope to see you there. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:37, 12 January 2008 (EST)
::I have left my mark upon it :) [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:03, 12 January 2008 (EST)

==That Old Double Standard==
This whole debate perfectly frames a basic problem with both sides of the same coin of YEC and ET(Evolutionism). It is no small wonder that the problem lies with the Evolutionists. Their refusal to acknowledge that their total faith in Evolutionism belies the fact that it is religion they profess. This isn't surprising either. The foisting of the Humanist religion onto western societies advances without it having to even identify itself in a forthright manner. Nonetheless it is a religous movement whose adherents have used Evolutionism to extoll itself with. Nowhere has Evolutionism been proclaimed as a scientific fact except by those who religiously profess it. But when real scientific proof is demanded, these facts evaporate into thin air. Both YEC and ET require faith in order for them to be upheld. So when the question comes it is dependent upon which religion are you hailing from? Unfortunately it seems that there is an assumption made when religion and faith are used that is based on prejudice and ignorance. I can only request it that some presumptions be re-evaluated instead of the invocations that my religious views are right and yours aren't conundrum of that old double standard line. That is that neither one can stand without taking their polar opposite religious view first. Well, that ain't gonna happen so go ahead and continue your religious war against each other.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:37, 13 January 2008 (EST)

:I simply don't agree with that at all. Yes, there may be plenty of secularists/humanists who treat their belief system as a faith - that they can't even in principle believe in anything else because it conflicts with their beliefs that it is impossible for God to exist.

:But that is not a majority view, in my experience, of people who believe in evolution and the Big Bang.

:To repeat my illustration I made above, most people who accept the "evolutionist" theories are religious - Christians, Jews, whatever. Almost all Christians in Europe, for example, are so-called "evolutionists". This must surely preclude belief in evolution and associated theories from being a religion.

:And these theories change. YEC, as a faith position, doesn't change. The ultimate evidence for it is an unchanging literal interpretation of the Bible. Scientific theories, while often protected more than they should be, do change through application of the scientific method.

:So, while I accept that there are various militant atheists who profess belief in "evolutionism" and use it to attack religion and are therefore in some ways as religious as the "religionists" they are attacking, most people who accept the theory of evolution and the Big Bang do not fall into that category. Indeed, they are more likely to be religious than atheist. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:08, 13 January 2008 (EST)

::The majority view? I'm not concerned with the mob rule mentality of any professional culture of peers. Never did I buy into the 'that everybody else believes it so it must be true' equation. True scientific endeavor shouldn't be worried by world opinion polls but only in the truth. That after some evidences have been proven false they continue to be taught in childrens school textbooks as scientific fact is unacceptable. Evolutionism as well the Big Bang Theory have both been dead for some time now and are only being kept alive by those having the faith equal to some of the most ardent Evangelicals. But I wasn't expecting any agreement on religious points of view. Whether they be from either of the two polar opposite religious views that dominate the scientific community. The major hurdle is to whether one understands what constitutes a non-theistic or theistic religious viewpoint. Then the double standard would disolve. This is a point that some will never concede to while holding onto the commanding heights of their professions and the money keeps pouring into their pockets.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:15, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:::My comment on the majority view was in relation to the majority of people who accept evolution and the Big Bang are also religious, therefore "Evolutionism" cannot be a religion (according to my previous argument of exclusivity).

:::I don't know what you mean by evolution and the Big Bang being dead. Whatever your views on them they are the scientific consensus in their respective fields. That is not is dispute. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 13:04, 14 January 2008 (EST)

::::That's my point of being a consensus. Not to everybody. It is based on a faith in it since it still, since 1859, has not been scientifically been proven. Science, and not faith.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:14, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Debate:Are Young Earth Creationists detracting others from the Faith?

2008-01-14T17:17:49Z

Roopilots6: /* That Old Double Standard */

{{debate}}
The reason I ask this is in referance to a quote about six paragraphs down [http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070427/27114_Protests_Planned_for_Grand_Opening_of_Creation_Museum.htm here]. Are Young-Earth Creationists causing others to not convert? Asking opinions. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 14:59, 26 November 2007 (EST)
:The quote in question is this: ''"My brothers and sisters in the faith who embrace [the creationist] understanding call into question the whole Christian concept," expressed the Rev. Mendle Adams, pastor of St. Peter's United Church of Christ in Cincinnati, according to the Enquirer. "They make us a laughingstock.”'' --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 18:37, 26 November 2007 (EST)

==NO!==
Members of church denominations that tote the politically correct mantra no longer have the "Faith". For that, they have become the laughingstocks. They have already gone with the way of the world and abandoned the Word of God. They have chosen to join the apostate church which has turned against our Heavenly Father so that they worship at the alter of the god of this age and of this current world. If the truth makes you a laughingstock then first you should make sure those doing the laughing aren't just plain nuts. Mostly though, reverend Adams statement is illogical in that he professes a certain faith in Creator while in the same breath denouncing HIM! Maybe, in fact, that is what people are laughing at? "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator who is forever praised. Amen" Romans 2:25 So for some people the BIG LIE is easier to believe then the TRUTH.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:55, 2 December 2007 (EST)
:But that is not what I asked, I asked if Young-Earth creationists are disuading others to convert to Christianity, not which belief is correct. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 14:15, 3 December 2007 (EST)
::The correct Faith? Isn't that the point of the museum? If you don't believe then you won't have Faith. Being able to prove your beliefs won't detract others. Showing how a younger earth can be scientifically proven would have the effect of attracting more believers. Belief requires Faith. The Truth confirms that belief and Faith. What detracter or disuader are you refering too then? Quotation of Bible verses? Or believing them to be correct?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 15:28, 6 December 2007 (EST)
:::You can't say science can prove that until a reproducible experiment is demonstrated showing that. I would also like to point out that Fundalmentalism as a concept is more recent than Evolution. It has been stated in other debates that theistic-evoultioninsts can recieve salvation. Some of the displays in the museum in question can be treated as stupid to somebody in a non-young-earth upbringing (ie: belief in an old-earth leads to abortions). I am not saying that anybody who believes in a Young-Earth is dissuading potential converts. I am saying that pushers of ID theory being taught in public schools (when it has not produced ''one'' testible hypothesis) are dissuading potential converts. Once ID theory produces a testible hypothesis, than I have to support it. Until then, no. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 09:14, 9 December 2007 (EST)
:::I'm seeing alot of logical fallacies there. The assumption of fundamentalism being more recent than the non-reproducible theory of Evolution is a mistaken one. Theistic-evolutionists receive salvation from what? The theory of evolution hasn't produced a single 'scientifically proven' hypothesis that is reproducible. But then when it is the only theory being taught then there won't be very much dissention to it, will there? This is the whole point between ID or evolutionary theorists, that neither meet any criteria of being proven. We can agree to be able to go back and forth on that point. But then how does that detract from either point of view? Other then one is officially mandated by the state? Unfalsifiable as it is.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 15:20, 9 December 2007 (EST)
:::Are you saying that salvation comes from Young-Earth creationism, Last time I checked, that was not so. Consider this: If you were God and had to reveal your entire message to Homo sapians sapians, a species that has a very short attention span, would you put in a long detailed explanation, or would you put in a simple short story that doesn't require an degree in biology to understand? --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 10:32, 17 December 2007 (EST)

::::I can tell you that salvation from spiritual death only comes from accepting that Yeshua Messiach, the Son of God, already died for your sin and conquered death. I also do not presume the role of God, since He has already given His entire message through His chosen Hebrew people whose homeland is Israel. The whole world is pretty aware of that, aren't they? No biology degree necesary to understand it unless you wish to see just how deep the rabbit hole goes. So go ahead, take the red pill Neo!--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 13:38, 19 December 2007 (EST)
:::::And I am not saying that you are wrong. Christ is Lord. you did ask "Theistic-Evolutionists receive salvation from what?" From that it sounded that you stated that belief in Creationism was a prerequisite for Salvation. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 23:46, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Ah do you reckon we can get back on topic? Do you think that young earth creationists are discouraging others from becoming christian because people they know consider YEC's to be a laughing stock? That has nothing to do with whether evolution or ID is right or wrong, falsifiable or non-falisfiable. Thanks. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 14:02, 22 December 2007
:Thanks, I would like to clarify what [[User:Bolly|nice person who posted above me]] said: This is not a debate about if Evolution is correct or not, it is asking if potential converts to Christianity are being detered by YECpov-ists. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 23:46, 1 January 2008 (EST)

==YES!==
Young Earth Creationists do indeed detract others from the faith - of Evolutionism. Here is also a warning to those who don't want to believe in the inerrant Word of God from Genesis to Revelations within the Judeo-Christian Bible: Evolutionism view is the complete opposite stance from an intelligently designed universe by a Creator. Hence why we call it universe, or single(UNI) sentence(VERSE) from which it was created. Evolutionism and the Young Earth Creation both require a religious viewpoint. The laughingstocks are those willingly ignorant of these facts, Pastor Adams. Christians who believe in Evolutionism and therefore the Humanist religion are actually apostates, or false believers. They have already renounced their faith and embraced the nemesis of Judeo-Christianity. A Created Young Earth and Evolutionism are polar opposite beliefs. You can only pick one side or the other where you will stand, and you certainly can't have both unless your just playing politics. Which is maybe what people such as Pastor Adams have chosen to become.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:44, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Yeah, I would say that YEC deters people from Christianity. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 19:42, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:{{remove personal remark|MakeTomorrow, thanks for making my point even more valid.}}--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 09:49, 12 January 2008 (EST)

::{{remove personal remark|Thank you for failing to utilize basic cognitive abilities.}} --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 10:11, 12 January 2008 (EST)

I would say yes, it does. While theories such as evolution and the Big Bang are taught in the public education system, the contrast with YEC is too stark and non-YEC tends to win. YEC apologists essentially claim that any scientific theories that conflict with the literal Biblical account must be wrong, which is where the conflict arises. Contrast this with apologists for OEC and you will find more compatibility with their religious beliefs and mainstream consensus science.

However, it should be noted that non-literal Biblical interpretation can also have negative effects on faith. While the arguments for YEC are fairly straightforward (simplified: what the Bible says is an accurate historical account and is the last word in any argument), the OEC enterpretation is theologically much more complex. This makes it more difficult to understand for the layman and subsequently faith can suffer if the opposing scientific theories are clearly promoted.

So, I'm not sure if YEC has an overall negative effect on faith. I think it might do in Europe where evolution, old earth, the Big Bang, etc. are almost universally accepted. A sudden campaign by mainstream religious leaders to push YEC would probably be met with derision and faith might be undermined. In the US, however, where YEC is comparatively common and different Christian sects are more diverse and visible, it might be considered yet another "Pick & Mix" option of their faith that can be accepted or discarded depending upon one's scientific education and preacher. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 10:36, 12 January 2008 (EST)

:We need an article comparing (1) [[Evolutionism]], (2) [[Old Earth Creationism]] and (3) [[Young Earth Creationism]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:44, 12 January 2008 (EST)

::I would accept that, Ed, if the term Evolutionism wasn't often used by YE Creationists to equate belief in evolution (and other scientific theories) with any other religion. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:00, 12 January 2008 (EST)

:I just now wrote [[Evolution and creation]]. Sorry if you don't like the terms [[evolutionism]] and [[evolutionist]]. I am using them without prejudice to indicate support for (or supporter of) the naturalistic [[theory of evolution]]. I hope the context can make clear whether any specific partisan "equates" that support with "belief in religion". [[Link title]]

::Sure, Ed. Just to clarify, I don't dislike the term. I dislike the way the term is often used by YECers to equate belief in evolution with religion. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:19, 12 January 2008 (EST)

:Hmm. That probably leads to another topic like [[Debate:Is belief in evolution equivalent to belief in religion?]] I hope to see you there. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:37, 12 January 2008 (EST)
::I have left my mark upon it :) [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:03, 12 January 2008 (EST)

==That Old Double Standard==
This whole debate perfectly frames a basic problem with both sides of the same coin of YEC and ET(Evolutionism). It is no small wonder that the problem lies with the Evolutionists. Their refusal to acknowledge that their total faith in Evolutionism belies the fact that it is religion they profess. This isn't surprising either. The foisting of the Humanist religion onto western societies advances without it having to even identify itself in a forthright manner. Nonetheless it is a religous movement whose adherents have used Evolutionism to extoll itself with. Nowhere has Evolutionism been proclaimed as a scientific fact except by those who religiously profess it. But when real scientific proof is demanded, these facts evaporate into thin air. Both YEC and ET require faith in order for them to be upheld. So when the question comes it is dependent upon which religion are you hailing from? Unfortunately it seems that there is an assumption made when religion and faith are used that is based on prejudice and ignorance. I can only request it that some presumptions be re-evaluated instead of the invocations that my religious views are right and yours aren't conundrum of that old double standard line. That is that neither one can stand without taking their polar opposite religious view first. Well, that ain't gonna happen so go ahead and continue your religious war against each other.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:37, 13 January 2008 (EST)

:I simply don't agree with that at all. Yes, there may be plenty of secularists/humanists who treat their belief system as a faith - that they can't even in principle believe in anything else because it conflicts with their beliefs that it is impossible for God to exist.

:But that is not a majority view, in my experience, of people who believe in evolution and the Big Bang.

:To repeat my illustration I made above, most people who accept the "evolutionist" theories are religious - Christians, Jews, whatever. Almost all Christians in Europe, for example, are so-called "evolutionists". This must surely preclude belief in evolution and associated theories from being a religion.

:And these theories change. YEC, as a faith position, doesn't change. The ultimate evidence for it is an unchanging literal interpretation of the Bible. Scientific theories, while often protected more than they should be, do change through application of the scientific method.

:So, while I accept that there are various militant atheists who profess belief in "evolutionism" and use it to attack religion and are therefore in some ways as religious as the "religionists" they are attacking, most people who accept the theory of evolution and the Big Bang do not fall into that category. Indeed, they are more likely to be religious than atheist. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:08, 13 January 2008 (EST)

::The majority view? I'm not concerned with the mob rule mentality of any professional culture of peers. Never did I buy into the 'that everybody else believes it so it must be true' equation. True scientific endeavor shouldn't be worried by world opinion polls but only in the truth. That after some evidences have been proven false they continue to be taught in childrens school textbooks as scientific fact is unacceptable. Evolutionism as well the Big Bang Theory have both been dead for some time now and are only being kept alive by those having the faith equal to some of the most ardent Evangelicals. But I wasn't expecting any agreement on religious points of view. Whether they be from either of the two polar opposite religious views that dominate the scientific community. The major hurdle is to whether one understands what constitutes a non-theistic or theistic religious viewpoint. Then the double standard would disolve. This is a point that some will never concede to while holding onto the commanding heights of their professions and the money keeps pouring into their pockets.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:15, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Debate:Are Young Earth Creationists detracting others from the Faith?

2008-01-14T17:15:07Z

Roopilots6: /* That Old Double Standard */

{{debate}}
The reason I ask this is in referance to a quote about six paragraphs down [http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070427/27114_Protests_Planned_for_Grand_Opening_of_Creation_Museum.htm here]. Are Young-Earth Creationists causing others to not convert? Asking opinions. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 14:59, 26 November 2007 (EST)
:The quote in question is this: ''"My brothers and sisters in the faith who embrace [the creationist] understanding call into question the whole Christian concept," expressed the Rev. Mendle Adams, pastor of St. Peter's United Church of Christ in Cincinnati, according to the Enquirer. "They make us a laughingstock.”'' --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 18:37, 26 November 2007 (EST)

==NO!==
Members of church denominations that tote the politically correct mantra no longer have the "Faith". For that, they have become the laughingstocks. They have already gone with the way of the world and abandoned the Word of God. They have chosen to join the apostate church which has turned against our Heavenly Father so that they worship at the alter of the god of this age and of this current world. If the truth makes you a laughingstock then first you should make sure those doing the laughing aren't just plain nuts. Mostly though, reverend Adams statement is illogical in that he professes a certain faith in Creator while in the same breath denouncing HIM! Maybe, in fact, that is what people are laughing at? "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator who is forever praised. Amen" Romans 2:25 So for some people the BIG LIE is easier to believe then the TRUTH.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:55, 2 December 2007 (EST)
:But that is not what I asked, I asked if Young-Earth creationists are disuading others to convert to Christianity, not which belief is correct. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 14:15, 3 December 2007 (EST)
::The correct Faith? Isn't that the point of the museum? If you don't believe then you won't have Faith. Being able to prove your beliefs won't detract others. Showing how a younger earth can be scientifically proven would have the effect of attracting more believers. Belief requires Faith. The Truth confirms that belief and Faith. What detracter or disuader are you refering too then? Quotation of Bible verses? Or believing them to be correct?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 15:28, 6 December 2007 (EST)
:::You can't say science can prove that until a reproducible experiment is demonstrated showing that. I would also like to point out that Fundalmentalism as a concept is more recent than Evolution. It has been stated in other debates that theistic-evoultioninsts can recieve salvation. Some of the displays in the museum in question can be treated as stupid to somebody in a non-young-earth upbringing (ie: belief in an old-earth leads to abortions). I am not saying that anybody who believes in a Young-Earth is dissuading potential converts. I am saying that pushers of ID theory being taught in public schools (when it has not produced ''one'' testible hypothesis) are dissuading potential converts. Once ID theory produces a testible hypothesis, than I have to support it. Until then, no. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 09:14, 9 December 2007 (EST)
:::I'm seeing alot of logical fallacies there. The assumption of fundamentalism being more recent than the non-reproducible theory of Evolution is a mistaken one. Theistic-evolutionists receive salvation from what? The theory of evolution hasn't produced a single 'scientifically proven' hypothesis that is reproducible. But then when it is the only theory being taught then there won't be very much dissention to it, will there? This is the whole point between ID or evolutionary theorists, that neither meet any criteria of being proven. We can agree to be able to go back and forth on that point. But then how does that detract from either point of view? Other then one is officially mandated by the state? Unfalsifiable as it is.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 15:20, 9 December 2007 (EST)
:::Are you saying that salvation comes from Young-Earth creationism, Last time I checked, that was not so. Consider this: If you were God and had to reveal your entire message to Homo sapians sapians, a species that has a very short attention span, would you put in a long detailed explanation, or would you put in a simple short story that doesn't require an degree in biology to understand? --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 10:32, 17 December 2007 (EST)

::::I can tell you that salvation from spiritual death only comes from accepting that Yeshua Messiach, the Son of God, already died for your sin and conquered death. I also do not presume the role of God, since He has already given His entire message through His chosen Hebrew people whose homeland is Israel. The whole world is pretty aware of that, aren't they? No biology degree necesary to understand it unless you wish to see just how deep the rabbit hole goes. So go ahead, take the red pill Neo!--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 13:38, 19 December 2007 (EST)
:::::And I am not saying that you are wrong. Christ is Lord. you did ask "Theistic-Evolutionists receive salvation from what?" From that it sounded that you stated that belief in Creationism was a prerequisite for Salvation. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 23:46, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Ah do you reckon we can get back on topic? Do you think that young earth creationists are discouraging others from becoming christian because people they know consider YEC's to be a laughing stock? That has nothing to do with whether evolution or ID is right or wrong, falsifiable or non-falisfiable. Thanks. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 14:02, 22 December 2007
:Thanks, I would like to clarify what [[User:Bolly|nice person who posted above me]] said: This is not a debate about if Evolution is correct or not, it is asking if potential converts to Christianity are being detered by YECpov-ists. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 23:46, 1 January 2008 (EST)

==YES!==
Young Earth Creationists do indeed detract others from the faith - of Evolutionism. Here is also a warning to those who don't want to believe in the inerrant Word of God from Genesis to Revelations within the Judeo-Christian Bible: Evolutionism view is the complete opposite stance from an intelligently designed universe by a Creator. Hence why we call it universe, or single(UNI) sentence(VERSE) from which it was created. Evolutionism and the Young Earth Creation both require a religious viewpoint. The laughingstocks are those willingly ignorant of these facts, Pastor Adams. Christians who believe in Evolutionism and therefore the Humanist religion are actually apostates, or false believers. They have already renounced their faith and embraced the nemesis of Judeo-Christianity. A Created Young Earth and Evolutionism are polar opposite beliefs. You can only pick one side or the other where you will stand, and you certainly can't have both unless your just playing politics. Which is maybe what people such as Pastor Adams have chosen to become.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:44, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Yeah, I would say that YEC deters people from Christianity. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 19:42, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:{{remove personal remark|MakeTomorrow, thanks for making my point even more valid.}}--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 09:49, 12 January 2008 (EST)

::{{remove personal remark|Thank you for failing to utilize basic cognitive abilities.}} --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 10:11, 12 January 2008 (EST)

I would say yes, it does. While theories such as evolution and the Big Bang are taught in the public education system, the contrast with YEC is too stark and non-YEC tends to win. YEC apologists essentially claim that any scientific theories that conflict with the literal Biblical account must be wrong, which is where the conflict arises. Contrast this with apologists for OEC and you will find more compatibility with their religious beliefs and mainstream consensus science.

However, it should be noted that non-literal Biblical interpretation can also have negative effects on faith. While the arguments for YEC are fairly straightforward (simplified: what the Bible says is an accurate historical account and is the last word in any argument), the OEC enterpretation is theologically much more complex. This makes it more difficult to understand for the layman and subsequently faith can suffer if the opposing scientific theories are clearly promoted.

So, I'm not sure if YEC has an overall negative effect on faith. I think it might do in Europe where evolution, old earth, the Big Bang, etc. are almost universally accepted. A sudden campaign by mainstream religious leaders to push YEC would probably be met with derision and faith might be undermined. In the US, however, where YEC is comparatively common and different Christian sects are more diverse and visible, it might be considered yet another "Pick & Mix" option of their faith that can be accepted or discarded depending upon one's scientific education and preacher. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 10:36, 12 January 2008 (EST)

:We need an article comparing (1) [[Evolutionism]], (2) [[Old Earth Creationism]] and (3) [[Young Earth Creationism]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:44, 12 January 2008 (EST)

::I would accept that, Ed, if the term Evolutionism wasn't often used by YE Creationists to equate belief in evolution (and other scientific theories) with any other religion. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:00, 12 January 2008 (EST)

:I just now wrote [[Evolution and creation]]. Sorry if you don't like the terms [[evolutionism]] and [[evolutionist]]. I am using them without prejudice to indicate support for (or supporter of) the naturalistic [[theory of evolution]]. I hope the context can make clear whether any specific partisan "equates" that support with "belief in religion". [[Link title]]

::Sure, Ed. Just to clarify, I don't dislike the term. I dislike the way the term is often used by YECers to equate belief in evolution with religion. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:19, 12 January 2008 (EST)

:Hmm. That probably leads to another topic like [[Debate:Is belief in evolution equivalent to belief in religion?]] I hope to see you there. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:37, 12 January 2008 (EST)
::I have left my mark upon it :) [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:03, 12 January 2008 (EST)

==That Old Double Standard==
This whole debate perfectly frames a basic problem with both sides of the same coin of YEC and ET(Evolutionism). It is no small wonder that the problem lies with the Evolutionists. Their refusal to acknowledge that their total faith in Evolutionism belies the fact that it is religion they profess. This isn't surprising either. The foisting of the Humanist religion onto western societies advances without it having to even identify itself in a forthright manner. Nonetheless it is a religous movement whose adherents have used Evolutionism to extoll itself with. Nowhere has Evolutionism been proclaimed as a scientific fact except by those who religiously profess it. But when real scientific proof is demanded, these facts evaporate into thin air. Both YEC and ET require faith in order for them to be upheld. So when the question comes it is dependent upon which religion are you hailing from? Unfortunately it seems that there is an assumption made when religion and faith are used that is based on prejudice and ignorance. I can only request it that some presumptions be re-evaluated instead of the invocations that my religious views are right and yours aren't conundrum of that old double standard line. That is that neither one can stand without taking their polar opposite religious view first. Well, that ain't gonna happen so go ahead and continue your religious war against each other.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:37, 13 January 2008 (EST)

:I simply don't agree with that at all. Yes, there may be plenty of secularists/humanists who treat their belief system as a faith - that they can't even in principle believe in anything else because it conflicts with their beliefs that it is impossible for God to exist.

:But that is not a majority view, in my experience, of people who believe in evolution and the Big Bang.

:To repeat my illustration I made above, most people who accept the "evolutionist" theories are religious - Christians, Jews, whatever. Almost all Christians in Europe, for example, are so-called "evolutionists". This must surely preclude belief in evolution and associated theories from being a religion.

:And these theories change. YEC, as a faith position, doesn't change. The ultimate evidence for it is an unchanging literal interpretation of the Bible. Scientific theories, while often protected more than they should be, do change through application of the scientific method.

:So, while I accept that there are various militant atheists who profess belief in "evolutionism" and use it to attack religion and are therefore in some ways as religious as the "religionists" they are attacking, most people who accept the theory of evolution and the Big Bang do not fall into that category. Indeed, they are more likely to be religious than atheist. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:08, 13 January 2008 (EST)

::The majority view? I'm not concerned with the mob rule mentality of any professional culture of peers. Never did I buy into the 'that everybody else believes it so it must be true' equation. True scientific endeavor shouldn't be worried by world opinion polls but only in the truth. Even after these views have been proven false they continue to be taught in childrens school textbooks as scientific fact is unacceptable. Evolutionism as well the Big Bang Theory have both been dead for some time now and are only being kept alive by those having the faith equal to some of the most ardent Evangelicals. But I wasn't expecting any agreement on religious points of view. Whether they be from either of the two polar opposite religious views that dominate the scientific community. The major hurdle is to whether one understands what constitutes a non-theistic or theistic religious viewpoint. Then the double standard would disolve. This is a point that some will never concede to while holding onto the commanding heights of their professions and the money keeps pouring into their pockets.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:15, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Debate:Are Young Earth Creationists detracting others from the Faith?

2008-01-13T16:37:39Z

Roopilots6:

Debate:Are Young Earth Creationists detracting others from the Faith?

2008-01-12T14:50:35Z

Roopilots6: /* YES! */