Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Compassion

2009-04-16T13:08:14Z

SKierkegaard:

'''Compassion''' is a [[Christian]] [[virtue]] that involves sympathizing and empathizing with the troubles of others. This has been co-opted by liberals to include 'compassion' for terrorists, criminals, gays, prostitutes, single mothers, atheists, socialists, anarchists, pacifists, Muslims etc. Christian compassion is far more disciplined, and extends only as far as fellow conservatives.

[[Category:Virtues]]

Hallucination

2009-04-04T15:02:04Z

SKierkegaard:

A '''hallucination''' is a sensation of something which is not real. Most commonly, hallucinations are auditory (e.g., hearing voices), but visual and tactile hallucinations also occur.

Hallucinations can be caused by [[psychosis|psychotic]] disorders (e.g., [[schizophrenia]], [[schizoaffective disorder]], [[schizophreniform disorder]]) as well as hallucinogenic [[drugs]]. Some religious experiences and visions have been attributed to hallucinations resulting from drug use, mental illness and/or physical injury to the brain.

== See also ==

*[[Psychiatric]]

[[category:psychology]]

Talk:Socialized medicine

2009-04-03T02:32:50Z

SKierkegaard:

Probably the only place you hear this expression is in the US, due to the derogatory connotations of the word "Socialist". However, if I become injured, I hope the local socialized fire department or EMT will drive me, along socialized roads to a hospital (socialized, or otherwise).

If the injury was caused by a criminal, I sure hope our local Socialized police force will catch him and he will be prosecuted by our socialized courts.

Sure there are problems: I wish the Socialized VA would take better care of our injured veterans from the Socialized Army, Socialized Marine Corps, etc.

Anyway, enough said, I must go write a check for a fund that for the son of a co-worker of mine. He has health insurance through his work but the 30% co-pay on his cancer treatments is bankrupting them. Young couple, two kids, you know how it is.

--[[User:TraJSmith|TraJSmith]] 22:25, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

I'd have to agree with this. Countries with so-called 'socialised' healthcare are normally very appreciative of this fact and, whilst they may criticise elements of the system, would be vehemently opposed to its dismantling. Britain's NHS is a prime example of this. Although criticised quite often for things such as waiting times, it is overwhelmingly popular and supported by politicians of all political persuasions. The dogma-driven ideology of hard Thatcherism never found any popular support with regard to its animosity towards the NHS and conviction that it should be privatised as a matter of course. Quite simply, the British people would be justifiably horrified to think that they suddenly had to pay thousands of pounds for urgent medical treatment which on the NHS is provided free at the point of care. It is criticised with a view to improving it in terms of management and funding, not in terms of replacing it with an American-style market-based healthcare system. Taxation used for this purpose has never been the bone of contention some ideologues like to make out. The NHS is generally seen as trustworthy and as necessary as a state-funded military or fire service. The post-war Labour government's creation of the NHS met with massive support.

Talk:Socialized medicine

2009-04-03T02:32:20Z

SKierkegaard:

Probably the only place you hear this expression is in the US, due to the derogatory connotations of the word "Socialist". However, if I become injured, I hope the local socialized fire department or EMT will drive me, along socialized roads to a hospital (socialized, or otherwise).

If the injury was caused by a criminal, I sure hope our local Socialized police force will catch him and he will be prosecuted by our socialized courts.

Sure there are problems: I wish the Socialized VA would take better care of our injured veterans from the Socialized Army, Socialized Marine Corps, etc.

Anyway, enough said, I must go write a check for a fund that for the son of a co-worker of mine. He has health insurance through his work but the 30% co-pay on his cancer treatments is bankrupting them. Young couple, two kids, you know how it is.

--[[User:TraJSmith|TraJSmith]] 22:25, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

I'd have to agree with this. Countries with so-called 'socialised' healthcare are normally very appreciative of this fact and, whilst they may criticise elements of the system, would be vehemently opposed to its dismantling. Britain's NHS is a prime example of this. Although criticised quite often for things such as waiting times, it is overwhelmingly popular and supported by politicians of all political persuasions. The dogma-driven ideology of hard Thatcherism never found any popular support with regard to its animosity towards the NHS and conviction that it should be privatised as a matter of course. Quite simply, the British people would be justifiably horrified to think that they suddenly had to pay thousands of pounds for urgent medical treatment which on the NHS is provided free at the point of care. It is criticised with a view to improving it in terms of management and funding, not in terms of replacing it with an American-style healthcare system. Taxation used for this purpose has never been the bone of contention some ideologues like to make out. The NHS is generally seen as trustworthy and as necessary as a state-funded military or fire service. The post-war Labour government's creation of the NHS met with massive support.

Talk:Socialized medicine

2009-04-03T02:31:57Z

SKierkegaard:

Probably the only place you hear this expression is in the US, due to the derogatory connotations of the word "Socialist". However, if I become injured, I hope the local socialized fire department or EMT will drive me, along socialized roads to a hospital (socialized, or otherwise).

If the injury was caused by a criminal, I sure hope our local Socialized police force will catch him and he will be prosecuted by our socialized courts.

Sure there are problems: I wish the Socialized VA would take better care of our injured veterans from the Socialized Army, Socialized Marine Corps, etc.

Anyway, enough said, I must go write a check for a fund that for the son of a co-worker of mine. He has health insurance through his work but the 30% co-pay on his cancer treatments is bankrupting them. Young couple, two kids, you know how it is.

--[[User:TraJSmith|TraJSmith]] 22:25, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

I'd have to agree with this. Countries with so-called 'socialised' healthcare are normally very appreciative of this fact and, whilst they may criticise elements of the system, would be vehemently opposed to its dismantling. Britain's NHS is a prime example of this. Although criticised quite often for things such as waiting times, it is overwhelmingly popular and supported by politicians of all political persuasions. The dogma-driven ideology of hard Thatcherism never found any popular support with regard to its animosity towards the NHS and conviction that it should be privatised as a matter of course. Quite simply, the British people would be justifiably horrified to think that they suddenly had to pay thousands of pounds for urgent medical treatment which on the NHS is provided free at the point of care. It is criticised with a view to improving it in terms of management and funding, not in terms of replacing it with an American-style healthcare system. Taxation used for this purpose has never been the bone of contention some ideologues like to make out. The NHS is generally seen as trustworthy and as necessary as a state-funded military of fire service. The post-war Labour government's creation of the NHS met with massive support.

Talk:Socialized medicine

2009-04-03T02:30:19Z

SKierkegaard:

Probably the only place you hear this expression is in the US, due to the derogatory connotations of the word "Socialist". However, if I become injured, I hope the local socialized fire department or EMT will drive me, along socialized roads to a hospital (socialized, or otherwise).

If the injury was caused by a criminal, I sure hope our local Socialized police force will catch him and he will be prosecuted by our socialized courts.

Sure there are problems: I wish the Socialized VA would take better care of our injured veterans from the Socialized Army, Socialized Marine Corps, etc.

Anyway, enough said, I must go write a check for a fund that for the son of a co-worker of mine. He has health insurance through his work but the 30% co-pay on his cancer treatments is bankrupting them. Young couple, two kids, you know how it is.

--[[User:TraJSmith|TraJSmith]] 22:25, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

I'd have to agree with this. Countries with so-called 'socialised' healthcare are normally very appreciative of this fact and, whilst they may criticise elements of the system, would be vehemently opposed to its dismantling. Britain's NHS is a prime example of this. Although criticised quite often for things such as waiting times, it is overwhelmingly popular and supported by politicians of all political persuasions. The dogma-driven ideology of hard Thatcherism never found any popular support with regard to its animosity towards the NHS and conviction that it should be privatised as a matter of course. Quite simply, the British people would be justifiably horrified to think that they suddenly had to pay thousands of pounds for urgent medical treatment which on the NHS is provided free at the point of care. It is criticised with a view to improving it in terms of management and funding, not in terms of replacing it with an American-style healthcare system. Taxation used for this purpose has never been the bone of contention some ideologues like to make out.

Talk:Socialized medicine

2009-04-03T02:29:28Z

SKierkegaard:

Talk:Socialized medicine

2009-04-03T02:28:20Z

SKierkegaard:

Talk:Socialized medicine

2009-04-03T02:26:54Z

SKierkegaard:

Talk:Socialized medicine

2009-04-03T02:26:35Z

SKierkegaard:

Talk:Buddhism

2009-04-03T02:21:57Z

SKierkegaard:

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

One element of Buddhism is it is completely non-sectarianistic, so I took the liberty of switching "In order to attain nirvana, one must follow the eightfold path" to something more appropriate to their practice of tolerance, they also acknowledge that nirvana does not need come from any doctrine or specific guide - Buddhism is simply a spirit guide. not an answer to life.

And it is not a "religion" in the strict sense of the word.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:19, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

I would agree Alan. Especially as practiced in America, Buddhism has always seemed to be more of a philosophy than a religion, but still allows people to claim a religious or 'spiritual' affiliation. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:53, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

Technically, Buddhism is often referred to as "non-theistic" - the Buddha refused to say whether there was a God because he said it would lead to unproductive speculation. Also, the practice of Buddhism ultimately relies on one's own experience as a source of knowledge, even though there are many guidelines. The Buddha would often say something to the effect of "Don't take my word for it... see for yourself what works."

==Possible connection to Christianity==
There are many who have explored the idea that the LORD Jesus Christ may have been exposed to buddhist ideas in his youth, during the years not mentioned in the bible. With the exception of reincarnation, many of Christ's teachings are very similar to those of the Buddha. --Proposed edit by [[User:Mijolner]]

:Yes, there has been some speculation in this regard for quite some time. But such speculation is outside the scope of this project.[[User Talk:Samwell|Samwell]] 21:53, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

==Religious Intolerance==
Is there a source for the part about other religions not being tolerated? I think claims should be backed up with some specific references. Otherwise it comes off as being subjective.

== Accurate Quote From Reference, but... ==

This line:

''Japan is an "odd" case, as surveys of adherence are conducted rather differently. Firstly it is debatable at what point various Japanese beliefs shift from being traditions to being religions. This is indicated by the fact that "85% of Japanese claim Buddhism as their preferred religion", yet "75% percent claim to practice and believe in no religion" -a more accurate estimate may be 20%.''

is an accurate quote from the cited source, but it seems to me that the solution to this apparant contradiction is actually given in the article:

''Buddhism is...often viewed as a philosophy more than a religion because gods are not necessary or primary in Buddhist thought. Much of modern Buddhism is atheistic or agnostic in practice.''

This means it is entirely possible there is quite a few people who practice Buddhism in Japan, but do not view it as a religion, thus giving these apparantly contradictory results. That being the case, should that line remain in the article? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:37, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

== Antiquity ==

Hello,

Do you have any historical examples of conflict between Buddhism and Hinduism? Actual conflicts fought would probably be a worthwhile addition. I've removed the talk of resisting Chinese occupation in Tibet as that is modern, but you can move it in a different area where it belongs. Also, what period of time are you talking about where Cambodia becomes a Democracy? I am curious.

Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:45, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
:In Cambodia, there was much persecution by Hindi of Buddhists initially. Very uncomfortable between them. The battle of Li Opa (not sure of English spelling) was one such. Cambodia is not really democracy, but that is what was said with awarding of sambech. Please put that last back, thank you.

== Liberal values?==
To: Satori08. Seriously? it's an article on religion. Buddhism was around with those values LONG before Liberalism came along. You don't have to Politicize everything. I'll give you 3 days to tell me why that addition is relevant before I remove it. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 23:10, 4 January 2009 (EST)

I'm not sure labels such as 'liberal' or 'conservative' should be applied to a non-dualistic view of the universe. Buddhism is not a political ideology. Furthermore, since when can pacifism be blindly labelled 'liberal'?

Talk:Muslim agenda of the Obama administration

2009-04-03T02:13:10Z

SKierkegaard:

I seem to be missing something here since there are a few points I don't understand. First how is being sworn in using his full legal name part of pushing a Muslim agenda? Second how is putting more troops in Afghanistan to fight the Taliban (a fundamentalist Islamic government) a Muslim policy? [[User:WillB|WillB]] 13:22, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
:Using his full legal name when chastising others for using his name reeks of an agenda different than when he campaigned (worried about labeled Muslim before victory and unconcerned using his middle name after election). More troops to Afghanistan is a good thing in my view. I included it because it has to do with dealing with our Muslim enemies, so it is on his agenda. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:29, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
::Ok now I see were I went wrong. I was thinking from the introduction this article was going to focus on what Obama had done that could be seen as pro-Muslim and not include items that can be seen as anti-Muslim (more troops to fight an Islamic government) or that are only tangentially related to Islam (such as not using his middle name at first to try to avoid discrimination over possible Islamic ties in his heritage). Thanks for you quick response [[User:WillB|WillB]] 13:37, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

I have changed the opening paragraph so as not to reflect an anti or pro Muslim policy of the Administration's agenda.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:23, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

I am confused as to how dispatching more troops to Afghanistan to fight the Islamist Taliban is a 'Muslim policy' exactly? What exaclty does 'Muslim policy' mean - the inference from most of this article is that President Obama's policies are in some way Islamic (such as using his middle, Arabic name)?

Leo Tolstoy

2009-03-30T23:44:13Z

SKierkegaard:

[[Image:Tolstoy.jpg|right|thumb|Leo Tolstoy]]
Count '''Lev (Leo) Tolstoy''' (Russian: Лев Николаевич Толстой)(Yasnaya Polyana, [[Russia]] 1828 - Yasnaya Polyana, Russia 1910), Russian novelist, [[writer]], essayist, agrarian [[anarchy|anarchist]] and [[philosopher]]. He is one of the greatest of all novelists. Tolstoy's major work, ''War and Peace'', appeared between the years 1865 and 1869.

In 1862 he married Sonya Andreyevna Behrs who bore him 13 children. In 1901 the Russian [[Orthodox Church]] excommunicated him. After leaving as a wandering ascetic, Tolstoy died of pneumonia on November 20 in 1910.

== Writings ==
Some of his works:

*[[War and Peace]]
*[[Anna Karenina]]
*[[The Death of Ivan Ilych]]
*Sebastopol
*Father Sergius
*Forged Coupon, The
*God Sees the Truth but Waits
*Godson, The
*How Much Land Does a Man Need
*Imp and the Crust, The
*Ivan the Fool
*Kingdom of God is Within You, The
*Master and Man
*Repentant Sinner, The
*Resurrection
*Three Hermits, The
*What Men Live By
*[[Where Love Is, God Is]]

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">

''After finishing Anna Karenina Tolstoy renounced all his earlier works. "I wrote everything into Anna Karenina," he later confessed, "and nothing was left over." Voskresenia (1899, Resurrection) was Tolstoy's last major novel.'' <ref> [http://www.booksfactory.com/writers/tolstoi.htm Tolstoy, Leo] </ref>

</blockquote>

== The Kingdom of God is within you ==
Tolstoy's great philosophical/religious tract, The Kingdom of God is within you, summarised the development of his thought and reflections on Christianity. At its heart is the explanation of Tolstoy's belief that to truly call one's self a Christian one must abide simply by the teachings of Christ, as expressed in the New Testament. For Tolstoy, this meant, above all, pacifism, as expressed by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount. Tolstoy viewed any person or authority that violated this precept as having rejected Christ's teachings and, thus, as not being Christian. Tolstoy himself did not accept attempts by non-contemporary followers of Christ to re-interpret and de-contextualise the message of the gospels to permit certain forms of violence. This led him into direct conflict with the Orthodox Church and the Russian authorities. As such, The Kingdom of God is within you was banned in his home country, and was first published in Germany.

Tolstoy's philosophy has had a major impact on Christian pacifist movements, such as the Quakers, and on those committed to non

==See also==
[[Image:Crimean war.jpg|right|thumb| During the Crimean War Tolstoy commanded a battery, witnessing the siege of Sebastopol.
]]
*[[William Shakespeare]]
*[[Vladimir Nabokov]]
*[[Nikolai Gogol]]
*[[P.G. Wodehouse]]
*[[Author]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.online-literature.com/tolstoy/ Literature Network » Leo Tolstoy]
*[http://tolstoy.classicauthors.net/index.html On line books] ClassicAuthors.net
*[http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1399 Anna Karenina by graf Leo Tolstoy] Project Gutenberg
*[http://amsaw.org/amsaw-ithappenedinhistory-090903-tolstoy.html Count Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy]

== References ==

<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Tolstoy, Leo}}
[[Category:Authors]]
[[Category:Literature]]
[[category:Slavic Authors|Tolstoy, Leo]]