Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:School prayer

2008-03-05T03:39:51Z

SSchultz: /* Query */

== Is it not secular? ==

Andy,

Is it not a secular culture keeping government and religion apart? Not an atheistic culture as you claim.--[[User:JBuscombe|JBuscombe]] 13:13, 1 January 2008 (EST)

: "Secular" means public, and reflects public beliefs, as in saying the Pledge of Allegiance, reciting a prayer during the beginning of a congressional session, or swearing in a new president through use of a [[Bible]]. Public schools are more properly described as [[atheistic]], where religion is affirmatively censored.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:17, 1 January 2008 (EST)

::"Secular" means separate from religion. It does not imply public. Also there is no prohibition of prayer in school. That is also protected by the first amendment. Students can pray any time without disrupting the school. What the critics are against is being forced to attend the prayer or the prayer being led by an authoritative figure like teacher. So it is not atheistic , just secular.--[[User:JBuscombe|JBuscombe]] 13:22, 1 January 2008 (EST)

:: Also how would you feel if you are forced to sit through a Muslim prayer led by the teacher every day? Now, do you get the point? --[[User:JBuscombe|JBuscombe]] 13:26, 1 January 2008 (EST)

::: There is a prohibition on prayer in [[public school]], and it is deceitful to pretend otherwise. The prayers that start legislative sessions through the [[United States]] cannot be said to start the schoolday or a class in [[public school]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:38, 1 January 2008 (EST)
:::: Are you happy for your child to be forced to sit through an islamic prayer led by a Muslim teacher every day? --[[User:JBuscombe|JBuscombe]] 14:35, 1 January 2008 (EST)
:::: 5 times a day, actually. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 14:39, 1 January 2008 (EST)
Not necessarily - the dawn, sunset, and dusk ones would probably not be during the school day, unless one was boarding/homeschooling. Also, in an avowedly liberal school over here in the UK, I can pray whenever I want, so long as it doesn't disrupt teaching. --[[User:JOwen|JOwen]]

Although I essentially side with Andy on this issue, I was going to say that I don't agree with him on the definition of "secular". However, in checking my facts, it appears that Andy is closer to the truth that anyone here has given him credit for, even if the particular way he expressed it is not exactly right.
* [http://www.onelook.com/?w=secular&ls=a OneLook] gives the meaning as "concerning those not members of the clergy", although I don't know which dictionary it got that from.
* [http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=secular Merriam-Webster] gives one of the definitions as "not ecclesiastical or clerical", and gives ''secular courts'' as an example.
* The [http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=secular Online Etymology Dictionary] says that the word started off (in 1290) as meaning '"living in the world, not belonging to a religious order," also "belonging to the state"'.

It appears that the word, which I'd say started in a society that was Christian, did not originally mean "without religion", but "not part of the religious establishment". The ''secular courts'' example above illustrates this. A ''secular court'' was distinct from a ''church court''. It had to do with which authority (church or state) controlled it; it was not to do with whether or not religion was involved. Religion (i.e. Christianity) was involved regardless. That is, the state, although distinct from the church still recognised the church as a co-equal authority.

In modern times, it has come to mean "without religion" as one of its most-commonly-used meanings (particularly by atheists and the like), but this appears to not be an original meaning, and so Andy is justified in making the comment that he does.

Furthermore, and this is where I agreed with him anyway, any state that ''excludes'' religion is not religiously neutral, but is taking sides, with the atheists. I don't believe that Andy's gripe is that schools don't ''have to'' have prayer, but that they are ''not allowed to'' have prayer (and we're not talking about students silently or privately praying). If the state ''allowed'', but didn't ''enforce'' school prayer, they would be religiously neutral. But if they ''ban'' it, they are no longer being religiously neutral.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:59, 2 January 2008 (EST)

== Bible study paragraph ==

This paragraph wasn't about prayer, but it's still good for an article about the Bible and public schools:
<blockquote>
From 2004 to 2006, a [[public school]] banned [[Bible]] study by children ... ''during recess''. A teacher complained about the use of the [[Bible]] and the principal then censored the study activity, according to a sworn statement by a teacher told to stop it. Principal "Summa, having learned of a complaint by a teacher and of the students' Bible study, told fourth-grade teacher Virginia Larue to nix the group's recess meeting. Larue did, according to her deposition. In that sworn statement, Larue said she briefly informed Summa of a parental complaint about the Bible study, and Summa then instructed her to end the practice, citing fear over "separation of church and state." Larue later told one of Luke's Bible study colleagues the group could no longer meet at recess, according to the deposition."<ref>http://knoxnews.com/news/2008/jan/03/recess-bible-study-spurs-lawsuit/</ref>
</blockquote>
[[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:18, 27 January 2008 (EST)

: You are drawing a hairsplitting distinction that is not worth making. Bible study is often associated with prayer, and if Bible study is banned, then prayer is also. In borderline cases, we leave material in the entry because it is informative. We disfavor censorship of valuable information.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:15, 27 January 2008 (EST)

::Well, then maybe we need to have the article renamed to "Religion in public schools" and formatted with headings about prayer and the Bible, because there are lots of incidents where students simply reading the Bible have been chastised. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:23, 27 January 2008 (EST)
::: I think changing the title is a good idea (although I have a problem with the term "''public'' [[School#Public school|schools]]" (see that link). "Religion in schools" has broader application than "School prayer". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:18, 28 January 2008 (EST)

== Query ==
Hi guys, I have a query. Firstly, as a Non-US citizen, I dont want to discuss whether or not prayer in school should be legal/illegal but I am wondering why it is such a big issue. In my school we had the lords prayer before a school assembly and those who were not religious (or of other religions) did not have to participate but we certainly did not have to have prayer before the start of each day. The reasons being is that people who want to pray would certainly pray before school with their family. Surely also a teacher can pray for/with his class either before the school day or lead those students in prayer who wish to privately. I think it is the parents who instill values and religion and should not be the realm of the government or school. Unless of course it is a catholic/sunday school/what-have-you that the parents have choosen to send their children to.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 20:21, 3 March 2008 (EST)
: (Reply from a non-US citizen!) In America all prayer that is in any way "endorsed" by the school (including implicitly) is effectively illegal. This includes the Lord's Prayer at an assembly, prayer by a teacher (whether in class or not), prayer by anyone during class time, and even prayer by a student at any gathering sanctioned by the school, it seems. There's video online of a student acknowledging God (not actually praying) in her graduation speech (I think it was, or something like that) having the microphone turned off by the school because of that. It's not so much that prayer is not endorsed or encouraged, but that it is banned (or censored, if you like). That is, if the teacher ''wants'' to pray, and the student have no objection, the teacher is still not permitted to. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:42, 3 March 2008 (EST)

:: Well put, Philip. MetcalfeM, it's called censorship when something is permitted to be said only at home, or only in special place. Liberal concepts like evolution are not censored in the classroom. Why is prayer censored there?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:46, 3 March 2008 (EST)

::: In America, I can legally go into a bar and flirt with the females without any problem. But if I were a teacher, and I did that to one of the students, I would be (correctly) disciplined and/or fired for that behavior. Is that censorship, Aschlafly? According to your definition it is. Do you support the right of teachers to flirt with their students? --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 08:06, 4 March 2008 (EST)
:::: Censorship is suppression of information, not an action. And censorship is often used—and I expect that this is the way Andy is using it—to mean ''unreasonable'' suppression of an idea. That is, I very much doubt that Andy is opposed to ''all'' censorship, but banning of school prayer is ''unreasonable'' censorship. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:15, 4 March 2008 (EST)
::::: First off, Andy specifically said, "it's called censorship when something is permitted to be said only at home, or only in special place." I used the word, "flirting", but if you'd prefer, if I went into a bar and made sexually suggestive comments to females, that would be accepted. But I couldn't do that in a classroom. Is that censorship? And if censorship is suppression of information, how is leading a class in prayer considered, "information" as opposed to "action"? And where's the line drawn between ''reasonable'' censorship and ''unreasonable'' censorship?--[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 09:54, 4 March 2008 (EST)
:::::: I'll agree that I may have been splitting hairs with the definition of "censorship", and I'll also say that I'm not convinced that Andy's use of the word "censorship" is totally appropriate; perhaps it's not "censorship" per se. In his defence, however, I'll add that perhaps a better definition of censorship is the ''banning of the expression of an idea'', and although prayer is not really "expression of an idea", banning prayer is part of a larger agenda to ban the expression of the ideas (teachings) of Christianity. But the more important point is my second one, that of ''unreasonable'' censorship. Your only response to that is to question where the line is drawn, the implication being that if you don't know where to draw the line, you don't draw one at all. The fallacies with this are that (a) the line is ''already'' being drawn (at virtually no prayer at all), and (b) it is the case with ''lots'' of issues that you have to subjectively draw a line ''somewhere'', and we achieve this in all sorts of fields, so it's really a silly objection. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:38, 4 March 2008 (EST)

That I understand. While I wouldnt agree with a teacher leading a prayer in class for the whole class regardless of belief or parents wishes I would certainly agree that it is not right for a blanket ban to be imposed. I mean, I am not religious however if I was part of a school sports team and some of my team members wished to have a prayer circle, while I may not join them, I wouldn't care. Each to there own I say.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 21:17, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: You are censoring the teacher or coach with respect to prayer, but not with respect to their expressing liberal views. Why do you support such censorship?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:28, 3 March 2008 (EST)

I support no censorship. Did you not read my post? I dont think it is a teachers responsibility to lead my children in prayer. That is my responsibilty. However if a teacher wishes to pray with the religious students of his/her class then fine, go right ahead. But on their own time (5 mins before class starts maybe?) not my childrens time. Also, if the coach wants to pray with his team, go right ahead, but I wouldn't join the prayer circle and shouldn't have to be exposed to it. But I have no problem whatsoever with a prayer being said as long as it is done respectifully to others beliefs (and vice versa).
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 21:36, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: I did read your post, and reread it. You said, "While I wouldnt agree with a teacher leading a prayer in class for the whole class ...." That's called censorship of the teacher. There is no other (logical) way to describe it. You're likely fine with the teacher leading the class on evolution or his views about a political candidate. But, oh no, NOT prayer. That's censorship, plain and simple. You're fighting logic, not me, to deny it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:51, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Excuse me Ashlafly, I didnt mention evolution or politics once!
"However if a teacher wishes to pray with the religious students of his/her class then fine, go right ahead. But on their own time (5 mins before class starts maybe?) not my childrens time"
How is this censorship of the teacher?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 21:55, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Okay, there's two issues here. One, should a teacher be prevented from praying where no student objects or students have the choice of opting out? On that, it appears to me that Andy and MetcalfeM both agree that the teacher should be allowed to.

The second issue is whether or not a teacher should be allowed to pray in a situation where the students object and can't opt out. MetcalfeM says that they should not be allowed to in that case. Andy thinks that they should. Andy is trying to say that MetcalfeM is being inconsistent in believing that a teacher should not be allowed to pray ''in that circumstance'', yet believe that a teacher should be allowed to put ''other'' views to the class, such as political or evolutionary. Now MetcalfeM ''is'' being in consistent ''if'' he thinks that, but he hasn't said that he does, so it's premature to accuse him of that. And I would not be at all surprised if MetcalfeM says that teachers should ''not'' be allowed to put political views. Similarly, I ''would'' be surprised (but it's still possible) that MetcalfeM thinks that teachers should not promote evolution.

But regardless what MetcalfeM thinks, the real point is that in America (and other places, although perhaps not so rigidly), teachers are banned from promoting ''or even implicitly endorsing'' a Christian view (praying in class is hardly forcing a view on people), yet are ''required'' to promote (''explicitly'' endorse) the anti-Christian view of evolution (for example). That is a glaring inconsistency, rationalised only on the false claim that one is "religious" and the other is "science".

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:23, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Nice clarification Phillip! Yes I do believe that it is fine for a teacher to pray with students if they agree etc etc as you pointed out. I also dont think that teachers should push political beliefs unless asked directly what the think. Same with relgious beliefs. As for evolution, well, I think that evolution should be taught in science class however I am a bit divided on creation being taught alongside. To be honest I haven't given it a lot of thought but if pressed I could say that it would be an idea to teach the holes in evolution? Maybe let students make their own minds up? Its a thorny issue which, to be honest, I dont really want to debate. Thanks for your clarification though Phillip. You aussies aint all bad you know!
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 22:32, 3 March 2008 (EST)
:: I also think that evolution should be taught, simply because so many people believe it that it's something that everyone should know about. But it should not be taught as truth, as it usually is. The opposition to Christian views, however, extends even to the extreme of banning telling students that they should keep an open mind about evolution! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:02, 3 March 2008 (EST)

:Thanks Philip, that seems like a fairly rational assessment. It does often seem like there is a double standard in these issues that is not often recognized. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:34, 3 March 2008 (EST)

I welcome Metcalfe saying that he's fine with a teacher praying with a class if everyone agrees, but very few people really base their view on that distinction and, frankly, Metcalfe himself didn't either. It was Philip who introduced that distinction. Nearly everyone who opposes classroom prayer also opposes it even if no one objects. Moreover, why would the objection of just one student be able to cause the censorship of everyone else? That doesn't make much sense, and it is a form of censorship.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Phillip did claify what I was trying to get across actually. He explained it better than I did is all. Anyways, I'm off for the day. Enjoy the debate without the token atheist! ;-)
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 22:46, 3 March 2008 (EST)

It's probably true that "Nearly everyone who opposes classroom prayer also opposes it even if no one objects", but there ''are'' exceptions, and we have to be careful not to presume that any particular individual fits the stereotype. I also agree that the objection of a single student should not be able to stop everyone else having prayer. In some circumstances, being able to opt out is a good practice, but when it comes to prayer, having a student leave the classroom for the 30 seconds (or whatever, it could well be longer, but might well be quite short also) that a prayer is being said is unnecessary mucking around. Also, atheists consider prayer to be meaningless, so what harm is there if a student has to listen to a prayer being said? It's not like the student is required to participate (pray also) or believe; all he has to do is sit there quietly while the prayer is being said. What's so wrong with that? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:02, 3 March 2008 (EST)
:Andy and Phil, I have a hypothetical question. Let's say an observant Jewish child (like mine) is in a majority Christian class, and feels, well, very uncomfortable when the teacher wants to lead the class in the Lord's Prayer? Is it just "tough knuckles" for my boy? We do have a bit of unpleasant history around these issues.[[User:LeonardH|LeonardH]] 23:37, 3 March 2008 (EST)
:: What is so "tough" about it? What's so hard about him simply sitting through it? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:48, 3 March 2008 (EST)
::: Being in the majority religion, I'm sure it's not obvious. It sends a systemic message of exclusion - "this is not your school" - and suggests that one religion has priority over the other in affairs of state. Constitutionally... that shouldn't be the case.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 23:51, 3 March 2008 (EST)
:::: I'm not talking constitutionally. How does it "send a message of exclusion"? The very fact that a predominantly ''Christian'' environment welcomes Jews indicates that they are ''not'' excluded! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:08, 4 March 2008 (EST)
:::::"Welcome! Glad you're here! Now sit there, okay good, and listen while you tell you about our religion. No no, we'd rather not hear about yours."-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 00:13, 4 March 2008 (EST)
:::::: So now we've switched from ''praying'' to ''talking about'' a religion? I must have missed that switch. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:20, 4 March 2008 (EST)
::::::: Isn't praying a religion-specific speech act?-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 00:22, 4 March 2008 (EST)
:::::::: Huh? Yes, you could invent that term for it, but that's like saying that a robin is a bird, and a crow is a bird, so a robin is a crow. We were talking specifically about prayer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:33, 4 March 2008 (EST)

Let's say you lived in northern new jersey in a mostly jewish town. If the teacher wanted to say the Shema before every class, which is a prayer which basically repudiated Christianity, what would you suggest for your kid?[[User:LeonardH|LeonardH]] 23:50, 3 March 2008 (EST)
: To witness to his fellow students. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:08, 4 March 2008 (EST)
::So school should become a free-for-all, religion-off, where students are encouraged to disrupt each other's learning by pushing their beliefs at each other in an unmediated environment?-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 00:13, 4 March 2008 (EST)
::: Please show me where in my comment I said anything about witnessing ''during class time'', ''in a disruptive way'', or by ''pushing'' their beliefs on others. Or retract the comment. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:20, 4 March 2008 (EST)
::::I'm just trying to point out that encouraging students to speak up for themselves assumes (1) that children can and are willing to, and will always do so, (2) and that there will be no social consequences for them. What school child, surrounded by religions different than his own, will react first by trying to convert them, or defend themselves?-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 00:22, 4 March 2008 (EST)
::::: So you didn't show me where I said that, and you didn't retract it as requested.
::::: Encouraging a student to witness does assume that children can do so, but they can, so that's not an issue. It doesn't presume that they are willing; if anything it assumes the opposite, as you often ''encourage'' someone to do something that they are ''not'' willing to do. And for the same reason, neither does it assume that they ''will'' do so. Neither does it assume that there will be no social consequences, and neither have you explained the relevance of that. What school child will witness? One who has been taught sufficiently well to have confidence in himself and his beliefs, and one who has been encouraged to do so.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:33, 4 March 2008 (EST)
:::::: So, you would be comfortable if a Muslim student witnessed to your child on a daily basis? Or would you consider this harrassment? If this would be harassment, then so would it be for your child to witness to other students. Again, are you suggesting you would feel comfortable if your child was told to sit quietly at his desk while a Hindu encouraged student to open their third eye and worship the god Vishnu? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 00:54, 4 March 2008 (EST)
::::::: It could be harassment if they were asked to stop and didn't, but it need not be harassment. Not only would I feel quite comfortable with a Muslim child witnessing to my child, I would ''welcome'' it. I witnessed to some Mormons once; I invited them into my home and allowed them to say what they wanted. Having done that, I then had a right to say to them what ''I'' wanted to say. Similarly, a Muslim child witnessing to my child would at the very least impose an obligation on the Muslim child to return the favour, as well as indicate that the child is open to discussing such issues. It's ''other'' religions, such as atheism, that have beliefs so fragile that they have to [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution|censor opposing views]]. I would not object to my child having to sit through a worship of Vishnu if (a) the school was a Hindu-run school, (b) the school was in a predominantly Hindu country, or (c) if the school was a government school in a Christian country but in a predominantly Hindu area and openly intended to provide education to Hindus. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:26, 4 March 2008 (EST)

::::::::Philip, if you're truly so open-minded, I salute you. But, I expect that you would be the exception rather than the rule. There was a case where a few years ago a teacher in California was teaching a history class and spent a 1 week module studying Islam and its impact on world history. There was such a backlash from local parents that the course had to be cancelled. This wasn't a case of prayer, merely study, and she was hung out to dry. As a more personal example, here in the Phoenix area we have a large Evangelical population and a large Mormon population. We've seen even here on CP that many argue that Mormonism isn't a form of Christianity, but a cult. It's not difficult to imagine a group of evangelical parents being upset if their children have to sit through Mormon prayers that they view as unChristian. It's not such a stretch to see them suing the school district claiming that the district is intervening in their ability to raise their children in the religious manner they see fit. This is the reason that organized classroom prayer is disallowed; to prevent arguments over which religion is more valid than another. It simply isn't the proper place of government to make that determination. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 20:33, 4 March 2008 (EST)
::::::::: I accept that not every Christian would be as "open-minded", to use your words, as I am. On the other hand, your example from California is not a fair contrast to what I said. In case you missed it, in saying that I would not object to a Hindu prayer in a Hindu-run school, in a government-run school in a Hindu country, etc., then by implication I would expect government-run schools in a ''Christian'' country, such as America, to have ''Christian'' prayers (etc.). But that is ''not'' the case. Your Californian example is of a teacher teaching about Islam and its impact ''in a school where the same would not be allowed for Christianity, despite it being a Christian country''! So it's not the particular teaching per se, but the hypocrisy and inconsistency of what is allowed and what isn't allowed.
::::::::: If the reason that organised prayer is disallowed is to prevent arguments, then it's been a total failure, as you still have arguments! And if it isn't the proper place of government to determine which religion is more valid, then why are they doing just that in promoting humanistic views whilst banning biblical views?
::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:05, 4 March 2008 (EST)

::::::::::The point, Philip is that the US is not a majority rule nation. We're a democratic republic, not a simple democracy, and moreover the Constitution and Bill of Rights exist to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Just because Christianity is the primary religion (though no single sect holds anything close to a majority) doesn't mean that others shouldn't be free to practice their religion as they see fit and remain free from being influenced by government to choose a different religion, or indeed simply a different way of practicing the same religion. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 22:39, 4 March 2008 (EST)

The creative attempts to justify classroom prayer are illogical and self-contradictory:

* the [[censor]]s oppose classroom prayer even all want to participate in it
* the [[censor]]s oppose classroom prayer even if an objection by one can be addressed without banning the prayer
* the [[censor]]s oppose classroom prayer even though objections to [[atheistic]] speech are rejected

Only an extremely biased person would fail to recognize that the above three positions can only be reconciled in one way: the censors oppose classroom prayer for a reason independent of any purported offense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:52, 4 March 2008 (EST)

::Might I add my two English pence? I recently spent a week in Belgium doing some work experience in a primary school. Over there, they have absolutely no religious themes or practices in classrooms, since, particularly where I worked, there is a big mix of ethnicities and religions. However, every week an hour was set aside for children to attend "religious classes", where all beliefs were catered for. For example, all the Jewish children would attend a class run by a local rabbi, the Muslims by a local cleric and so on. Children who had no religious affiliation would go to "morals and ethics". Surely this is an effective way of solving the "classroom prayer" quandry? Having certain times set aside for Religious Education where kids can be led in prayer by leaders of their own faith? Perhaps I am way out, but I thought it might be worth pointing out that it '''is''' possible to reach a compromise in regards to religion and prayer in classrooms. --[[User:TJ|Crookles]] 09:07, 4 March 2008 (EST)

::: Thanks for your two English pence, which is informative, but this debate is about classroom prayer, and while your scenario is an improvement it still does not end the censorship in classroom prayer. I start my class in writing with 40 teenagers with a simple, non-denominational prayer, sometimes said by me and sometimes said by a volunteer student. As you can see here, there are some who demand censorship of that, at least in [[public school]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:20, 4 March 2008 (EST)

The token atheist is back again! Anyways, while I dont believe (just my opnion mind you) there is a place in the actual classroom specifically for a prayer (English class is for english, maths class is for maths) I have no problem with religion being expressed in a public school by anyone from the teachers to the principal to the students. The censorship you experience in the US is taking it too far. If the class does not mind then why not? Shouldnt be an issue. It is a fine line but you can easily find a middle ground.
Particulary if, as Andy stated above, it is something innocuous and non-denominational.
I think I have had my 2 cents now. I might move on to other things.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 15:22, 4 March 2008 (EST)

: Metcalfe, I appreciate your comments ... I think. Why the rush to leave before a logical conclusion is drawn here? You said, "If the class does not mind then why not"? There is no ''rational'' reason "why not," but there a reason based on hostility to prayer, and to God. [[Atheists]] say they disbelieve God exists, on the one hand, but then are often hostile to God on the other. This is one (of many) logical contradictions about [[atheism]]. I'm building a list at [[atheistic logic]]. Thanks for inspiring this addition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:46, 4 March 2008 (EST)

::Andy, could you please clarify what you mean by "[[Atheists]] say they disbelieve God exists, on the one hand, but then are often hostile to God on the other". I think you may have made a typo or something, or it may just be me. Either way, I would appreciate it if you could reiterate your point. --[[User:TJ|Crookles]] 15:52, 4 March 2008 (EST)

::: Why are [[atheists]] hostile to someone whom they say does not exist? The contradiction is logic is in [[atheism]], not in my description of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:59, 4 March 2008 (EST)

I had put in my two cents and the reason my conclusion is drawn is that I cannot speak for anyone else, anyones belief. I, while an atheist, am not hostile to the idea of God at all. I dislike 'Bible thumping' but have no problem with religion itself. As I said before, each to their own!
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 16:16, 4 March 2008 (EST)

: Yes, Metcalfe, that is what [[atheists]] ''say'', but then they censor classroom prayer. Hence the logical contradiction. You have gone further than most atheists on this issue, but you have still not allowed real classroom prayer in public school: a prayer to start my writing class, for example, which we say every week.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:44, 4 March 2008 (EST)

As I stated above, I think the laws in the US take it too far. My opnion is different from yours, as yours are to mine. I dont think prayer should be raised in the classroom, thats what I think however I dont think it matters if the class agrees to pray or a coach joins his team in prayer before the big match. In my high school (jeez, how many years ago now!) there was prayer in assembly and a group of christians formed a club that used to meet at lunchtimes for bible study etc. There are many other avenues for prayer and religion, like I have stated above and, if there are these avenues, then it need not be brought into English lessons for example. But, I understand that in the US you dont have these avenues. That is my opinion and I believe it is fair to all in the multicultural society of NZ. But again, I know it is different for you in the US.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 16:58, 4 March 2008 (EST)

: Metcalfe, in other words, like nearly all [[atheists]], you oppose classroom prayer. You can say that in only four words.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:06, 4 March 2008 (EST)

Lets look at what I said in quotes...
"I dont think it matters if the class agrees to pray or a coach joins his team in prayer before the big match"
"If the class does not mind then why not? Shouldnt be an issue. It is a fine line but you can easily find a middle ground.
Particulary if, as Andy stated above, it is something innocuous and non-denominational"
"I do believe that it is fine for a teacher to pray with students if they agree"
"But I have no problem whatsoever with a prayer being said as long as it is done respectifully to others beliefs (and vice versa)"

So where is my opposition? I think that as long as there is no opposition then prayer is fine in class. I wouldn't oppose if my teacher lead the class in prayer but I wouldnt listen either.
Also, if there is a lunchtime bible group (lead by a teacher as was the case at my school) then it is not nessacary (spelling is wrong I know) for a class to begin with a prayer as those who wish to express their religion can do so without having to make the Jews, Hindus or Muslims feel like their religion is not being recognized (or insulted as the case may be).
Where I am from it is not an issue as schools have areas, outside the classroom, where relgion is praticed and respected. We had a chapel at my school anyway so there was no need for prayer in class.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 17:17, 4 March 2008 (EST)

:Should any kind of [[prayer]] be acceptable for the teacher to lead the class in? [[Christian]], [[Muslim]], [[Jewish]], [[Hindu]], etc.? I'm not quite sure... what do you think? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:36, 4 March 2008 (EST)

What I am trying to point out is that if there are other avenues (like I stated above with lunchtime bible study (or Koran study even?), school chapel etc) then there is not a need for any classroom prayer of any kind.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 17:41, 4 March 2008 (EST)
:: The problem, I believe, is that atheists (etc.) have all sorts of incorrect ideas about Christianity, because they view it through the glasses of atheism. That is, they reject that God exists, so they see Christianity (and other religions) as merely something in one's mind, not something that is related to reality. I'll illustrate with a common example. Christians believe that God exists and is concerned about us and helps us in all sorts of ways, including comforting us in difficult times. Of course, we have to believe in Him if we want His help. Atheists don't believe that God exists, so when they see us being comforted in difficult times, they ascribe that comfort not to God, but to ''belief in'' God. That is, they consider ''the belief itself'' to be helpful (even if as a crutch). Similar would apply to prayer: they would see prayer as a type of ritual that Christians engage in, rather than actually ''talking to God''. As a ritual, it could be performed at any time, such as keeping it until after class. But as ''talking to God'', it's in principle no different to ''talking to the teacher''. Sure, there are times during class that you should not talk to the teacher, but neither is the school going to have a blanket ban on a student talking to the teacher during class, saying that all such talk should be outside of class time. Some should be (e.g. conversation that's not on the class subject), but other conversations are appropriate ''during class time''. The same applies to prayer. A prayer thanking God for helping your sporting hero do so well last week and asking that he be fit and well for next week's match is not appropriate in class. But asking God to help the student(s) concentrate on the subject and understand what the teacher is saying ''is entirely appropriate'' in class. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:55, 4 March 2008 (EST)

: As a veteran teacher of teenagers for nearly six years, Metcalfe, I can assure you that classroom prayer is ''immensely'' helpful to learning and behavior. Moreover, nearly all the great minds drew upon [[prayer]] and the [[Bible]] for their ''intellectual'' insights. So your statement that "there is not a need for any classroom prayer of any kind" is a bit like saying "there is not a need for a textbook or a teacher, or for water in a desert." There most certainly is a need for it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:50, 4 March 2008 (EST)

::Mr. Schlafly, I asked this question before, you chose not to answer. I am taking the liberty of asking again. "Are you happy for your child to be forced to sit through an islamic prayer led by a Muslim teacher every day? " Thanks in advance for your reply. --[[User:JBuscombe|JBuscombe]] 18:19, 4 March 2008 (EST)

:::I don't know why you choose to single out [[Islam]] in your question. Speaking generally, there are many offensive things taught in [[public school]] and not only are the children forced to hear it, but they are even forced to agree with it on exams and papers in order to earn a good grade. [[Atheists]] don't get to censor what they hate (and will you explain why [[atheists]] hate classroom prayer?), while simultaneously forcing upon everyone else what [[atheists]] like. We have school boards to sort this out, and a position of absolute censorship of all classroom prayer in all circumstances is illogical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:29, 4 March 2008 (EST)

::::So really, the teacher should be permitted to lead any form of prayer from any religion - after all, that's just [[freedom of speech]], though [[liberal]] [[secularist]]s consistently try to [[liberal denial|deny]] that the [[First Amendment]] applies to religion. [[Censorship]] of [[religion]] is the issue, and it should not be allowed. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 19:19, 4 March 2008 (EST)

Well I have given my opinion. I cant see the difference between praying in class (at risk of alienating others) or praying before school or at lunchtime with the others that wish to pray.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 18:34, 4 March 2008 (EST)

P.S. We had no classroom prayer at my high school and we produced some great NZers. Of course, if they were christian, they prayed in the chapel or in their own time.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 18:36, 4 March 2008 (EST)

: Really?? Produce any [[Isaac Newton]]'s, [[Bernard Riemann]]'s or [[Louis Pasteur]]'s? We haven't either since classroom prayer was abolished.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:39, 4 March 2008 (EST)
::Hmmm...Robert Gallo, who co-discovered HIV, George W Bush, american president, Neil Degrasse Tydon, astrophysicist, David Ho, discoverer of the protease inhibitors...shall I go on?[[User:LeonardH|LeonardH]] 19:03, 4 March 2008 (EST)

Now your being facetious Aschlafly. I am not going to debate you anymore. Your attitude is combative and rather bullheaded.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 19:05, 4 March 2008 (EST)

Talk:Animal migration

2008-03-05T01:55:09Z

SSchultz: New page: Andy, there are some explanations for butterfly migration other than God Did It. [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1272477 Here's an article]. [http://www.livescience...

Andy, there are some explanations for butterfly migration other than God Did It. [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1272477 Here's an article]. [http://www.livescience.com/animals/050504_butterfly_navigation.html Here's another]. [http://www.biologynews.net/archives/2005/05/04/how_monarch_butterflies_are_wired_for_navigation.html And another]. You can't simply declare that no evidence exists. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 20:55, 4 March 2008 (EST)

Atheistic Logic

2008-03-05T01:44:00Z

SSchultz:

Here is a growing list of logical contradictions in [[atheism]]:

* [[atheists]] say they do not believe that any [[God]] or equivalent deity exists, but then are often hostile to [[Christians]], as in censoring classroom prayer even when everyone wants to participate.

*Atheists often feel that they are well qualified to comment on school curricula, in effect advising others how to raise their children, while refusing to admit that others are more qualified to tell atheists how to raise their own children with regards to religion.
(add more)

Talk:School prayer

2008-03-05T01:33:00Z

SSchultz: /* Query */

== Is it not secular? ==

Andy,

Is it not a secular culture keeping government and religion apart? Not an atheistic culture as you claim.--[[User:JBuscombe|JBuscombe]] 13:13, 1 January 2008 (EST)

: "Secular" means public, and reflects public beliefs, as in saying the Pledge of Allegiance, reciting a prayer during the beginning of a congressional session, or swearing in a new president through use of a [[Bible]]. Public schools are more properly described as [[atheistic]], where religion is affirmatively censored.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:17, 1 January 2008 (EST)

::"Secular" means separate from religion. It does not imply public. Also there is no prohibition of prayer in school. That is also protected by the first amendment. Students can pray any time without disrupting the school. What the critics are against is being forced to attend the prayer or the prayer being led by an authoritative figure like teacher. So it is not atheistic , just secular.--[[User:JBuscombe|JBuscombe]] 13:22, 1 January 2008 (EST)

:: Also how would you feel if you are forced to sit through a Muslim prayer led by the teacher every day? Now, do you get the point? --[[User:JBuscombe|JBuscombe]] 13:26, 1 January 2008 (EST)

::: There is a prohibition on prayer in [[public school]], and it is deceitful to pretend otherwise. The prayers that start legislative sessions through the [[United States]] cannot be said to start the schoolday or a class in [[public school]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:38, 1 January 2008 (EST)
:::: Are you happy for your child to be forced to sit through an islamic prayer led by a Muslim teacher every day? --[[User:JBuscombe|JBuscombe]] 14:35, 1 January 2008 (EST)
:::: 5 times a day, actually. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 14:39, 1 January 2008 (EST)
Not necessarily - the dawn, sunset, and dusk ones would probably not be during the school day, unless one was boarding/homeschooling. Also, in an avowedly liberal school over here in the UK, I can pray whenever I want, so long as it doesn't disrupt teaching. --[[User:JOwen|JOwen]]

Although I essentially side with Andy on this issue, I was going to say that I don't agree with him on the definition of "secular". However, in checking my facts, it appears that Andy is closer to the truth that anyone here has given him credit for, even if the particular way he expressed it is not exactly right.
* [http://www.onelook.com/?w=secular&ls=a OneLook] gives the meaning as "concerning those not members of the clergy", although I don't know which dictionary it got that from.
* [http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=secular Merriam-Webster] gives one of the definitions as "not ecclesiastical or clerical", and gives ''secular courts'' as an example.
* The [http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=secular Online Etymology Dictionary] says that the word started off (in 1290) as meaning '"living in the world, not belonging to a religious order," also "belonging to the state"'.

It appears that the word, which I'd say started in a society that was Christian, did not originally mean "without religion", but "not part of the religious establishment". The ''secular courts'' example above illustrates this. A ''secular court'' was distinct from a ''church court''. It had to do with which authority (church or state) controlled it; it was not to do with whether or not religion was involved. Religion (i.e. Christianity) was involved regardless. That is, the state, although distinct from the church still recognised the church as a co-equal authority.

In modern times, it has come to mean "without religion" as one of its most-commonly-used meanings (particularly by atheists and the like), but this appears to not be an original meaning, and so Andy is justified in making the comment that he does.

Furthermore, and this is where I agreed with him anyway, any state that ''excludes'' religion is not religiously neutral, but is taking sides, with the atheists. I don't believe that Andy's gripe is that schools don't ''have to'' have prayer, but that they are ''not allowed to'' have prayer (and we're not talking about students silently or privately praying). If the state ''allowed'', but didn't ''enforce'' school prayer, they would be religiously neutral. But if they ''ban'' it, they are no longer being religiously neutral.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:59, 2 January 2008 (EST)

== Bible study paragraph ==

This paragraph wasn't about prayer, but it's still good for an article about the Bible and public schools:
<blockquote>
From 2004 to 2006, a [[public school]] banned [[Bible]] study by children ... ''during recess''. A teacher complained about the use of the [[Bible]] and the principal then censored the study activity, according to a sworn statement by a teacher told to stop it. Principal "Summa, having learned of a complaint by a teacher and of the students' Bible study, told fourth-grade teacher Virginia Larue to nix the group's recess meeting. Larue did, according to her deposition. In that sworn statement, Larue said she briefly informed Summa of a parental complaint about the Bible study, and Summa then instructed her to end the practice, citing fear over "separation of church and state." Larue later told one of Luke's Bible study colleagues the group could no longer meet at recess, according to the deposition."<ref>http://knoxnews.com/news/2008/jan/03/recess-bible-study-spurs-lawsuit/</ref>
</blockquote>
[[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:18, 27 January 2008 (EST)

: You are drawing a hairsplitting distinction that is not worth making. Bible study is often associated with prayer, and if Bible study is banned, then prayer is also. In borderline cases, we leave material in the entry because it is informative. We disfavor censorship of valuable information.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:15, 27 January 2008 (EST)

::Well, then maybe we need to have the article renamed to "Religion in public schools" and formatted with headings about prayer and the Bible, because there are lots of incidents where students simply reading the Bible have been chastised. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:23, 27 January 2008 (EST)
::: I think changing the title is a good idea (although I have a problem with the term "''public'' [[School#Public school|schools]]" (see that link). "Religion in schools" has broader application than "School prayer". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:18, 28 January 2008 (EST)

== Query ==
Hi guys, I have a query. Firstly, as a Non-US citizen, I dont want to discuss whether or not prayer in school should be legal/illegal but I am wondering why it is such a big issue. In my school we had the lords prayer before a school assembly and those who were not religious (or of other religions) did not have to participate but we certainly did not have to have prayer before the start of each day. The reasons being is that people who want to pray would certainly pray before school with their family. Surely also a teacher can pray for/with his class either before the school day or lead those students in prayer who wish to privately. I think it is the parents who instill values and religion and should not be the realm of the government or school. Unless of course it is a catholic/sunday school/what-have-you that the parents have choosen to send their children to.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 20:21, 3 March 2008 (EST)
: (Reply from a non-US citizen!) In America all prayer that is in any way "endorsed" by the school (including implicitly) is effectively illegal. This includes the Lord's Prayer at an assembly, prayer by a teacher (whether in class or not), prayer by anyone during class time, and even prayer by a student at any gathering sanctioned by the school, it seems. There's video online of a student acknowledging God (not actually praying) in her graduation speech (I think it was, or something like that) having the microphone turned off by the school because of that. It's not so much that prayer is not endorsed or encouraged, but that it is banned (or censored, if you like). That is, if the teacher ''wants'' to pray, and the student have no objection, the teacher is still not permitted to. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:42, 3 March 2008 (EST)

:: Well put, Philip. MetcalfeM, it's called censorship when something is permitted to be said only at home, or only in special place. Liberal concepts like evolution are not censored in the classroom. Why is prayer censored there?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:46, 3 March 2008 (EST)

::: In America, I can legally go into a bar and flirt with the females without any problem. But if I were a teacher, and I did that to one of the students, I would be (correctly) disciplined and/or fired for that behavior. Is that censorship, Aschlafly? According to your definition it is. Do you support the right of teachers to flirt with their students? --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 08:06, 4 March 2008 (EST)
:::: Censorship is suppression of information, not an action. And censorship is often used—and I expect that this is the way Andy is using it—to mean ''unreasonable'' suppression of an idea. That is, I very much doubt that Andy is opposed to ''all'' censorship, but banning of school prayer is ''unreasonable'' censorship. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:15, 4 March 2008 (EST)
::::: First off, Andy specifically said, "it's called censorship when something is permitted to be said only at home, or only in special place." I used the word, "flirting", but if you'd prefer, if I went into a bar and made sexually suggestive comments to females, that would be accepted. But I couldn't do that in a classroom. Is that censorship? And if censorship is suppression of information, how is leading a class in prayer considered, "information" as opposed to "action"? And where's the line drawn between ''reasonable'' censorship and ''unreasonable'' censorship?--[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 09:54, 4 March 2008 (EST)

That I understand. While I wouldnt agree with a teacher leading a prayer in class for the whole class regardless of belief or parents wishes I would certainly agree that it is not right for a blanket ban to be imposed. I mean, I am not religious however if I was part of a school sports team and some of my team members wished to have a prayer circle, while I may not join them, I wouldn't care. Each to there own I say.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 21:17, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: You are censoring the teacher or coach with respect to prayer, but not with respect to their expressing liberal views. Why do you support such censorship?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:28, 3 March 2008 (EST)

I support no censorship. Did you not read my post? I dont think it is a teachers responsibility to lead my children in prayer. That is my responsibilty. However if a teacher wishes to pray with the religious students of his/her class then fine, go right ahead. But on their own time (5 mins before class starts maybe?) not my childrens time. Also, if the coach wants to pray with his team, go right ahead, but I wouldn't join the prayer circle and shouldn't have to be exposed to it. But I have no problem whatsoever with a prayer being said as long as it is done respectifully to others beliefs (and vice versa).
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 21:36, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: I did read your post, and reread it. You said, "While I wouldnt agree with a teacher leading a prayer in class for the whole class ...." That's called censorship of the teacher. There is no other (logical) way to describe it. You're likely fine with the teacher leading the class on evolution or his views about a political candidate. But, oh no, NOT prayer. That's censorship, plain and simple. You're fighting logic, not me, to deny it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:51, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Excuse me Ashlafly, I didnt mention evolution or politics once!
"However if a teacher wishes to pray with the religious students of his/her class then fine, go right ahead. But on their own time (5 mins before class starts maybe?) not my childrens time"
How is this censorship of the teacher?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 21:55, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Okay, there's two issues here. One, should a teacher be prevented from praying where no student objects or students have the choice of opting out? On that, it appears to me that Andy and MetcalfeM both agree that the teacher should be allowed to.

The second issue is whether or not a teacher should be allowed to pray in a situation where the students object and can't opt out. MetcalfeM says that they should not be allowed to in that case. Andy thinks that they should. Andy is trying to say that MetcalfeM is being inconsistent in believing that a teacher should not be allowed to pray ''in that circumstance'', yet believe that a teacher should be allowed to put ''other'' views to the class, such as political or evolutionary. Now MetcalfeM ''is'' being in consistent ''if'' he thinks that, but he hasn't said that he does, so it's premature to accuse him of that. And I would not be at all surprised if MetcalfeM says that teachers should ''not'' be allowed to put political views. Similarly, I ''would'' be surprised (but it's still possible) that MetcalfeM thinks that teachers should not promote evolution.

But regardless what MetcalfeM thinks, the real point is that in America (and other places, although perhaps not so rigidly), teachers are banned from promoting ''or even implicitly endorsing'' a Christian view (praying in class is hardly forcing a view on people), yet are ''required'' to promote (''explicitly'' endorse) the anti-Christian view of evolution (for example). That is a glaring inconsistency, rationalised only on the false claim that one is "religious" and the other is "science".

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:23, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Nice clarification Phillip! Yes I do believe that it is fine for a teacher to pray with students if they agree etc etc as you pointed out. I also dont think that teachers should push political beliefs unless asked directly what the think. Same with relgious beliefs. As for evolution, well, I think that evolution should be taught in science class however I am a bit divided on creation being taught alongside. To be honest I haven't given it a lot of thought but if pressed I could say that it would be an idea to teach the holes in evolution? Maybe let students make their own minds up? Its a thorny issue which, to be honest, I dont really want to debate. Thanks for your clarification though Phillip. You aussies aint all bad you know!
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 22:32, 3 March 2008 (EST)
:: I also think that evolution should be taught, simply because so many people believe it that it's something that everyone should know about. But it should not be taught as truth, as it usually is. The opposition to Christian views, however, extends even to the extreme of banning telling students that they should keep an open mind about evolution! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:02, 3 March 2008 (EST)

:Thanks Philip, that seems like a fairly rational assessment. It does often seem like there is a double standard in these issues that is not often recognized. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:34, 3 March 2008 (EST)

I welcome Metcalfe saying that he's fine with a teacher praying with a class if everyone agrees, but very few people really base their view on that distinction and, frankly, Metcalfe himself didn't either. It was Philip who introduced that distinction. Nearly everyone who opposes classroom prayer also opposes it even if no one objects. Moreover, why would the objection of just one student be able to cause the censorship of everyone else? That doesn't make much sense, and it is a form of censorship.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Phillip did claify what I was trying to get across actually. He explained it better than I did is all. Anyways, I'm off for the day. Enjoy the debate without the token atheist! ;-)
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 22:46, 3 March 2008 (EST)

It's probably true that "Nearly everyone who opposes classroom prayer also opposes it even if no one objects", but there ''are'' exceptions, and we have to be careful not to presume that any particular individual fits the stereotype. I also agree that the objection of a single student should not be able to stop everyone else having prayer. In some circumstances, being able to opt out is a good practice, but when it comes to prayer, having a student leave the classroom for the 30 seconds (or whatever, it could well be longer, but might well be quite short also) that a prayer is being said is unnecessary mucking around. Also, atheists consider prayer to be meaningless, so what harm is there if a student has to listen to a prayer being said? It's not like the student is required to participate (pray also) or believe; all he has to do is sit there quietly while the prayer is being said. What's so wrong with that? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:02, 3 March 2008 (EST)
:Andy and Phil, I have a hypothetical question. Let's say an observant Jewish child (like mine) is in a majority Christian class, and feels, well, very uncomfortable when the teacher wants to lead the class in the Lord's Prayer? Is it just "tough knuckles" for my boy? We do have a bit of unpleasant history around these issues.[[User:LeonardH|LeonardH]] 23:37, 3 March 2008 (EST)
:: What is so "tough" about it? What's so hard about him simply sitting through it? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:48, 3 March 2008 (EST)
::: Being in the majority religion, I'm sure it's not obvious. It sends a systemic message of exclusion - "this is not your school" - and suggests that one religion has priority over the other in affairs of state. Constitutionally... that shouldn't be the case.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 23:51, 3 March 2008 (EST)
:::: I'm not talking constitutionally. How does it "send a message of exclusion"? The very fact that a predominantly ''Christian'' environment welcomes Jews indicates that they are ''not'' excluded! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:08, 4 March 2008 (EST)
:::::"Welcome! Glad you're here! Now sit there, okay good, and listen while you tell you about our religion. No no, we'd rather not hear about yours."-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 00:13, 4 March 2008 (EST)
:::::: So now we've switched from ''praying'' to ''talking about'' a religion? I must have missed that switch. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:20, 4 March 2008 (EST)
::::::: Isn't praying a religion-specific speech act?-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 00:22, 4 March 2008 (EST)
:::::::: Huh? Yes, you could invent that term for it, but that's like saying that a robin is a bird, and a crow is a bird, so a robin is a crow. We were talking specifically about prayer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:33, 4 March 2008 (EST)

Let's say you lived in northern new jersey in a mostly jewish town. If the teacher wanted to say the Shema before every class, which is a prayer which basically repudiated Christianity, what would you suggest for your kid?[[User:LeonardH|LeonardH]] 23:50, 3 March 2008 (EST)
: To witness to his fellow students. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:08, 4 March 2008 (EST)
::So school should become a free-for-all, religion-off, where students are encouraged to disrupt each other's learning by pushing their beliefs at each other in an unmediated environment?-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 00:13, 4 March 2008 (EST)
::: Please show me where in my comment I said anything about witnessing ''during class time'', ''in a disruptive way'', or by ''pushing'' their beliefs on others. Or retract the comment. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:20, 4 March 2008 (EST)
::::I'm just trying to point out that encouraging students to speak up for themselves assumes (1) that children can and are willing to, and will always do so, (2) and that there will be no social consequences for them. What school child, surrounded by religions different than his own, will react first by trying to convert them, or defend themselves?-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 00:22, 4 March 2008 (EST)
::::: So you didn't show me where I said that, and you didn't retract it as requested.
::::: Encouraging a student to witness does assume that children can do so, but they can, so that's not an issue. It doesn't presume that they are willing; if anything it assumes the opposite, as you often ''encourage'' someone to do something that they are ''not'' willing to do. And for the same reason, neither does it assume that they ''will'' do so. Neither does it assume that there will be no social consequences, and neither have you explained the relevance of that. What school child will witness? One who has been taught sufficiently well to have confidence in himself and his beliefs, and one who has been encouraged to do so.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:33, 4 March 2008 (EST)
:::::: So, you would be comfortable if a Muslim student witnessed to your child on a daily basis? Or would you consider this harrassment? If this would be harassment, then so would it be for your child to witness to other students. Again, are you suggesting you would feel comfortable if your child was told to sit quietly at his desk while a Hindu encouraged student to open their third eye and worship the god Vishnu? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 00:54, 4 March 2008 (EST)
::::::: It could be harassment if they were asked to stop and didn't, but it need not be harassment. Not only would I feel quite comfortable with a Muslim child witnessing to my child, I would ''welcome'' it. I witnessed to some Mormons once; I invited them into my home and allowed them to say what they wanted. Having done that, I then had a right to say to them what ''I'' wanted to say. Similarly, a Muslim child witnessing to my child would at the very least impose an obligation on the Muslim child to return the favour, as well as indicate that the child is open to discussing such issues. It's ''other'' religions, such as atheism, that have beliefs so fragile that they have to [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution|censor opposing views]]. I would not object to my child having to sit through a worship of Vishnu if (a) the school was a Hindu-run school, (b) the school was in a predominantly Hindu country, or (c) if the school was a government school in a Christian country but in a predominantly Hindu area and openly intended to provide education to Hindus. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:26, 4 March 2008 (EST)

::::::::Philip, if you're truly so open-minded, I salute you. But, I expect that you would be the exception rather than the rule. There was a case where a few years ago a teacher in California was teaching a history class and spent a 1 week module studying Islam and its impact on world history. There was such a backlash from local parents that the course had to be cancelled. This wasn't a case of prayer, merely study, and she was hung out to dry. As a more personal example, here in the Phoenix area we have a large Evangelical population and a large Mormon population. We've seen even here on CP that many argue that Mormonism isn't a form of Christianity, but a cult. It's not difficult to imagine a group of evangelical parents being upset if their children have to sit through Mormon prayers that they view as unChristian. It's not such a stretch to see them suing the school district claiming that the district is intervening in their ability to raise their children in the religious manner they see fit. This is the reason that organized classroom prayer is disallowed; to prevent arguments over which religion is more valid than another. It simply isn't the proper place of government to make that determination. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 20:33, 4 March 2008 (EST)

The creative attempts to justify classroom prayer are illogical and self-contradictory:

* the [[censor]]s oppose classroom prayer even all want to participate in it
* the [[censor]]s oppose classroom prayer even if an objection by one can be addressed without banning the prayer
* the [[censor]]s oppose classroom prayer even though objections to [[atheistic]] speech are rejected

Only an extremely biased person would fail to recognize that the above three positions can only be reconciled in one way: the censors oppose classroom prayer for a reason independent of any purported offense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:52, 4 March 2008 (EST)

::Might I add my two English pence? I recently spent a week in Belgium doing some work experience in a primary school. Over there, they have absolutely no religious themes or practices in classrooms, since, particularly where I worked, there is a big mix of ethnicities and religions. However, every week an hour was set aside for children to attend "religious classes", where all beliefs were catered for. For example, all the Jewish children would attend a class run by a local rabbi, the Muslims by a local cleric and so on. Children who had no religious affiliation would go to "morals and ethics". Surely this is an effective way of solving the "classroom prayer" quandry? Having certain times set aside for Religious Education where kids can be led in prayer by leaders of their own faith? Perhaps I am way out, but I thought it might be worth pointing out that it '''is''' possible to reach a compromise in regards to religion and prayer in classrooms. --[[User:TJ|Crookles]] 09:07, 4 March 2008 (EST)

::: Thanks for your two English pence, which is informative, but this debate is about classroom prayer, and while your scenario is an improvement it still does not end the censorship in classroom prayer. I start my class in writing with 40 teenagers with a simple, non-denominational prayer, sometimes said by me and sometimes said by a volunteer student. As you can see here, there are some who demand censorship of that, at least in [[public school]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:20, 4 March 2008 (EST)

The token atheist is back again! Anyways, while I dont believe (just my opnion mind you) there is a place in the actual classroom specifically for a prayer (English class is for english, maths class is for maths) I have no problem with religion being expressed in a public school by anyone from the teachers to the principal to the students. The censorship you experience in the US is taking it too far. If the class does not mind then why not? Shouldnt be an issue. It is a fine line but you can easily find a middle ground.
Particulary if, as Andy stated above, it is something innocuous and non-denominational.
I think I have had my 2 cents now. I might move on to other things.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 15:22, 4 March 2008 (EST)

: Metcalfe, I appreciate your comments ... I think. Why the rush to leave before a logical conclusion is drawn here? You said, "If the class does not mind then why not"? There is no ''rational'' reason "why not," but there a reason based on hostility to prayer, and to God. [[Atheists]] say they disbelieve God exists, on the one hand, but then are often hostile to God on the other. This is one (of many) logical contradictions about [[atheism]]. I'm building a list at [[atheistic logic]]. Thanks for inspiring this addition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:46, 4 March 2008 (EST)

::Andy, could you please clarify what you mean by "[[Atheists]] say they disbelieve God exists, on the one hand, but then are often hostile to God on the other". I think you may have made a typo or something, or it may just be me. Either way, I would appreciate it if you could reiterate your point. --[[User:TJ|Crookles]] 15:52, 4 March 2008 (EST)

::: Why are [[atheists]] hostile to someone whom they say does not exist? The contradiction is logic is in [[atheism]], not in my description of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:59, 4 March 2008 (EST)

I had put in my two cents and the reason my conclusion is drawn is that I cannot speak for anyone else, anyones belief. I, while an atheist, am not hostile to the idea of God at all. I dislike 'Bible thumping' but have no problem with religion itself. As I said before, each to their own!
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 16:16, 4 March 2008 (EST)

: Yes, Metcalfe, that is what [[atheists]] ''say'', but then they censor classroom prayer. Hence the logical contradiction. You have gone further than most atheists on this issue, but you have still not allowed real classroom prayer in public school: a prayer to start my writing class, for example, which we say every week.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:44, 4 March 2008 (EST)

As I stated above, I think the laws in the US take it too far. My opnion is different from yours, as yours are to mine. I dont think prayer should be raised in the classroom, thats what I think however I dont think it matters if the class agrees to pray or a coach joins his team in prayer before the big match. In my high school (jeez, how many years ago now!) there was prayer in assembly and a group of christians formed a club that used to meet at lunchtimes for bible study etc. There are many other avenues for prayer and religion, like I have stated above and, if there are these avenues, then it need not be brought into English lessons for example. But, I understand that in the US you dont have these avenues. That is my opinion and I believe it is fair to all in the multicultural society of NZ. But again, I know it is different for you in the US.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 16:58, 4 March 2008 (EST)

: Metcalfe, in other words, like nearly all [[atheists]], you oppose classroom prayer. You can say that in only four words.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:06, 4 March 2008 (EST)

Lets look at what I said in quotes...
"I dont think it matters if the class agrees to pray or a coach joins his team in prayer before the big match"
"If the class does not mind then why not? Shouldnt be an issue. It is a fine line but you can easily find a middle ground.
Particulary if, as Andy stated above, it is something innocuous and non-denominational"
"I do believe that it is fine for a teacher to pray with students if they agree"
"But I have no problem whatsoever with a prayer being said as long as it is done respectifully to others beliefs (and vice versa)"

So where is my opposition? I think that as long as there is no opposition then prayer is fine in class. I wouldn't oppose if my teacher lead the class in prayer but I wouldnt listen either.
Also, if there is a lunchtime bible group (lead by a teacher as was the case at my school) then it is not nessacary (spelling is wrong I know) for a class to begin with a prayer as those who wish to express their religion can do so without having to make the Jews, Hindus or Muslims feel like their religion is not being recognized (or insulted as the case may be).
Where I am from it is not an issue as schools have areas, outside the classroom, where relgion is praticed and respected. We had a chapel at my school anyway so there was no need for prayer in class.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 17:17, 4 March 2008 (EST)

:Should any kind of [[prayer]] be acceptable for the teacher to lead the class in? [[Christian]], [[Muslim]], [[Jewish]], [[Hindu]], etc.? I'm not quite sure... what do you think? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:36, 4 March 2008 (EST)

What I am trying to point out is that if there are other avenues (like I stated above with lunchtime bible study (or Koran study even?), school chapel etc) then there is not a need for any classroom prayer of any kind.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 17:41, 4 March 2008 (EST)

: As a veteran teacher of teenagers for nearly six years, Metcalfe, I can assure you that classroom prayer is ''immensely'' helpful to learning and behavior. Moreover, nearly all the great minds drew upon [[prayer]] and the [[Bible]] for their ''intellectual'' insights. So your statement that "there is not a need for any classroom prayer of any kind" is a bit like saying "there is not a need for a textbook or a teacher, or for water in a desert." There most certainly is a need for it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:50, 4 March 2008 (EST)

::Mr. Schlafly, I asked this question before, you chose not to answer. I am taking the liberty of asking again. "Are you happy for your child to be forced to sit through an islamic prayer led by a Muslim teacher every day? " Thanks in advance for your reply. --[[User:JBuscombe|JBuscombe]] 18:19, 4 March 2008 (EST)

:::I don't know why you choose to single out [[Islam]] in your question. Speaking generally, there are many offensive things taught in [[public school]] and not only are the children forced to hear it, but they are even forced to agree with it on exams and papers in order to earn a good grade. [[Atheists]] don't get to censor what they hate (and will you explain why [[atheists]] hate classroom prayer?), while simultaneously forcing upon everyone else what [[atheists]] like. We have school boards to sort this out, and a position of absolute censorship of all classroom prayer in all circumstances is illogical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:29, 4 March 2008 (EST)

::::So really, the teacher should be permitted to lead any form of prayer from any religion - after all, that's just [[freedom of speech]], though [[liberal]] [[secularist]]s consistently try to [[liberal denial|deny]] that the [[First Amendment]] applies to religion. [[Censorship]] of [[religion]] is the issue, and it should not be allowed. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 19:19, 4 March 2008 (EST)

Well I have given my opinion. I cant see the difference between praying in class (at risk of alienating others) or praying before school or at lunchtime with the others that wish to pray.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 18:34, 4 March 2008 (EST)

P.S. We had no classroom prayer at my high school and we produced some great NZers. Of course, if they were christian, they prayed in the chapel or in their own time.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 18:36, 4 March 2008 (EST)

: Really?? Produce any [[Isaac Newton]]'s, [[Bernard Riemann]]'s or [[Louis Pasteur]]'s? We haven't either since classroom prayer was abolished.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:39, 4 March 2008 (EST)
::Hmmm...Robert Gallo, who co-discovered HIV, George W Bush, american president, Neil Degrasse Tydon, astrophysicist, David Ho, discoverer of the protease inhibitors...shall I go on?[[User:LeonardH|LeonardH]] 19:03, 4 March 2008 (EST)

Now your being facetious Aschlafly. I am not going to debate you anymore. Your attitude is combative and rather bullheaded.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 19:05, 4 March 2008 (EST)

School prayer

2008-03-04T05:56:15Z

SSchultz:

'''School prayer''' occurs when students at a school come together and [[prayer|pray]]. This may happen at an organised religious assembly led by school staff or religious leaders, at a student-instigated prayer meeting, or in an impromptu manner.

Different schools take a range of approaches to school prayer. Some schools strongly encourage prayer by including prayer in compulsory daily assemblies, whilst others outlaw any religious observance. There is a range of approaches lying between these two.

Prayer was encouraged, allowed and practiced in U.S. public schools from colonial times until 1962, when the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in ''[[Engel v. Vitale]] ''banned '''school prayer''' citing the [[First Amendment]]'s prohibition on the government establishment of one religion over another as a precedent for its ruling.

[[Atheistic]] groups herald this as a great victory for their ideology, as since 1962 U.S. taxpayers have been compelled to fund and support an atheistic culture for the 90% of [[American]] students who attend [[public school]]. Supporters of the decision claim that there is a "separation of church and state" in the [[U.S. Constitution]], though no such phrase or prohibition exists in the document.

== Examples of wrongful suppression of student prayer ==
Since 1962, and primarily since the 1990s, many students across the U.S. who engaged in prayer have found themselves targeted by overzealous teachers and school administrators.

In 1994, at Waring Elementary School in St. Louis, Missouri, fourth-grader Raymond Raines was sent to the principal's office after a teacher spotted him bowing his head in prayer before lunch. Raymond was eventually separated from his classmates and given a week's detention for his continued prayers.<ref>http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34772</ref> His mother, Ellen Raines, eventually withdrew Raymond from the school and enrolled him in a private school where he could practice his faith without persecution.<ref>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9806E4DC1139F933A25751C1A962958260</ref>

On May 5, 1995, U.S. district judge Samuel Kent issued a ruling against students uttering the name of Jesus during prayer at a high school graduation in Texas, stating, "And make no mistake, the court is going to have a United States marshal in attendance at the graduation. If any student offends this court, that student will be summarily arrested and will face up to six months incarceration in the Galveston County Jail for contempt of court. Anyone who thinks I'm kidding about this better think again. Anyone who violates these orders, no kidding, is going to wish that he or she had died as a child when this court gets through with it."<ref>http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56479</ref>

On January 15, 2002, in Wilton, New York, kindergartener Kayla Broadus was stopped by her teacher from saying the "God is great, God is good" table prayer out loud with her friends before snack time.<ref>http://www.cjonline.com/stories/041302/usw_nation.shtml</ref> The Saratoga Springs City school district sided with the teacher, claiming the prayer was a violation of the supposedly constitutional "separation of church and state." Kayla's parents filed a lawsuit against the school and received a temporary restraining order from U.S. District Judge David Hurd on Februrary 5, 2002, against the school's suppression of Kayla's prayer. On Februrary 8, 2002, Judge Hurd issued a preliminary injunction against the school ordering it to allow Kayla to say grace with her friends. Following the injunction, the school decided to settle the embarrassing case, saying that Kayla could pray without inviting her friends to join her (as this was inexplicably deemed "disruptive").

From 2004 to 2006, a [[public school]] banned [[Bible]] study by children ... ''during recess''. A teacher complained about the use of the [[Bible]] and the principal then censored the study activity, according to a sworn statement by a teacher told to stop it. Principal "Summa, having learned of a complaint by a teacher and of the students' Bible study, told fourth-grade teacher Virginia Larue to nix the group's recess meeting. Larue did, according to her deposition. In that sworn statement, Larue said she briefly informed Summa of a parental complaint about the Bible study, and Summa then instructed her to end the practice, citing fear over "separation of church and state." Larue later told one of Luke's Bible study colleagues the group could no longer meet at recess, according to the deposition."<ref>http://knoxnews.com/news/2008/jan/03/recess-bible-study-spurs-lawsuit/</ref>

In 2005, a New Jersey award-winning high school football coach, Marcus Borden, was ordered by his intolerant school district not to bow his head or "take a knee" during any player-initiated prayers. Borden resigned from coaching in October over the issue. Borden later sued and a trial judge ruled in his favor, but school officials and their allies have appealed to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

==References==
<references />

[[Category:Politics]]
[[category:Establishment Clause]]

School prayer

2008-03-04T05:56:01Z

SSchultz:

'''School prayer''' occurs when students at a school come together and [[prayer|pray]]. This may happen at an organised religious assembly led by school staff or religious leaders, at a student-instigated prayer meeting, or in an impromptu manner.

Different schools take a range of approaches to school prayer. Some schools strongly encourage prayer by including prayer in compulsory daily assemblies, whilst others outlaw any religious observance. There is a range of approaches lying between these two.

Prayer was encouraged, allowed and practiced in U.S. public schools from colonial times until 1962, when the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in ''[[Engel v. Vitale]] ''banned '''school prayer''' citing the First Amendment's prohibition on the government establishment of one religion over another as a precedent for its ruling.

[[Atheistic]] groups herald this as a great victory for their ideology, as since 1962 U.S. taxpayers have been compelled to fund and support an atheistic culture for the 90% of [[American]] students who attend [[public school]]. Supporters of the decision claim that there is a "separation of church and state" in the [[U.S. Constitution]], though no such phrase or prohibition exists in the document.

== Examples of wrongful suppression of student prayer ==
Since 1962, and primarily since the 1990s, many students across the U.S. who engaged in prayer have found themselves targeted by overzealous teachers and school administrators.

In 1994, at Waring Elementary School in St. Louis, Missouri, fourth-grader Raymond Raines was sent to the principal's office after a teacher spotted him bowing his head in prayer before lunch. Raymond was eventually separated from his classmates and given a week's detention for his continued prayers.<ref>http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34772</ref> His mother, Ellen Raines, eventually withdrew Raymond from the school and enrolled him in a private school where he could practice his faith without persecution.<ref>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9806E4DC1139F933A25751C1A962958260</ref>

On May 5, 1995, U.S. district judge Samuel Kent issued a ruling against students uttering the name of Jesus during prayer at a high school graduation in Texas, stating, "And make no mistake, the court is going to have a United States marshal in attendance at the graduation. If any student offends this court, that student will be summarily arrested and will face up to six months incarceration in the Galveston County Jail for contempt of court. Anyone who thinks I'm kidding about this better think again. Anyone who violates these orders, no kidding, is going to wish that he or she had died as a child when this court gets through with it."<ref>http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56479</ref>

On January 15, 2002, in Wilton, New York, kindergartener Kayla Broadus was stopped by her teacher from saying the "God is great, God is good" table prayer out loud with her friends before snack time.<ref>http://www.cjonline.com/stories/041302/usw_nation.shtml</ref> The Saratoga Springs City school district sided with the teacher, claiming the prayer was a violation of the supposedly constitutional "separation of church and state." Kayla's parents filed a lawsuit against the school and received a temporary restraining order from U.S. District Judge David Hurd on Februrary 5, 2002, against the school's suppression of Kayla's prayer. On Februrary 8, 2002, Judge Hurd issued a preliminary injunction against the school ordering it to allow Kayla to say grace with her friends. Following the injunction, the school decided to settle the embarrassing case, saying that Kayla could pray without inviting her friends to join her (as this was inexplicably deemed "disruptive").

From 2004 to 2006, a [[public school]] banned [[Bible]] study by children ... ''during recess''. A teacher complained about the use of the [[Bible]] and the principal then censored the study activity, according to a sworn statement by a teacher told to stop it. Principal "Summa, having learned of a complaint by a teacher and of the students' Bible study, told fourth-grade teacher Virginia Larue to nix the group's recess meeting. Larue did, according to her deposition. In that sworn statement, Larue said she briefly informed Summa of a parental complaint about the Bible study, and Summa then instructed her to end the practice, citing fear over "separation of church and state." Larue later told one of Luke's Bible study colleagues the group could no longer meet at recess, according to the deposition."<ref>http://knoxnews.com/news/2008/jan/03/recess-bible-study-spurs-lawsuit/</ref>

In 2005, a New Jersey award-winning high school football coach, Marcus Borden, was ordered by his intolerant school district not to bow his head or "take a knee" during any player-initiated prayers. Borden resigned from coaching in October over the issue. Borden later sued and a trial judge ruled in his favor, but school officials and their allies have appealed to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

==References==
<references />

[[Category:Politics]]
[[category:Establishment Clause]]

Talk:School prayer

2008-03-04T05:54:36Z

SSchultz: /* Query */

Suez Canal

2008-03-04T04:57:01Z

SSchultz: Significantly fleshed out.

The '''Suez Canal''' is a man-made canal dug across the isthmus of Suez in [[Egypt]]. It is a strategic passageway east of the [[Nile River|Nile]] at the narrowest part of the [[Sinai Penninsula]] which connects the [[Red Sea]] and the [[Mediterranean Sea]]. The completion of the canal eliminated the need to [[ship]]s to travel around Africa in order to reach Asia and the East Indies.

The canal was built by the [[French]] Suez Canal Company (Compagnie Universelle du Canal Maritime de Suez). Ferdinand de Lesseps completed the canal in 1869 after nearly 11 years work.

Its strategic importance led to the [[British]] conquest of Egypt in 1882. The canal came under British protection after [[The Convention of Constantinople]] in 1888 as Egypt continued efforts to become independent from the British Empire. Egypt was emancipated by the British in 1922, but remained as a vassal state until after [[World War Two]]. Britain had retained a military force at Suez to secure and operate the canal under a 1935 treaty, but in 1951, facing intense internal pressure, the Egyptian King Farouk rescinded the treaty. Farouk was deposed the following year and after a period of instability replaced by [[Gamal Abdel Nassar]]. He demanded the full withdrawal of British troops, which began in 1954. The last British troops were removed on June 13, 1956.

In the early 1950s, Nassar sought funding for the Aswan High Dam, a project which would dam the Nile preventing damaging seasonal flooding, and provide hydroelectric power. Initially, the United States had agreed to fund it, but given the expulsion of British troops, the United States was pressured to withdraw support. In retaliation for the United States reneging on their pledge of support, Nassar nationalized the canal in 1956 following the withdrawal of British troops and planned to use funds generated by the canal to fund the dam. He further declared the dam closed to Israeli ships and cargo.

The British, French, and Israelis in collusion responded to this by launching an attack on the canal whereby the Israelis would invade the Sinai Peninsula. The British and French forces planned then to step in and assume control of the canal nominally as a buffer between the two sides. The plan was ruined when Nassar intentionally scuttled ships to block all access to the canal. The potential for an all out war over the canal led to the first [[United Nations]] peacekeeping force to be deployed to the Sinai, resulting in the withdrawal of Israeli troops back to pre war borders, and the exit of the British and French forces from the theater. Britain and France agreed when it became President [[Eisenhower]] (upset over the collusion of the British, French, and Israelis without consultation with the US) threatened to dump US reserves of the British Pound and French Franc which would have ruined the fragile post-war economies of Britain and France. The canal was reopened in 1957, and the [[Soviet Union]] agreed to fund construction of the Aswan High Dam.

After the [[Six Day War|1967 Arab-Israeli war]] Israeli forces captured the Sinai Peninsula and the canal was again closed to all shipping by a Egyptian blockade. The canal was briefly recaptured by the Egyptians during the [[Yom Kippur War]], and the [[Camp David Accords]] negotiated by [[Jimmy Carter]], resulted in the return of the canal and the Sinai to Egyptian control in return for Egypt formally recognizing Israel. It was reopened in 1975 and in 1979 Egypt began allowing Israeli vessels through the canal.

[[Category:Canals]]
[[Category:Egypt]]

User talk:Jimmy

2008-03-04T04:23:30Z

SSchultz: /* Your block */

{{welcome|sig=[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 23:52, 19 November 2007 (EST)}}

Take a better look to the the article [[Gettysburg Address]]. There are the words.

"That we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain-that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom-and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 12:30, 19 November 2007 (EST)

What are you trying to say? The words 'under God' were added after I pointed out the discrepancy between the article and the Breaking News item. Check the history, http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gettysburg_Address&diff=339689&oldid=289268 --Jimmy 19:29, 19 November 2007 (EST)

: We have to thank you for your comment. Now the article is better... But in your first comment you did not mention the words "under God". Next time may be you could be more specific. Is that asking to much? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 23:51, 19 November 2007 (EST)

The main subject of the news item was the phrase "under God". I didn't think repeating the wording of the phrase was all that critical in getting my point across. It seems at least one person, Schlafly, was able to understand what I was talking about. My request to you is to put a little more research into your responses before asking people to "take a better look." Thanks --Jimmy 00:21, 20 November 2007 (EST)

:We were in the middle of a Contest, but even we were in normal times it is too much work for a Sysop to read every word of every comment. Your comment '''was NOT''' clear enough. Also, I find your reply lack of kindness. Could it change? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 18:43, 20 November 2007 (EST)

Well now, this is going from bad to worse. Your attitude is making me wonder why I even pointed out the error of the Gettysburg article in the first place. I would appreciate it if you would just let this matter drop, because face it, you made a mistake.

The comment I made was short and to the point. The founder of this website understood what I was talking about and thanked me for my efforts. If you have a problem with spending two seconds to read the 20+ words I wrote, then maybe you should reevaluate your way of conducting your role as an editor.

As for my alleged lack of kindness, you are the one that said I should “take a better look” even though you failed to take ten seconds to point, click, and read the history of the Gettysburg article. Doesn’t that sound hypocritical? It is the carelessness on your part that has resulted in this meaningless exchange. Is this what I am to expect from the majority of sysops on this website? I hope not. --Jimmy 19:59, 20 November 2007 (EST)

::Your help in this matter has been fine and noticed. It has been grateful for by Andy and by me. There is no doubt about it. We encourage you to keep helping CP. What I can not accept is to see it as a mistake.

::You started writing:

:::''The article on the Gettysburg Address is concise and to the point, yet it does not contain '''the phrase''' attributed to it by the 'Breaking News' section.''

::And the phrase was: ''"That we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain-that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom-and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."''

::That phrase '''was''' in the article with the difference that 2 words were not there: '''"under God".'''

::I feel that CP needs a lot of new articles and improve many of old ones. I feel that we do not have enough time for guessing what users want to say. Is that a mistake?

::About "kindness", personally, I am in a city where this is important. But, don't worry, I can survive as far as now. Let see the future!

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 08:12, 21 November 2007 (EST)

:::The news item in question was entirely about how Lincoln inserted the phrase “under God” in his address. It was obvious to me what I was talking about and it appeared to be obvious to Schlafly what I was talking about. Yet to you for some reason, it was not. Maybe if you had read my entire comment without skipping over part of it you would have understood what I was talking about.

:::It’s ironic how you attach a lot of importance to kindness while at the same time starting your introduction to me with a snarky comment about my post.--Jimmy 20:51, 21 November 2007 (EST)
:::: Fine. Schlafly could knew what to do because it was him who wrote the news. But a normal human may not as happens to me. That is why I ask you again to be more specific.

::::: I am sure you can go to the beginning of the page and read how I started: WELCOME, WAS HE FIRST WORD... GO [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimmy&oldid=339685]--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 23:41, 21 November 2007 (EST)

This was the Breaking news in question: ''On November 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln inserted "under God" into an already-prepared [[Gettysburg Address]] and declared, "That we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain-that this nation, '''under God''', shall have a new birth of freedom-and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."'' --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 07:52, 22 November 2007 (EST)

==Your editing==
Yes that's right, the editors must provide documentation to back up what they write. The editors must also not be divisive. Since this encyclopedia is in the beginning stages, the editors must work together to build it up properly. Do you follow now? I looked at the majority of your edits which are mostly to the talk pages and you are walking a fine line between being devisive and being outright contemptuous, and it isn't just the talk page on public schools; its others as well, begining with your first edits regarding the Gettysburg Address back in November. Now if you want to make those valid contributions as you said, then you need to learn to work with the rest of us; if there's a lack of source material, then you need to swallow your pride and either respectfully ask the person involved or find it yourself. If you don't want to do any of the above, you know where the door is. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:55, 1 January 2008 (EST)

:Thank-you for finally admitting what is right. Following the rules and making suggestions for improvement is not being divisive or whining. Don't you get it? I'm the guy that's playing by the rules, making valid contributions, providing references, asking for references from unsupported assertions, etc. I'm doing all this to IMPROVE Conservapedia! What are you doing other than giving me grief for NOT violating any rules and insisting others follow them?

:My very first contribution to this website was to point out an error on the main page and the website founder thanked me for doing so. Yet all that has happened with that bit of helpful information was to be basically treated like crap by Joaquín Martínez.

:Why don't we talk about the majority of my edits, which don't violate the rules by the way.
:- First edit: talk page sugestion, thanked by founder
:- Next four edits: responding to syop that misinterpreted what I wrote and refused to admit his mistake.
:- Next eight edits: contributed to two articles on schools. One edit was on the talk page for clarification
:- Next three edits: quotes with references to the Atheism Quotes article and one talk comment on why my contributions were reverted without explanation.
:- Evolution talk page: trying to improve the content but my contributions are limited because the article is edited and locked by one person.

:See where this is going? I am working with others by making contributions. You are giving me a hard time when I insist that articles have a certain measure of quality and insist that people provide references. I'm working hard enough to provide my own references to the material I write without trying to find references to someone else's assertions that I think are incorrect. I'm treating people with respect, but if their opinions or assertions are lacking supporting documentation I will let them know, just as I have been doing. --Jimmy 17:29, 1 January 2008 (EST)

==Your block==
You were warned by an admin above about your editing. Today you removed Aschlafly's edits to the ACLU article while adding your own. This is NOT allowed. You do NOT decide if someone is violating Conservapedia guidelines.
When you return, if you argue with me or another admin or continue editing in a confrontational style, you will receive a permanent block. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 15:03, 14 February 2008 (EST)

==No problem, Jimmy==

I calls em like I sees em. You were blocked unfairly. I'm only glad that someone listened. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:23, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Theology Online

2008-03-03T03:04:57Z

SSchultz: Self promoting article should be deleted.

{{speedy}}
TheologyOnline [http://www.theologyonline.com] is a public web forum where people from all walks of life discuss the issues most important to them. TheologyOnline's no-holds-barred approach to discourse provides a unique opportunity for its members to reveal their true feelings on any topic.

== History ==

Founded in 1998, Theology Online was created to discuss the particulars of Christian Theology by students of Professor Bob Hill's Derby School of Theology [http://www.biblicalanswers.com/derby_school_of_theology_online.htm]. From its humble beginnings, Theology Online has grown to become a hotbed of debate and dialog, as well as a resource to it's 8,415 members. With nearly 25,000 threads and 1 million posts, Theology Online has vast references that examine every side of the most relevant issues facing our society today.

== Content ==

Theology Online's slogan is "Open rebuke is better than love carefully concealed," citing from the [[Bible]] Proverbs 27:5 [http://cf.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=open+rebuke&t=KJV]. In it's pages, visitors will find a vast array of knowledge and opinion, varying from the most common topics to those other websites are afraid to broach.

Theology Online is the first website of its kind. Thousands of [[Christians]], [[Atheists]], [[Agnostics]], [[Buddhists]], and many others have come together to reasonably debate [[politics]], [[religion]], current events, and a wide variety of other interesting topics. Theology Online users are a diverse group, ranging in age from 14 to 80 years old, and varying widely in life philosophies and experiences. Spanning the globe, Theology Online has users in many countries, including [[Canada]], [[Hong Kong]], [[Israel]], [[New Zealand]], and [[Australia]] and of course the [[United States]]. TOL has a web traffic rank of 355,203, according to Alexa's Web Information [http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/theologyonline.com].

Topics often include Politics[http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6], where topics such as: current events, [[abortion]], [[homosexuality]], [[gun control]], [[public schools]], [[welfare]], taxes, [[government]] are debated. Religion[http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=5], where TOL's members debate General Theology, Religions and Denominations, God's Attributes, [[Predestination]] and Free Will, Dispensationalism, [[Eschatology]], [[Philosophy]], Origins, [[Archeology]], Science, World History and other such topics.

Some of the more popular theological topics on TheologyOnline are [[Calvinism]], [[Arminianism]], and Open Theism. Other popular topics such as world news, pop culture, sports are as varied as the people who join Theology Online.

== Growth ==

Theology Online gained notoriety when Pastor and Radio Host Bob Enyart debated Knox Seminary[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knox_Theological_Seminary] Graduate, Professor Dr. Samual Lamerson, in Battle Royale X Openness Theology - Does God Know Your Entire Future?[http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21711]. Other Battle Royale[http://www.theologyonline.com/index.php?page=battle] titles include: "[[Capital Punishment]]: Should Christians Support the Death Penalty?" [http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31900], "Evolution: Science or Science Fiction?" [http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23808], and "Does God Exist?" [http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7709].

Genocide

2008-03-02T23:08:36Z

SSchultz: Last discussion on the talk page in December states we should include this item.

'''Genocide''' involves the calculated targeting and killing of a specific ethnic group, or any huge deliberate killing of civilians carried out as a consequence of government policy. The word "genocide" was coined by Rafael Lemkin in his 1944 book ''Axis Rule in Occupied Europe'' to describe the mass killings of European Jews by the Nazi regime. (See Samantha Power, ''A Problem From Hell.'')

The term applies mostly to mass killings since the beginning of the 20th century, although throughout history there have been many cases of bloodshed like this. Even in the Bible, there was the Israelite conquest of Canaan, where God instructed them "...do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them...as the Lord your God has commanded you..." ([[Deuteronomy]] 20:16).

==20th century genocides==
20th century examples include:

*1916-1917: The Ottoman and Turkish genocide of the [[Armenia]]ns
*1932-1933: The [[Soviet]] genocide of the [[Ukraine|Ukrainians]] ([[Holodomor]])
*1939-1945: The [[Nazi]] [[Holocaust]]
*1975 - 1978: The Killing Fields in [[Cambodia]] by the [[Khmer Rouge]]
*1995: Hutu genocide of the Tutsi population in [[Rwanda]]<ref>http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/rwanda/</ref>
*1995: The [[Srebrenica massacre]] where approximately 8500 [[Bosnia]]n [[Muslim]]s were murdered by an ethnic Serbian militia during the [[Bosnian War]].

[[Communist]] regimes killed 60 million in the 20th century, according to ''Le Monde'' and more than 100 million people according to ''The Black Book of Communism''.

==International conventions==
In 1948, The United Nations Genocide Convention defined "genocide":

Article 2
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
<ol type="a">
<li>Killing members of the group;</li>
<li>Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;</li>
<li>Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;</li>
<li>Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;</li>
<li>Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.</li>
</ol>
Article 3
The following acts shall be punishable:
<ol type="a">
<li>Genocide;</li>
<li>Conspiracy to commit genocide;</li>
<li>Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;</li>
<li>Attempt to commit genocide;</li>
<li>Complicity in genocide.</li>
</ol>

The first ever conviction for the crime of genocide was handed down by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the case of Radislav Krstc, a Bosnian Serb general who commanded the forces that killed over 7500 [[Muslim]] men and boys at Srebenica.<ref>http://www.un.org/icty/krstic/TrialC1/judgement/index.htm</ref>

==Darfur and the United Nations==
Despite this lip service the United Nations has failed to recognize the events in the [[Darfur]] region of [[Sudan]] as genocide. [[Amnesty International]], and the [[African Union]] likewise only acknowledge the "tragedy" in Darfur but refuse to characterize the situation as genocide. Médecins sans Frontières (Doctors without Borders) director Jean-Hervé Bradol called the term genocide "inappropriate" and its deputy emergency director Dr. Mercedes Taty said, ''"I don't think that we should be using the word 'genocide' to describe this conflict."''<ref>[http://asiapacific.mediamonitors.net/headlines/the_bush_administration_darfur_and_genocide_placing_votes_before_peace_in_sudan]</ref>

The European Union and the United States government both officially recognize Darfur as genocide.
A UN commission called it "[[crimes against humanity]]".<ref>Government forces and militias conducted indiscriminate attacks, including killing of civilians, torture, enforced disappearances, destruction of villages, rape and other forms of sexual violence, pillaging and forced displacement, throughout Darfur. These acts were conducted on a widespread and systematic basis, and therefore may amount to crimes against humanity. [http://www.alternativeinsight.com/War_in_Darfur.html War in Darfur] </ref>

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Crimes]]
[[Category:Genocide]]

Srebrenica massacre

2008-03-02T23:06:50Z

SSchultz:

The '''Srebrenica massacre''' was the slaughter of some 8,000 [[Bosnia]]n [[Muslims]] (Bosniaks) by guerrilla forces of the Army of [[Republika Srpska]] (ethnic Serbs), led by Ratko Mladić, in 1995 during the [[Bosnian War]]. The massacre occurred in the Bosnian territory of [[Srebrenica]]. 11 incidences of violence from 13 July to 22 July left approximately 8,373 Bosniak men, women, and children dead.<ref>[http://www.domovina.net/srebrenica/page_006/Preliminarni_spisak_Srebrenica_1995.pdf Federal Commission for Missing Persons - List of missing Srebrenican men]</ref>

After the war, Bosnia formally [[Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro|accused Serbia of genocide]], claiming that Serbian forces assisted in the massacre. This led to an indictment against commander Mladić by the [[International Criminal Court]] and [[International Court of Justice]]<ref>[http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/mla-ai021010e.htm ICTY Indictment Against Mladić]</ref> The court further ruled that the Srebrenica massacre was indeed an act of genocide.<ref>[http://www.un.org/icty/krstic/Appeal/judgement/krs-aj040419e.pdf ICTY Ruling of genocide in Srebrenica]</ref> It should be noted, however, that Serbia was never found guilty of genocide; they were found to have not taken enough action to stop the genocide from occurring.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Genocide]]

Seven Deadly Sins

2008-03-02T21:38:25Z

SSchultz:

The '''Seven Deadly Sins''' are:

*[[Pride (sin)|Pride]] (or Vainglory)

*[[Envy (sin)|Envy]]

*[[Gluttony (sin)|Gluttony]]

*[[Lust (sin)|Lust]]

*[[Wrath|Anger]]

*[[Greed|Avarice]] (or Covetousness)

*[[Sloth]]

Each sin had a different punishment allotted to it in [[Hell]].

== External link ==

[http://www.deadlysins.com/sins/history.html A brief history of sin]

[[Category:Christian Theology]]
[[Category:Sin]]

Seven Deadly Sins

2008-03-02T21:38:10Z

SSchultz: Correct some links

The '''Seven Deadly Sins''' are:

*[[Pride (sin)|Pride]] (or Vainglory)

*[[Envy (sin)|Envy]]

*[[Gluttony (sin)|Gluttony]]

*[[Lust (sin)|Lust]]

*[[Wrath|Anger]]

*[[Greed|Avarice (sin)|Avarice]] (or Covetousness)

*[[Sloth]]

Each sin had a different punishment allotted to it in [[Hell]].

== External link ==

[http://www.deadlysins.com/sins/history.html A brief history of sin]

[[Category:Christian Theology]]
[[Category:Sin]]

Seven Deadly Sins

2008-03-02T21:36:42Z

SSchultz:

The '''Seven Deadly Sins''' are:

*[[Pride (sin)|Pride]] (or Vainglory)

*[[Envy (sin)|Envy]]

*[[Gluttony (sin)|Gluttony]]

*[[Lust (sin)|Lust]]

*[[Anger (sin)|Anger]]

*[[Avarice (sin)|Avarice]] (or Covetousness)

*[[Sloth (sin)|Sloth]]

Each sin had a different punishment allotted to it in [[Hell]].

== External link ==

[http://www.deadlysins.com/sins/history.html A brief history of sin]

[[Category:Christian Theology]]
[[Category:Sin]]

Liberal logic

2008-03-02T21:35:39Z

SSchultz:

'''Liberal logic''' is an argument by a liberal that is deceptively attractive to some, but is actually nonsensical. Here are some examples:

# often a [[liberal]] responds to a logical comment or question with an (illogical) expression of personal like or dislike, as in "but I like it!"
# claim that switching from heterosexual to [[homosexual]] is customary, but switching back is somehow impossible<ref>Anne Heche was frequently promoted by the media as the lesbian partner to Ellen DeGeneres, but later Anne Heche, who stated she was [[bisexual]], married a man and [[liberals]] avoided talking about the change.</ref>
# criticize [[Christians]] for literal interpretations of [[Genesis]], but then insist on even more literal interpretations when it suits the [[liberal]] ideology<ref>For example, [[liberals]] here insist that [[homeschooling]] can only mean being taught while in someone's own home. Liberals also often insist that the [[Bible]] literally prohibits judging anything.</ref>
# no matter what happens in the weather, [[global warming]] caused it
# belief that a [[correlation]] and/or [[causation]] (e.g., between [[atheism]] and [[suicide]]) can be disproved by a [[counterexample]] (e.g., one [[atheist]] who remained sane)
# [[Americans]] should "move on" past the misconduct of [[Bill Clinton]] and [[Ted Kennedy]], but should dig up as much old dirt as possible about [[John McCain]]
# if [highly implausible assumption like "[[embryonic stem cell]] research will find the cure for paralysis"], then would you support it (without any consideration of alternatives)?
# [[Barack Obama]] on [[Afghanistan]]: with fewer soldiers, we didn't have enough ammo and humvees!<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21text-demdebate.html?sq=transcript&st=nyt&scp=2&pagewanted=print]</ref>
# personal experience dictates personal views, rather than rising above bad and/or unusual experiences and basing one's views on [[logic]]
# never admit shame for [[liberal]] behavior, but often tell others they should be ashamed of themselves
# [[free speech]] for anything and everything ... except the [[conservative]] truth, and religion.
# [[Hollywood]] promotion of [[abortion]] is welcomed, but views of Hollywood actresses towards their own children are concealed
# insisting that an [[atheistic]] culture cannot harm anyone, but also insisting that classroom prayer can cause harm
# carrying an unborn child to birth reduces risk of breast cancer, but choosing [[abortion]] rather than childbirth somehow does not increase the relative risk
# requesting increased spending by [[government]] to reduce poverty, which actually poverty is increased by the dependency
# insisting on "tolerance" for anything that is anti-[[Christian]], while censorship for anything is [[Christian]]
# insisting that teaching [[abstinence]] does not reduce premarital sex
# denying that widespread ownership of guns, largely defensive weapons, can reduce crime
# insisting that increasing taxes must increase government revenue, when often people just work less and revenues then decline
# Even though the [[Supreme Court]] overrules precedents every year by 5-4 votes, [[Roe v. Wade]] cannot be overruled, or can only be overruled if it is a unanimous 9-0 vote (this argument tries to make irreversible law out of the dicta in a weak majority opinion in ''[[Planned Parenthood v. Casey]]'', even though the very creation of that "secret opinion" was procured by [[liberal deceit]].)<ref>See Jeffrey Toobin's ''The Nine''.</ref>
# The pronoun "he" has been used to include men and women for centuries, but [[liberals]] find that illogical today

(add to list)

==See also==

*[[Liberal bias]]
*[[Liberal hysteria]]
*[[Liberal hate speech]]
*[[Liberal style]]
*[[Liberal denial]]
*[[Liberal obfuscation]]
*[[Liberal quotient]]

==References==
<references/>
[[category:politics]][[Category:Liberals]]

Jihad

2008-03-01T21:57:00Z

SSchultz:

'''Jihad''' is an [[Islam|Islamic]] concept meaning "to exert utmost effort, to strive, struggle"; has many meanings to the [[Muslim]], both inward and outward; mainly used in the West to describe a "holy war" that some fundamentalist Muslims fight against non-Muslims or Muslims of other Islamic sects. The word "Jihad" is a transliteration of the [[Arabic]] word "جهاد".

Jihad as "struggle," is divided into two types, the greater Jihad and the lesser Jihad. The greater Jihad is the internal struggle against [[sin]] and temptation and to make one's self a better Muslim. The lesser Jihad is the physical conflict (historically understood as defensive struggle) against those who threaten the Muslim way of life. Many followers of Islam do not condone the use of jihad as a manner of securing converts.

== Mention of Jihad in the [[Qur'an]] ==

Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.
Qur'an 2:190

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid.
Qur'an 22:39

Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then Allah Hath opened no way for you (to war against them).
Qur'an 4:90

But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things).
Qur'an 8:61

[[category:islam]]

Europa (moon)

2008-03-01T21:53:01Z

SSchultz: /* Speculation about Life */ Added info about Arthur C Clarke.

{{Planet
| name=Europa
| image=Europa_true_color.jpg
| caption=True-color image of Europa from the second orbit around it by [[Galileo Project|Galileo]].
| date=January 7, 1610<ref name=disc>"[http://www.solarviews.com/eng/galdisc.htm The Discovery of the Galilean Satellites]," [[JPL]], [[NASA]], n.d. Quoted by Hamilton, Calvin J., ''[http://www.solarviews.com/ SolarViews].'' Accessed February 18, 2008.</ref>
| discname=[[Galileo Galilei]], [[Simon Marius]]<ref name=disc/>
| origname=[[Phoenicia]]n princess from whom [[Europe]] gets its name; mistress of [[Zeus]], mother of [[Rhadamanthus]] and [[Minos]].<ref name=Arnett>Arnett, Bill. "[http://www.nineplanets.org/europa.html Entry for Europa]." ''The <s>Nine</s>8 Planets'', October 1, 2005. Accessed February 29, 2008.</ref>
| primary=Jupiter
| order=6
| periapsis=664,792 km<ref name=calc>Calculated</ref>
| apoapsis=677,408 km<ref name=calc/>
| semimajor=671,100 km<ref name=gal1>"[http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/galileo/europa/ Europa, a Continuing Story of Discovery]." ''Galileo Project/NASA''. Accessed February 29, 2008.</ref><ref name=ssdelem>"[Planetary Satellite Mean Orbital Parameters]." ''Solar System Dynamics'', [[JPL]], [[NASA]]. Accessed February 29, 2008.</ref>
| eccentricity=0.0094<ref name=gal1/><ref name=ssdelem/>
| sidereal=3.551181 da<ref name=gal1/><ref name=ssdelem/>
| orbitspeed=13.74 km/s<ref name=gal1/><ref name=solarviews>Hamilton, Calvin J. "[http://www.solarviews.com/eng/europa.htm Jupiter's Moon Europa]." ''Solarviews'', 1997. Accessed February 29, 2008.</ref>
| inclination=0.470°<ref name=gal1/>
| siderealday=3.551181 da<ref name=gal1/>
| rotatespeed=31.96 m/s<ref name=calc/>
| axialtilt=0.016°<ref name=ssdelem/>
| mass=4.8 * 1022 kg (0.83021% earth)<ref name=gal1/><ref name=solarviews/>
| density=3,013 kg/m³<ref name=gal1/><ref name=ssdphys>"[http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?sat_phys_par Planetary Body Physical Parameters]." ''Solar System Dynamics'', [[JPL]], [[NASA]]. Accessed February 29, 2008.</ref>
| meanradius=1,560.8 km<ref name=ssdphys/>
| surfacegrav= 1.3239 m/s² (0.135 ''g'')<ref name=gal1/>
| escapespeed=2.02 km/s<ref name=gal1/><ref name=solarviews/>
| surfacearea=30,612,893 km² (6.00175% earth)<ref name=calc/>
| mintemp=50 K<ref name=planetsoc>"[http://www.planetary.org/explore/topics/our_solar_system/jupiter/europa.html Jupiter's Moon Europa]." ''The Planetary Society''. Accessed February 29, 2008.</ref>
| maxtemp=110 K<ref name=planetsoc/>
| composition=Water ice and rock<ref name=gal1/>
| color=Marble white with reddish-brown streaks
| albedo=0.64<ref name=gal1/><ref name=solarviews/>
}}'''Europa''' is the second innermost of the [[Galilean moons]] of [[Jupiter]], and also the smallest and lightest. Europa is named for the Phoenician princess who, according to legend, gave Europe its name, and was carried off to [[Crete]] by [[Zeus]], who had assumed the shape of a bull. Today Europa, more than any other object in the [[solar system]], continues to be the subject of speculation as to whether it harbors [[extraterrestrial life]].

== Discovery and naming ==
[[Galileo Galilei]] observed Jupiter beginning on January 7, 1610, with his famous telescope. He at first thought he had discovered three stars near Jupiter, but on the next night those "stars" seemed to have moved. (Those "stars" were actually [[Io]], Europa, and [[Callisto]].) He continued to observe Jupiter and its companion "stars" for seven days, during which time a fourth "star" ([[Ganymede]]) appeared and all four of these objects appeared to move with Jupiter. Finally he concluded that these objects were not stars at all, but satellites of Jupiter. This was the first direct observation that provided evidence for [[Nicolaus Copernicus]]'s heliocentric model of the solar system.<ref name=disc/>

[[Simon Marius]] claimed to observe Jupiter and these satellites independently of Galileo and beginning five weeks earlier. However, he did not ''publish'' his findings, while Galileo published his. Furthermore, Galileo's notes were more reliable and extensive than those of Marius, which is why Ganymede and the three other satellites he observed (Io, Europa, and Callisto) are called the Galilean satellites and not the Galilean-Marian satellites.<ref name=disc/>

Marius does, however, receive credit for providing the names that the satellites have today. He named Ganymede, the largest, for the mythical son of King [[Tros]] of [[Troy]], carried aloft to [[Mount Olympus]] by [[Zeus]] to be the cupbearer to the gods. (The names ''Zeus'' and ''Jupiter'' refer to the same classical deity from whom Jupiter gets its name.) The other three satellites are named for three of Zeus' most famous mistresses.<ref name=disc/> Marius propounded these names after [[Johannes Kepler]] suggested them to him.

Galileo, for his part, called them the "Medicean planets" after the [[Medici]] family and simply numbered the moons I, II, III, and IV. The satellites carried these names for two centuries until the discovery of other moons of Jupiter made that naming system untenably confusing.

== Orbital and rotational characteristics ==
[[Image:Galilean moon Laplace resonance animation.gif|thumb|150 px|left|Orbital resonance of Io, Europa, and Ganymede]]Europa is sixth in order of all of Jupiter's moons, and orbits Jupiter at a semi-major axis of 671,100 km. Its orbit is more eccentric than that of volcanic [[Io]] and is slightly inclined to Jupiter's equator. Europa is in [[tidal lock]] (thus keeping the same face toward Jupiter as it revolves).

Europa maintains a three-part [[orbital resonance]] or Laplace resonance with Io and Ganymede. These three satellites complete their orbits around Jupiter in the ratio 1:2:4. They also conjoin with one another at their apsides, in a mutually self-correcting manner that allows the resonance to persist. (Most such resonances are unstable and end with one or all bodies changing their orbits.)

The origin of the resonance itself is controversial. Peale and Lee, in 2002, presented a model suggesting that this resonance is primordial and thus was part of the Jovian system since its formation.<ref name=Peale>Peale, S. J., and Lee, Man Hoi. "[http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002Sci...298..593P A Primordial Origin of the Laplace Relation Among the Galilean Satellites]." ''Science'', 298(5593):593-597, October 2002. Accessed February 18, 2008.</ref> Their model, however, derives from the [[nebular hypothesis]] of the formation of the solar system and thus depends on [[uniformitarianism|uniformitarian]] assumptions. Showman and Malhotra suggest a model by which the resonance developed after the solar system had formed.<ref name=Showman>Showman, Adam P., and Malhotra, Renu. "[http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~showman/publications/showman-malhotra-1997.pdf Tidal Evolution into the Laplace Resonance and the Resurfacing of Ganymede]." ''Icarus'', 127:93-111, 1997. Accessed February 18, 2008.</ref>

Most scientists hold that this resonance make Europa warmer than it otherwise would be. This, they say, would explain the persistence of a liquid water ocean on Europa, though it should be far too cold for this.<ref name=Arnett/> More to the point, the same tidal flexion that might be heating Europa is cited as the cause of the irregular striations observed on Europa's surface.<ref name=planetsoc/>

== Physical characteristics ==
[[Image:Europa interior.jpg|thumb|150px|left|Europa cutaway]]At 1,560.8 km in radius, Europa is the fifteenth largest body in the [[solar system]].<ref name=planetsoc/> It is very lightly cratered and thus "geologically young" by [[uniformitarianism|uniformitarian]] standards;<ref name=Arnett/> some authorities suggest an apparent age of 30 million Julian years.<ref name=planetsoc/> Indeed only three craters larger than 5 km in diameter are known to exist on Europa's surface.<ref name=solarviews/><ref name=Arnett/>

Europa is likely surfaced with [[water]] ice and rock, with a 50-km-deep subterranean ocean deep to this, resting on a silicate floor that surrounds a metallic core. The surface has multiple dark streaks, some measuring 20 km broad. Their origin is uncertain but suspected to be volcanic or geothermal.<ref name=Arnett/>

The [[Hubble Space Telescope]] has detected evidence of an "atmosphere" at pressure 10-11 bar, containing [[oxygen]].<ref name=Arnett/><ref name=planetsoc/> Most authorities ''do not'' suggest that this oxygen is biotic. Rather, they suggest that sunlight and the charged particles of Jupiter's radiation belt cause the water ice on Europa to vaporize and then to split into [[hydrogen]] and oxygen--and the hydrogen, being much lighter, tends to escape Europa's light gravity (0.135 ''g'') and leave the oxygen.<ref name=Arnett/><ref name=planetsoc/>

[[Image:Europa sulfuric.jpg|150 px|right]]More recently, [[sulfuric acid]] has been found on Europa.<ref name=acid>"[http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast30sep99_1.htm Sulfuric Acid Found on Europa]." ''Science@NASA'', September 30, 1999. Accessed February 29, 2008.</ref> This might explain the red striations; they might be composed largely of elemental sulfur.

=== Controversy over Europa's surface ===
[[Image:Europa surface models.jpg|200 px|left]]At least two models of the surface of Europa are in current circulation: the "thick ice" model and the "liquid ocean" model. The "thick ice," if present, would be convective, and this would explain the slight magnetic moment that Europa possesses. Whether Europa has "thick ice" or a liquid ocean under ''thin'' ice remains an open question.

Faced with the risk of terrestrial contamination of Europa's possible thinly-covered ocean, an event that would severely complicate any evaluation of the finding of [[extremophile]]s or other microbes on Europa, led the Galileo mission planners to make a hard decision. They deliberately crash-dived the Galileo orbiter onto Jupiter so that it would never risk crashing onto the surface of Europa.<ref name=rense>"[http://www.rense.com/general41/galui.htm Galileo Crashes into Jupiter]." ''ABC News Online'', Australian Broadcasting Company, September 21, 2003. Accessed February 20, 2008.</ref><ref name=Macey>Macey, Richard. "[http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/09/14/1063478069136.html Galileo's death leap onto Jupiter]." ''Sydney Morning Herald Online'', September 15, 2003. Accessed February 20, 2008.</ref>

== Speculation about Life ==
More than any other extraterrestrial body (except perhaps for [[Mars]]), Europa has long been the subject of intense speculation as to whether it harbors [[extraterrestrial life]]. The Voyager data fueled this speculation, which began with Richard C. Hoagland's startling proposal that Europa might have a liquid ocean that harbored life.<ref name=hoagland>Hoagland, Richard C. "The Europa Enigma." ''Star and Sky'', January, 1980, pp. 16-31. Reproduced in full at ''[http://www.enterprisemission.com/europa.html The Enterprise Mission]'', 1996. Accessed February 29, 2008.</ref> NASA authorities, except for [[Robert Jastrow]], were unsympathetic and highly skeptical of Hoagland's theories. Arthur C Clarke, prominent science fiction writer used the concept of life on Europa as a plot point for his novels 2010: Odyssey II (later adapted into the motion picture 2010: The Year We Make Contact) and 2061: Odyssey III.<ref name=enterprise>Review and history of the Richard C. Hoagland paper at ''[http://www.enterprisemission.com/europa.html The Enterprise Mission]'', 1996. Accessed February 29, 2008.</ref>

With the arrival of Galileo and the data from Galileo's early exploration of Europa, the speculation became even more feverish.<ref name=resa>"[http://www.resa.net/nasa/europa_life.htm Life on Europa]." ''[http://www.resa.net/nasa/xlife_intro.htm Life on Other Planets in the Solar System]'', October 22, 1998. Accessed February 29, 2008.</ref><ref name=solarviews/><ref name=Arnett/> Even the finding of sulfuric acid, a harsh chemical, on Europa has not dampened that speculation.<ref name=acid/>

== Problems for Uniformitarian Theories ==
By far the most salient problem that Europa poses for uniformitarians is its apparent "geologic youth." How such "young" bodies as Europa and its inner neighbor [[Io]] came to participate in a three-part orbital resonance with a so-much-"older" body ([[Ganymede]]) begs explanation. Those wishing to assert that Io and Europa did indeed form much more recently than did Ganymede (and [[Callisto]], the fourth member of the family of Galilean moons) must be prepared to state where those two bodies came from, if they did not form at the same time as the rest of the [[solar system]].

At least some authorities assert that Io, for example, only ''looks'' "young" because its volcanoes are constantly filling in any impact craters that are forming. Others assert that Europa looks "young" because its subterranean liquid ocean, if it has one, is resilient and thus able to absorb most meteor impacts without forming craters.<ref name=whyfiles>"[http://whyfiles.org/060moons/europa.html Europa--orbiting incubator]?" ''The Why Files''. Accessed March 1, 2008.</ref> Yet this begs the question of why the three large impact craters known to exist on Europa have persisted.

== Exploration ==
=== History ===
[[Image:Hydrobot.jpg|thumb|300 px|right|Proposed submersible robotic explorer, or Hydrobot]]The first spacecraft to visit the Jovian system were [[Pioneer 10]] and [[Pioneer 11]]. Though these two probes demonstrated the feasibility of deep-space exploration, they took only a few dim and blurred images of Europa and the other Galilean moons.

[[Voyager 1]] and [[Voyager 2]] provided richly detailed images and other findings that made possible the first models of Europa's interior and surface composition.

In 1995, the [[Galileo Project|Galileo]] spacecraft arrived in the Jovian system. After releasing a probe to dive into Jupiter and report on Jupiter's atmosphere, Galileo began a detailed reconnaissance of the Galilean moons. Europa was one of its first targets, on account of the relative safety of a close approach to Europa and the urgency of the speculation about Europa's composition and possible harboring of [[extraterrestrial life]].

=== Plans and proposals ===
The proposed [[Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter]], which would almost certainly have had Europa as a prime target, has recently been cancelled.<ref name=JIMO>"[http://www.planetsurveyor.com/latest-space-exploration-news/jupiter-icy-moons-orbiter-victim-of-budget-cut.html Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter Victim of Budget Cut]." ''Planet Surveyor'', May 23, 2005. Accessed February 18, 2008.</ref> But other proposals for further exploration remain under consideration. At least one such proposal calls for a probe to crash through the ice and release a robotic submersible to explore the water beneath the ice.<ref>[http://sbir.gsfc.nasa.gov/SBIR/abstracts/98/sbir/phase1/SBIR-98-1-25.01-9300.html A Submersible Remotely Operated Vehicle System for Exploration of Large Subglacial Bodies of Water]. Proposal 98-1 25.01-9300, SBIR Phase I, [[NASA]]. Accessed February 29, 2008.</ref>

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

{{Solarsystem}}

File:Callisto true color.jpg

2008-03-01T21:50:47Z

SSchultz: /* Original caption */ - The Galileo probe was decomissioned and crashed into Jupiter

True-color full-face image of Callisto by spacecraft Galileo.

== Original caption ==
Bright scars on a darker surface testify to a long history of impacts on Jupiter's moon Callisto in this image of Callisto from NASA's Galileo spacecraft.

The picture, taken in May 2001, is the only complete global color image of Callisto obtained by Galileo, which orbited Jupiter from December 1995 until September 2003. Of Jupiter's four largest moons, Callisto orbits farthest from the giant planet.

Callisto's surface is uniformly cratered but is not uniform in color or brightness. Scientists believe the brighter areas are mainly ice and the darker areas are highly eroded, ice-poor material.

The Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a division of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, manages the Galileo mission for NASA's Office of Space Science, Washington, D.C. Additional information about the spacecraft and its discoveries is available on the Galileo home page at http://galileo.jpl.nasa.gov.

== Copyright information ==
This image is served on a site belonging to [[NASA]] and the [[Jet Propulsion Laboratory]]. Per JPL/NASA policy and applicable [[United States]] federal law, such images are in the [[public domain]], or, if they are owned by individuals or institutions other than NASA or JPL, may be used for any journalistic, educational, or personal purpose (but not a commercial purpose) without further authorization. NASA and JPL images, other than their respective institutional logos, or photographs of actual persons, are not subject to copyright and may be used without additional permission, unless otherwise declared. For details, see the [http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/policy/index.cfm JPL Image Use Policy Declaration].

== Source ==
* Credits: [[Galileo Project]]/[[JPL]]/[[NASA]]/[[German Aerospace Center]]
* Source page: <http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA03456>

[[Category:Image]][[Category:Astronomy]][[Category:Public domain images]][[Category:Moons]][[Category:Jupiter]]

Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse

2008-03-01T21:47:24Z

SSchultz: /* Karajou's block of Jimmy is unwarranted */

<noinclude><center>[[Conservapedia:Desk|Back to the Desk]]</center> </noinclude>
=Abuse Complaints=
Archives: [[Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse/Archive1|1]]

== Wrongly block from Conservapedia ==

I tried to transfer five Wikipedia political articles to Conservapedia Sunday evening but was blocked at my home computer. I have been able to log in at the office computer. Once one is blocked, he cannot make any contact from that particular computer. Apparently, the one who blocked me, I cannot remember the moniker, but it started with a "J", thought that I had just scooped up some articles from Wikipedia. I have written 100 percent of those articles. Four are about conservatives.

The articles were:

*Billy J. Guin
*Allison R. Kolb
*Hall M. Lyons
*Ben C. Toledano, all Louisiana Republicans

*and Roy R. Theriot, a Democrat.

Wikipedia does not want the articles after 12 to 18 months on the site.

Conservapedia allows a transfer if the author wrote the article on Wikipedia.

I should be unblocked and have these five articles reverted to the screen, particularly the four on conservatives.

Please unblock me,

Billy Hathorn

bhathorn

I can also get you several dozen Wikipedia articles still on the screen about conservatives if you would like them.

:You were unblocked six hours after being blocked[http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Blockip/Bhathorn]. Are you sure that you are still getting a block, or is it just that you've encountered the [[Conservapedia:Editor's guide#Restrictions|night-editing restrictions]]?
: If you ''are'' still getting a block, perhaps you should write to a sysop (see the "Email this user" link in the left column of a sysop's user page; but you must have your own e-mail set to do this), particularly if it's your IP address that is the problem.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:59, 19 December 2007 (EST)
::bhathorn, I deleted your pages because they were copied straight from Wikipedia. This site does not allow that unless it is your own work. You've been unblocked because the articles you copied have been verified by another administrator. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 07:02, 19 December 2007 (EST)

== Micheal Moore ==

In the talk section, there is article with an image of Moore in high school, and with the quote <blockquote>
He looks like a lovely young lady. Too bad about the way things worked out. Scorpio 10:43, 14 July 2007 (EDT)
</blockquote>
Isn't this against the rules? Now I realize it is called '''Conserv'''apedia, but isn't this even going a little too far?
[[user:thegovernator|thegovernator]]
:That's the talk page, not the main space. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:10, 24 December 2007 (EST)

Oh, i see, well nevemind then, I just thought I should bring it up in case it was. [[user:thegovernator|thegovernator]]

== Unblocking User:LardoBolger? ==

I've been trying to get my account unblocked ([[User:LardoBolger|Lardo Bolger]]) For nearly two months now and have mailed several sysops, including Ed Poor and Aschlafly.

I have received no response from either but dead silence, but I was fortunate enough to get at least ONE reply from Iduan, so my thanks to him. Another thanks to Learn Together for possibly inquring my block, as TK emailed me with boastful words amounting to having more power than everyone else except Schlafly himself.

Due to the nature that the block message reads "Atheistic Deceit" by TK, when I had made inquiry of his blocking to AtheistKathryn as deceitful, and the fact that sysops neither reply or act to my emails, I feel a bit discriminated against. Not only that, but the insults TK said to me just shows the lack of accountability here. Seeing as he also banned another user with the statement that atheists aren't welcome on CP, it would seem but obvious to consider discrimination of religion, even though ''I'm not Atheist.''

Among all this, not one reason I was blocked, just wild accusations and insults. I'm hoping this doesn't truly define how Conservapedia works. I never saw in the rules that being accused of Atheist, reporting/inquiring sysop abuse, or having a promiscuous mother (as was said by TK, among many other things) justifies a block here. Perhaps the rules should be changed so future editors can keep their mothers, religion, and thoughts of equality in check. Also, when signing up, it says "Real name (Optional)", so my username obviously didn't reflect my real name. However, that was also used to define why I was blocked by TK, and I feel I should say everything in one go.

I ''apologize'' for not ''understanding'' what I did wrong, and I apologize for using a different account to get a response (if any) since email seems to be only an option to read here. [[User:PhilB|PhilB]] 14:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:I can't see exactly why you were blocked, so I am just offering the benefit of the doubt and unblocking you. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:58, 28 December 2007 (EST)
::Thank you VERY much, mister Fox! By all means, watch my edits if you have any suspicions! :) [[User:LardoBolger|LardoBolger]] 15:01, 28 December 2007 (EST)

== [[User:GoObama]] ==

POV pusher. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 22:41, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:Began vandalizing after I warned him. [[User:ThomasB|ThomasB]] 22:43, 3 January 2008 (EST)
::Andy's dealt with him. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:52, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== Aschlafly's Removal of Legitimate Information ==

After repeated edits of the Barack Obama article to include the following fully cited, unbiased, and completely factual information:

Both [[Democrats]] and [[Republicans]] have accused him of avoiding controversial stands in an apparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office. The prime example being, as a state senator in [[Illinois]], he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" 129 times.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html</ref> However, this is not unusual given the nature of the Illinois Senate as each senator votes through the use of three buttons, green for yes, red for no, and yellow for present. As Illinois political writer and blogger Rich Miller has said, "not all 'present' votes are cowardly, including those cast by then-state Sen. Obama."<ref>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18348437</ref> Chris Mooney, a professor of [[political science]] at the University of Illinois, Springfield, sheds further light on the situation: "Mooney and other state capitol watchers and players say Illinois lawmakers often vote 'present' as part of a larger party or issue bloc strategy."<ref>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18348437</ref> During that same period, he was planning to run for the [[House of Representatives]], which was unsuccessful, and then successfully for [[U.S. Senate]], in which he defeated Republican candidate [[Alan Keyes]], also an [[African American]].<ref>http://www.ilsenate.com/default.asp</ref>

Aschlafly, has threatened to ban me if I am to edit it again. However my edits were completely neutral in nature and only served to remove opinionated and accusative language and to elaborate upon the voting "present" controversy so that people will have a better understanding of both the Illinois Senate and why Sen. Obama voted in such a way.

On the talk page I have repeatedly defended the position as well as asked Aschlafly to refrain from removing the edits and at the very least, give some sort of justification for removal, something which he has yet to do. His only responses have been that what he said is right, giving no justification or information to support his claims, and to threaten me with banning if I am to edit the article again.

It is my personal belief on the matter, that he is using his administrative powers to enforce his opinion as fact and to limit attempts by others like myself, from trying to improve Conservapedia to be more neutral and factual.--[[User:ElliottRosewater|ElliottRosewater]] 16:23, 17 February 2008 (EST)

== Karajou's block of Jimmy is unwarranted ==

I believe Karajou has abused his position as a sysop and blocked [[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] simply for disagreeing with him. Now, I could understand if Jimmy had been vulgar or insulting, but it's plain from reading the discussion at [[Talk: Obama on rifles]] that this was not the case. Jimmy was blocked for suggesting that a significant number of active and retired military members are Democrats and/or liberals. Karajou claimed in his [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Jimmy block notice] that Jimmy was insulting and denigrating service members. This clearly isn't the case. I believe Jimmy should be unblocked at the very least. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 19:37, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:How do you know that "Jimmy was blocked for suggesting that a significant number of active and retired military members are Democrats and/or liberals" rather than for something else? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:09, 26 February 2008 (EST)
::That's the only thing I saw in the discussion that could remotely be considered insulting and what's more is that it was the last statement Jimmy made immediately prior to being blocked. Do me a favor and read the page and tell me where you think Jimmy insults or denigrates service members? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 19:59, 27 February 2008 (EST)
:::Is there no response? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 16:47, 1 March 2008 (EST)

Madrassa

2008-02-29T05:03:45Z

SSchultz: New page: '''Madrassa''' is the Arabic word for school. The concept of the madrassa goes as far back as the mid 9th century CE where they were an early form of private religious education. ...

'''Madrassa''' is the [[Arabic]] word for [[school]]. The concept of the madrassa goes as far back as the mid 9th century CE where they were an early form of private religious education. Historically madrassas have served a function similar to post-secondary education in the west, including studies of [[Islam]]ic jurisprudence, medicine, and religious studies similar to seminaries in the west. Madrassas today are private schools funded by charitable trusts and where public schools exist are not the primary form of education in the Middle East.

As a neologism, the word madrassa has a connotation of being a school for young children where a radical version of Islam is taught. Although some such schools have existed in parts of [[Palestine]], [[Taliban]]-era [[Afghanistan]], and parts of [[Saudi Arabia]], that vast majority of madrassas are edifices of mainstream education. The concept of the madrassa as a terrorist training school is ill-founded and there is no evidence that madrassas turn out individuals who hold the purpose of attacking the west.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/14/opinion/14bergen.html</ref>

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[Category:Education]]

Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse

2008-02-28T00:59:39Z

SSchultz: /* Karajou's block of Jimmy is unwarranted */

Talk:Liberals and friendship

2008-02-28T00:56:30Z

SSchultz: /* Cites */

==Liberals aren't friends of Andy?==
So let me get this straight. Are you saying that liberals will often, or even usually, only make friends with a conservative for the purpose of converting them? Isn't that ascribing an awful lot of malice without real cause? And where's the evidence for this? I have a number of liberal friends. We argue quite a lot about politics, but it doesn't mean we don't remain friends. Do you have ''any'' liberal friends, Andy? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 22:19, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:I'm an apathetic-liberal. So, yes, Mr. Schlafly does have liberal friends. -^_^- [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy]] 22:42, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::And are you his friend only to convert him to your heathen liberal ways? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:17, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::Heathen? Does that mean you're saying liberals aren't Christians. I said that I'm apathetic-liberal, meaning I don't have a stance on a lot of political issues but some of my thinking is still sort of liberal. I friends with him, but no a great friend, so it's not like I would be capable of "converting" him. It probably doesn't help that I have a type B personality, right?. -^_^- [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy]] 08:56, 26 February 2008 (EST)
==Another take==
A '''Christian friendship''' is a friendship on [[Christian]] terms, as in requiring acceptance, allowance or lack of criticism of [[Christian]] values. It is often the product of [[peer pressure]]. Someone in a '''Christian friendship''' can expect loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the [[Christian]] values.

A '''Christian friendship''' can occur wherever [[Christians]] apply [[peer pressure]] to spread their belief system. It can occur in college, in relationships, and in the workplace.

In contrast, [[atheists]] virtually never require censorship or acceptance of [[atheist]] principles as a condition of friendship.

:I like this take, here's another one:

:A cheese eating friendship can occur whenever cheese eaters apply peer pressure to spread their belief in eating cheese. It can occur in college, in relationships and in the workplace.

:You must eat Feta and Stilton or I won't be your friend anymore, even if you don't like cheese! [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:22, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::I'm lactose intolerant. Please don't shoot me, okay? [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:24, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::Die, heretic! [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:41, 25 February 2008 (EST)

== Come on ==

Are you seriously stating that liberals are only friends with liberals? I know from experience that this is false.
I think that it is human nature to naturally be friends with people who agree with you, so people are more likely to be friends with people who agree with them politically. But this trait is not any more likely to be found in a liberal than a conservative, and to suggest that liberals refuse to be friends with people who do not agree with them politically is ridiculous. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:31, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::Are you calling andy ridiculous, cuz it's his article.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:35, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::That's the point, Tim. It seems odd that one should suggest liberals only befriend conservatives for the purpose of converting them. I would expect it's only the lunatic fringe (on both sides of the aisle) that would refuse to be someone's friend only because they hold opposite political views. Most people are friends because of mutual interests and last time I checked politics isn't the sole guiding principle of sports, music, art, literature, or entertainment. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:41, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:::What I am saying is that it is wrong to claim that liberals are more likely to have friendships like that than conservatives. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:42, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::::Yes, it's a voice of rationality, but conflicts directly with what aschlfly says.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:45, 25 February 2008 (EST)

::::Tim, I agree with you. Let's try an experiment. Why don't you put that statement into the article and we'll see how long it lasts. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:46, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:::::Which statement. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:47, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::::::Schlafly specifically says that this is liberal friendship (all the stuff in the article) and you are saying that it is not unique to liberals.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:48, 25 February 2008 (EST)

::::::: KarlJ, if you can't express yourself respectably, then please leave. You won't receive another warning. This is a high-quality site and will continue to be one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:50, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::Please excuse me...comment fixed.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:51, 25 February 2008 (EST)

== Reply to all above ==

Folks, a little logic, please? The entry does not say that '''all''' [[liberals]] behave this way, or even that most do. It does describe a common type of friendship that is hardly disputable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:34, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:I agree with you completely, except the "hardly disputable" part. What makes it undisputable?[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:36, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:So, it's common that liberals befriend conservatives only to convert them to liberal thinking? This really makes it sound like the Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Do you have any citations for this?{{unsigned|SSchultz}}

:: Just observe a typical conservative in any organization dominated by liberals, or a typical conservative in a class run by a dominating liberal, or observe anyone married to a determined liberal, and draw your own conclusions. The very term [[politically correct]] developed out of a [[liberal]] insistence to censor and banish conservative expression.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:50, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:As I recall, James Carville and Mary Matalin are married and Carville doesn't seem to have converted Matalin into a liberal. Now admittedly if you're a conservative and waltz into PETA or Move On, you're likely to face a lot of pressure, but that's what I said above about the lunatic fringe. I would expect a liberal would face similar pressure walking into a Focus on the Family or People for the American Way meeting. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:54, 25 February 2008 (EST)

::First of all, your example of a conservative in a liberal organization. One counterexample does not prove a statement false, and secondly, friendship works in 2 directions, so it is just as much of a counterexample against your liberal friendship idea. Secondly with your anyone married to a determined liberal example. That works both ways as well. The determined liberal is married to their spouse just as much as the spouse is married to the determined liberal. I don't see what political correctness has to do with supposed liberal friendship. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:57, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::Um, Schultzie, People for the American Way are so left they are practically communists.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:58, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:::Also, could you give an example of a "liberal friendship" --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 00:29, 26 February 2008 (EST)

==Cites==

Given that no cites or references are offered in this "encyclopedia" entry, why was my unsourced tag taken down? --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 15:33, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: Look for cites rather than inserting ideologically motivated tags. Your heading suggests that you don't even understand the entry yet, so try to do that first. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:35, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:: The heading was a bad copy/paste error. But how can I look for sources? It appears to be a topic you just invented from the top of your head. Telling others to look for sources is roughly equivalent to me writing a page that headed George W Bush's Meeting With Aliens and then, when people complain that I have no evidence, telling them to get the evidence. I will place the tag back, since you have not provided any evidence. And the only ideology involved is that I want an encyclopedia to be encyclopedic. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 15:40, 26 February 2008 (EST)

::: Just spend ten minutes looking. I'm sure I could find some cites in less time, and will do so a bit later this afternoon if you don't. On this site we don't allow ideologically motivated "citation needed" banners or stubs by people who won't even look for cites. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:49, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:::: This encyclopedia is ''really'' starting to baffle me. I made an edit to [[They]], backed it up with references, sources and history, only for it to be reverted. Then, a completely unsourced, unverified page is created, with nothing in the way of support and a simple "uncited" tag is considered "ideologically motivated". The ideology involved is that I think an encyclopedia should be encyclopedic. And this entry simply is not. It is not even close. I thought the aim of this website was to produce a reliable source of information, particularly of use to students in school. I applaud that aim, I really do, but if this page is anything to go by, any student of mine who used a reference from Conservapedia would get a poor grade indeed. Which is a shame, since I like the idea of a more conservative source of information --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 15:57, 26 February 2008 (EST)

::::: There is nothing "baffling" about reverting your misleading edit to [[they]], which made it appear that it is correct as a gender-neutral form of "he" or "she". Anyone who tries that stunt in a respectable writing or English class, or on a college board exam, is going to lose points. Your "sources" for that ungrammatical claim are interesting and worth pursuing, but not at the expense of misleading students here. If [[Wikipedia]] allows that, then it may be a better place for you. Note, by the way, that it was not I who reverted your ungrammatical claim.
::::::: So, using a standard piece of English grammar as supported by Shakespeare, the KJV Bible, Jane Austen, Thakeray, Mirriam Webster, George Bernard Shaw and the Oxford English disctionary would lose a student points? Not on any exam board that I know about. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 17:13, 26 February 2008 (EST)
::::: As to this entry, it just went up last night and I will add a source after 10 minutes of research later today, as I said I would. Show some patience, please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:00, 26 February 2008 (EST)
::::::: The correct way to go about creating an encyclopedic website is to gather facts and evidence and then to present it. Not the other way around. This way of doing things leads to unsourced, unverified pages. And I know for a fact, that if any student of mine handed in an essay using this page as a reference would definitely lose marks for using untrustworthy sources of information. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 17:13, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:::: KimSell, your account is going to blocked unless you start contributing here in a substantive way. See [[Special:Contributions/KimSell]]. If you choose to leave, Godspeed to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:22, 26 February 2008 (EST)

::::::''"Look for cites rather than inserting ideologically motivated tags."'' When you make a claim, the burden of proof is on you, not those who you are trying to prove it to. It is your job to find and give citations for your claims, not the job of people who ask you to back up your claims. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 21:31, 26 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::: Still no references. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 12:19, 27 February 2008 (EST)

==Source==
It's been over 24 hours since you promised a source. Where is it, Andy? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 19:56, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse

2008-02-27T00:37:54Z

SSchultz: Karajou's block of Jimmy is unwarranted

Liberals and friendship

2008-02-26T04:59:59Z

SSchultz: Per CPAdmin's statement on the talk page.

A '''liberal friendship''' is a friendship on [[liberal]] terms, as in requiring acceptance, allowance or lack of criticism of [[liberal]] values. It is often the product of [[peer pressure]]. Someone in a '''liberal friendship''' can expect loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the [[liberal]] values.

A '''liberal friendship''' can occur wherever [[liberals]] apply [[peer pressure]] to spread their belief system. It can occur in college, in relationships, and in the workplace.

In contrast, [[conservatives]] virtually never require censorship or acceptance of [[conservative]] principles as a condition of friendship.

==Criticism==
It is human nature to naturally be friends with people who agree with you, so people are more likely to be friends with people who agree with them politically. But this trait is not any more likely to be found in a liberal than a conservative, and to suggest that liberals refuse to be friends with people who do not agree with them politically is unlikely.

== See also ==

* [[liberal grading]]
[[category:politics]]
[[Category:Liberals]]

Talk:Liberals and friendship

2008-02-26T04:54:42Z

SSchultz: /* Reply to all above */

So let me get this straight. Are you saying that liberals will often, or even usually, only make friends with a conservative for the purpose of converting them? Isn't that ascribing an awful lot of malice without real cause? And where's the evidence for this? I have a number of liberal friends. We argue quite a lot about politics, but it doesn't mean we don't remain friends. Do you have ''any'' liberal friends, Andy? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 22:19, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:I'm an apathetic-liberal. So, yes, Mr. Schlafly does have liberal friends. -^_^- [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy]] 22:42, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::And are you his friend only to convert him to your heathen liberal ways? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:17, 25 February 2008 (EST)
==Another take==
A '''Christian friendship''' is a friendship on [[Christian]] terms, as in requiring acceptance, allowance or lack of criticism of [[Christian]] values. It is often the product of [[peer pressure]]. Someone in a '''Christian friendship''' can expect loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the [[Christian]] values.

A '''Christian friendship''' can occur wherever [[Christians]] apply [[peer pressure]] to spread their belief system. It can occur in college, in relationships, and in the workplace.

In contrast, [[atheists]] virtually never require censorship or acceptance of [[atheist]] principles as a condition of friendship.

:I like this take, here's another one:

:A cheese eating friendship can occur whenever cheese eaters apply peer pressure to spread their belief in eating cheese. It can occur in college, in relationships and in the workplace.

:You must eat Feta and Stilton or I won't be your friend anymore, even if you don't like cheese! [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:22, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::I'm lactose intolerant. Please don't shoot me, okay? [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:24, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::Die, heretic! [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:41, 25 February 2008 (EST)

== Come on ==

Are you seriously stating that liberals are only friends with liberals? I know from experience that this is false.
I think that it is human nature to naturally be friends with people who agree with you, so people are more likely to be friends with people who agree with them politically. But this trait is not any more likely to be found in a liberal than a conservative, and to suggest that liberals refuse to be friends with people who do not agree with them politically is ridiculous. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:31, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::Are you calling andy ridiculous, cuz it's his article.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:35, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::That's the point, Tim. It seems odd that one should suggest liberals only befriend conservatives for the purpose of converting them. I would expect it's only the lunatic fringe (on both sides of the aisle) that would refuse to be someone's friend only because they hold opposite political views. Most people are friends because of mutual interests and last time I checked politics isn't the sole guiding principle of sports, music, art, literature, or entertainment. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:41, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:::What I am saying is that it is wrong to claim that liberals are more likely to have friendships like that than conservatives. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:42, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::::Yes, it's a voice of rationality, but conflicts directly with what aschlfly says.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:45, 25 February 2008 (EST)

::::Tim, I agree with you. Let's try an experiment. Why don't you put that statement into the article and we'll see how long it lasts. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:46, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:::::Which statement. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:47, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::::::Schlafly specifically says that this is liberal friendship (all the stuff in the article) and you are saying that it is not unique to liberals.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:48, 25 February 2008 (EST)

::::::: KarlJ, if you can't express yourself respectably, then please leave. You won't receive another warning. This is a high-quality site and will continue to be one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:50, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::Please excuse me...comment fixed.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:51, 25 February 2008 (EST)

== Reply to all above ==

Folks, a little logic, please? The entry does not say that '''all''' [[liberals]] behave this way, or even that most do. It does describe a common type of friendship that is hardly disputable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:34, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:I agree with you completely, except the "hardly disputable" part. What makes it undisputable?[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:36, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:So, it's common that liberals befriend conservatives only to convert them to liberal thinking? This really makes it sound like the Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Do you have any citations for this?{{unsigned|SSchultz}}

:: Just observe a typical conservative in any organization dominated by liberals, or a typical conservative in a class run by a dominating liberal, or observe anyone married to a determined liberal, and draw your own conclusions. The very term [[politically correct]] developed out of a [[liberal]] insistence to censor and banish conservative expression.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:50, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:As I recall, James Carville and Mary Matalin are married and Carville doesn't seem to have converted Matalin into a liberal. Now admittedly if you're a conservative and waltz into PETA or Move On, you're likely to face a lot of pressure, but that's what I said above about the lunatic fringe. I would expect a liberal would face similar pressure walking into a Focus on the Family or People for the American Way meeting. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:54, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Talk:Liberals and friendship

2008-02-26T04:46:47Z

SSchultz: /* Come on */

So let me get this straight. Are you saying that liberals will often, or even usually, only make friends with a conservative for the purpose of converting them? Isn't that ascribing an awful lot of malice without real cause? And where's the evidence for this? I have a number of liberal friends. We argue quite a lot about politics, but it doesn't mean we don't remain friends. Do you have ''any'' liberal friends, Andy? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 22:19, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:I'm an apathetic-liberal. So, yes, Mr. Schlafly does have liberal friends. -^_^- [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy]] 22:42, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::And are you his friend only to convert him to your heathen liberal ways? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:17, 25 February 2008 (EST)
==Another take==
A '''Christian friendship''' is a friendship on [[Christian]] terms, as in requiring acceptance, allowance or lack of criticism of [[Christian]] values. It is often the product of [[peer pressure]]. Someone in a '''Christian friendship''' can expect loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the [[Christian]] values.

A '''Christian friendship''' can occur wherever [[Christians]] apply [[peer pressure]] to spread their belief system. It can occur in college, in relationships, and in the workplace.

In contrast, [[atheists]] virtually never require censorship or acceptance of [[atheist]] principles as a condition of friendship.

:I like this take, here's another one:

:A cheese eating friendship can occur whenever cheese eaters apply peer pressure to spread their belief in eating cheese. It can occur in college, in relationships and in the workplace.

:You must eat Feta and Stilton or I won't be your friend anymore, even if you don't like cheese! [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:22, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::I'm lactose intolerant. Please don't shoot me, okay? [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:24, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::Die, heretic! [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:41, 25 February 2008 (EST)

== Come on ==

Are you seriously stating that liberals are only friends with liberals? I know from experience that this is false.
I think that it is human nature to naturally be friends with people who agree with you, so people are more likely to be friends with people who agree with them politically. But this trait is not any more likely to be found in a liberal than a conservative, and to suggest that liberals refuse to be friends with people who do not agree with them politically is ridiculous. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:31, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::Are you calling andy ridiculous, cuz it's his article.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:35, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::That's the point, Tim. It seems odd that one should suggest liberals only befriend conservatives for the purpose of converting them. I would expect it's only the lunatic fringe (on both sides of the aisle) that would refuse to be someone's friend only because they hold opposite political views. Most people are friends because of mutual interests and last time I checked politics isn't the sole guiding principle of sports, music, art, literature, or entertainment. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:41, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:::What I am saying is that it is wrong to claim that liberals are more likely to have friendships like that than conservatives. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:42, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::::Yes, it's a voice of rationality, but conflicts directly with what aschlfly says.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:45, 25 February 2008 (EST)

::::Tim, I agree with you. Let's try an experiment. Why don't you put that statement into the article and we'll see how long it lasts. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:46, 25 February 2008 (EST)

== Reply to all above ==

Folks, a little logic, please? The entry does not say that '''all''' [[liberals]] behave this way, or even that most do. It does describe a common type of friendship that is hardly disputable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:34, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:I agree with you completely, except the "hardly disputable" part. What makes it undisputable?[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:36, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:So, it's common that liberals befriend conservatives only to convert them to liberal thinking? This really makes it sound like the Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Do you have any citations for this?{{unsigned|SSchultz}}

Talk:Liberals and friendship

2008-02-26T04:41:15Z

SSchultz:

Talk:Liberal bias in academia

2008-02-26T04:35:42Z

SSchultz: /* Parody */

Fine, let's add some citations. No one seriously doubts that [[liberal grading]] occurs.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:26, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:As undeniable as [[liberal bias]], [[liberal tricks]] and [[liberal hypocrisy]] - well, actually, [[liberals]] probably do [[liberal denial|deny]] those, haha. :-) [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 19:38, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:: Indeed they do deny it, along with the long list at [[liberal denial]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:41, 25 February 2008 (EST)

== Parody ==

This page was created as a parody, and I don't think that we should have it. While I do believe that some teachers would actually grade like that, I think that it is rare enough to not warrant it's own page. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:27, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:Looking at the edit history, it would seem that Aschlafly might disagree. Indeed. [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:28, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:What evidence do you have that it was created as a parody? It doesn't read any differently than many of the other liberal behavior essays on the site. Many editors have contributed to it including Andy who clearly doesn't see it as a parody. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:30, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:: Many teachers grade like that. In a mere 5 minutes I found a clear example. If you researched it, then I'm confident you could find others. And the reported examples are just the tip of the iceberg. Ask ''any'' [[conservative]] student who has taken classes from many [[liberal]] outside of pure math and science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:32, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:::Andy, I agree with you that this is a real issue and a serious one at that. If a student wants to write a conservative essay about the role of a conservative economic policy, then the essay should be judged on its style and merits and shouldn't be graded down purely because of an ideological disagreement. The question is whether or not the article as it was originally written was a parody. Tim seems to think so. Indeed, so much so that he blocked the original author. Where's the evidence for this being a parody? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:35, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Talk:Liberal bias in academia

2008-02-26T04:30:25Z

SSchultz: /* Parody */

Talk:Obama on rifles

2008-02-26T04:28:48Z

SSchultz:

Moved discussion from [[Talk:Main_Page#Obama_on_rifles|Talk:Main Page: Obama on rifles]] on February 25, 2008. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 10:32, 25 February 2008 (EST)

* "They were actually capturing Taliban weapons because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped "

He might have been thinking about the [[Vietnam War]]. I spent five years in the army, and I always had trouble keeping my M16 rifle from jamming. I heard several stories directly from combat veterans who (they claimed) preferred to use captured AK-47 rifles because they didn't jam as often.

It seems that the M16 required more frequent maintenance (i.e., cleaning).

This is not a dig against '''policy''' - I think the US was right to be in there helping to defend South Vietnam. But many of the ideas used to prosecute the war were faulty, and equipment worries were really the least of them.

A book that I '''bought at the PX''' at [[Fort Benning]] in 1986 describes a lot of these mistakes. I should write an article about it, if I could remember the name of the book.

* calling all Vietnamese "gooks" didn't help.
* rotating out experienced troops after one year - or less for officers - led to a "ticket punching" mentality
* inadequate training - it takes 6 to 12 months to turn a civilian into a jungle fighter; many of the old-timers wouldn't even bother to help the F***ing New Guys (FNGs).
* tolerance of drug abuse; should have been shipped back to the states for treatment, you can't fight stoned, it requires alertness
* using European theatre tactics in a guerilla war; should have secretly armed two pro-South men in each village, not require them to wear uniforms, etc.

I was ''this close'' to becoming an officer, had talks with a colonel and a general, but ultimately I decided that while the military is essential to preserving freedom it cannot bring about world peace. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:23, 23 February 2008 (EST)

: Ed, do you think Afghanistan is anything like Vietnam? One problem in Afghanistan is [[friendly fire]], and that wouldn't be due to a lack of ammunition. Moreover, shifting soldiers from Afghanistan to Iraq (where there is a greater need) would not result in a shortage of ammunition and humvees for the soldiers remaining in Afghanistan.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:35, 23 February 2008 (EST)

:::Of course not. I'm suggesting that '''Obama''' is thinking that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:44, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:::: He may be, which simply highlights how he doesn't know what he's talking about. Of course, his [[liberal]] supporters don't care whether he knows anything or not, or is even logical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:08, 25 February 2008 (EST)

::Unless they took the humvees and the ammunition with them? [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 07:02, 24 February 2008 (EST)

::: Um, perhaps [[Obama]] thinks the soldiers drove the humvees to Iraq!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:10, 24 February 2008 (EST)
:::: After reading the transcipt, I think Obama just stumbled over his words a bit. I don't think he meant that the transfer of soldiers ''caused'' a shortage of ammo and vehicles; he meant that the supposed shortage of soldiers, ammo, and vehicles was all part of the same problem (being "distracted" by Iraq).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 07:20, 24 February 2008 (EST)

::::: Obama didn't correct his statement, as sincere candidates do after a debate if they "stumbled". Instead, Obama stood by his statement, in which he concluded that he "was right" as supposedly proven by his absurd analysis. I realize that many [[liberal]] [[Obama]] supporters don't care what he says, but rest assured that many voters do want a logical president.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:39, 24 February 2008 (EST)

:::::: ABC News Senior National Correspondent Jake Tapper confirmed Obama's claim. <ref>http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/from-the-fact-3.html</ref> Any chance this could be added to the news item?--Jimmy 14:25, 24 February 2008 (EST)

::::::: Did ABC News also confirm that 2+2=5? It was Obama's conclusion that was idiotic, as well as his placing the self-interested view of a soldier above that of our experienced commanders. It's frightening to imagine a Commander-in-Chief Obama who would "reason" that way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:42, 24 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::: Obviously ABC News did not make such a dumb claim, they confirmed Obama's story, they actually interviewed the Army officer that was involved. Even Rumsfeld admitted equipment shortages (As you know, you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want). Maybe you don't care about the lack of equipment our soldiers are doing without, but I don't want any of my military buddies to go through what Obama's soldier went through.--Jimmy 14:56, 24 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::: No, I don't think ABC News confirmed Obama's reasoning or his conclusion. Quote something to support your claim if you disagree.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:22, 24 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::::Here you are. it looks like Jimmy didn't construct the link properly. [http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/from-the-fact-3.html ABC News' fact-check desk]. --[[User:AlfredK|AlfredK]] 19:38, 24 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::: Obama's conclusion was that the usage of troops, equipment, and ammunition means that those resources are not available for use in Afghanistan, and that if they were redirected to Afghanistan we would not be in a situation were shortages may exist. This conclusion doesn't strike me as all that unusual. The Army captain in question confirms that his squad was unable to train with certain weapons and did indeed have to train with some Taliban weapons due to the lack of the US equivalent.

::::::::Incidentally, the use of enemy weapons is far from unprecedented and probably goes back to the cavemen picking up the clubs of the enemy tribe after a victory. Even in WW2, Allied forces used German weapons, some of which (the MG42 particularly) were far superior to their American equivalents. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 15:29, 24 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::: In other words, no quote from ABC News backing up Obama's absurd reasoning and conclusion. Of course not: Obama was speaking nonsense, so much so that one defender said he must have misspoken!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:47, 24 February 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::I can't tell if you're being purposely obtuse, or are just naturally so. I'm not a "defender" of Obama (I'm a Huckabee man, myself), but if you read the transcript, it's clear that Obama isn't claiming the lack of soldiers in Afghanistan caused the lack of ammo/equipment, but that the lack of planning and poor judgement (by current civilian leadership) casued said lack.

:::::::::: Not sure what you are trying to say. This article by ABC News confirmed a soldier talked to Obama's campaign and Obama accurately quoted the soldiers claims. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/from-the-fact-3.html --Jimmy 16:15, 24 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::::: You are clueless, Jimmy. It's Obama's reasoning and conclusion that were absurd, not whether he spoke to a soldier.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:08, 25 February 2008 (EST)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:08, 25 February 2008 (EST)
----
[[Image:Democrat Obama during the Pledge.jpg|325px|thumb|right|Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama on the campaign trail with [[Bill Richardson]] and [[Hillary Clinton]] during the [[National Anthem]]. (from Time.com)]]
This is what every military service member saw of Obama. If he's got no respect for the flag, no respect for the anthem, no respect for the Pledge of Allegience, as proven here, then he's got no respect for those who do. Very, very few soldiers will ever vote for this man. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:06, 24 February 2008 (EST)

: How does this image show Obama is disrepectful to the flag, etc, and is somehow disrespectful to 'those who do'? I am one retired military member that may vote for him. So far your non-scientific prediction is falling flat.--Jimmy 15:15, 24 February 2008 (EST)
::How does it not? I am one retired military member that will never vote for him. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:19, 24 February 2008 (EST)

:: Karajou did not claim that no soldier would vote for Obama, so Jimmy's statement about his views as a retiree (not a soldier) doesn't undercut anything Karajou said. The guy whom Obama said he talked to might vote for him! Maybe, that is ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:22, 24 February 2008 (EST)

:::Isn't Karajou also a retired soldier? So why are his views as a retiree more valid than those of Jimmy?
::::I'm a retired sailor. And in my stint in the Navy I've discovered that the entire military is overwhelmingly-conservative. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:33, 24 February 2008 (EST)

:::: Karajou, you made the claim, please back it up with evidence. Mr. Schlafly, military retirees are considered to be military members with reduced service. The number of military members that consider themselves republican is plummeting and is now well below 50%. Looks like The Democratic nominee may carry a sizable percentage of the military vote.--Jimmy 15:35, 24 February 2008 (EST)

:::::So, we must ignore the photo and the story behind it as worthless? You back up your claims now, Jimmy. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:38, 24 February 2008 (EST)
::::::Does a single lapse make one unpatriotic and therefore unfit to be Commander-in-Chief?--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 15:48, 24 February 2008 (EST)

::::::: It's not a lapse. What evidence do you have that it was a lapse?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:51, 24 February 2008 (EST)
:::::::::Well, I dunno--are there more photos of Obama with hand not-over-heart, or is this the only one? It should be noted, too, that the video of this event shows that Obama is the only one on the stage who is actually singing the Anthem.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 15:56, 24 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::: RossC, that's known as [[deliberate ignorance]]. Do a little research and you'll quickly find that Obama became less patriotic as a way of garnering donations from the far left in his campaign against Hillary.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 24 February 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::I'm not being deliberately ignorant--I honestly haven't paid much attention to the Dem side of the race. If you have more evidence of Obama's unpatriotism, post it (or put it in the Obama article). All I see is this one photo over and over again. Are there more?--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 16:07, 24 February 2008 (EST)

:::::Jimmy, I don't doubt that many in the military are Democrats. I do doubt that they will vote for Obama in large percentages.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:45, 24 February 2008 (EST)

::::::I am asking you to provide evidence that this photo shows Obama disrespecting the flag, pledge, etc and the people 'that do'. I see no evidence to support your claim. I hope you are not saying that someone who refuses to wear a flag pin and stands respectfully for the national anthem and pledge of allegiance is somehow disrespectful. Please provide the evidence. This article in USA Today undercuts your claim that very few military members will vote for Obama. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-09-13-military-donors_N.htm --Jimmy 15:50, 24 February 2008 (EST)
:::::::No it does not undercut my claim. USA Today is not a neutral source. Get your evidence either from the Pentagon or the Veterans Administration. As to the rest, you just confirmed my point by proving my case. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:53, 24 February 2008 (EST)

::::::: The USA Today article only serves to reinforce Karajou's observations anyway. It says the military is 60-40 Republican-Democrat. Obama only gets about 50% of Democratic votes, so that leaves him with only about 20% military support. Pathetic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:01, 24 February 2008 (EST)

::The claim that it's easier to capture a Taliban rifle than to get a US-made M16 is absurd. I doubt that ABC "confirmed" this claim. What were the exact words of the officer?

::Rifles are supplied to the US Army for around $500 each. Shipping them is not a problem. If anyone has voted '''against''' funds for such a minor purchase, I'd like to know what political party he's in. (I would suspect the party of the man who "voted for ... before I voted against", what's his name, Jerry or something?) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:50, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::: I was unaware that the Pentagon and VA provided statistics concerning the military vote. Could you provide me with a link to these stats please? And just how did I prove your case? I really would like to know. The USA Today article also states Obama receives the most military donations of all the candidates. Where does the 20% figure come from? If Obama is the Democratic Party nominee, won't he receive the vast majority of the democratic vote? In other votes, using your reasoning, he would get 40% of the vote. That comes out to many millions of votes by military members.--Jimmy 16:15, 24 February 2008 (EST)
:::::::::Apparently, Jimmy, you refuse to read what you have posted. And from what I've read so far, you're not doing to well as a retired servicemman; in fact, I don't think you're one at all. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:28, 24 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::: Actually, I do read what I post, I just don't take your assertions and reasoning at face value, so you are incorrect. I am doing rather well as a retired service member, you are wrong again. I am actually a retired service member, I have an ID card that says US Air Force retired, my current job with a defense contractor was based on my 22 years in the military, etc. Looks like you are wrong again. --Jimmy 16:39, 24 February 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::Well, as someone with 22 years of service, you should know exactly what duty, honor, and country are all about, which was proudly proclaimed by those with whom you worked with in the Air Force, and who you are denigrating and insulting now by your actions on this site. You can think about it elsewhere. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:49, 24 February 2008 (EST)

Obama has received more campaign donations from soldiers than anyone except for Paul<ref>http://www.opensecrets.org/pressreleases/2008/YearEndPresidential.2.4.asp</ref> - scroll to the bottom. But I'm sure they still aren't going to vote for him. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 16:19, 24 February 2008 (EST)
:Mr. Karajou, you just blocked User:Jimmy infinitely for insulting the military, but as far as i can tell, the only person he insulted was you---by disagreeing with you. Could you explain what he did that warranted an infinite ban?[[User:SiggyF|SiggyF]] 16:54, 24 February 2008 (EST)
::It's pretty simple actually, and I've seen it myself. Having spent 22 years around people who know what duty, honor, and country mean; having spent 22 years around people who have fought in combat to protect this country; having spent 22 years near people who were highly-decorated...and then come to this site and spout a philosophy that is against everything they have fought for? Nobody spends that much time in any branch of the military and not learn something about whom you work with. In the military such conduct is at the very least against good order and discipline, and I've seen people thrown out of the Navy with similar liberal persuasions after serving a fraction of the time that Jimmy claims he spent in the Air Force. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:04, 24 February 2008 (EST)
::Why did you delete my comment? That was a rather cowardly thing to do. Not really the action of someone who served honorably for 22 years. [[User:SiggyF|SiggyF]] 17:10, 24 February 2008 (EST)
:::If you had read it, it was Jimmy who claimed to have served for 22 years; I served for 20; I removed your edit because it was blatently wrong. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:11, 24 February 2008 (EST)
::::OK, since you "cant handle the truth", let's try again....what you said above basically boils down to you not agreeing with Jimmy's voting behavior, therefore you ban him. Could you perhaps correct my misperception?[[User:SiggyF|SiggyF]] 17:13, 24 February 2008 (EST)
:::::No, he was not banned for a voting disagreement; the explanation is above. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:16, 24 February 2008 (EST)
::::::Explanation? You are practically admitting in your explanation that you banned him because he just didn't agree with you. I don't see any other way to interpret it. [[User:HeikkiL|HeikkiL]] 17:27, 24 February 2008 (EST)
:::::::You can interpret it any way you like. This discussion is closed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:29, 24 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::Is there an abuse desk where this can be reported. Karajou has clearly blocked Jimmy because of an ideological disagreement in contravention of the Conservapedia Commandments. Where would one formally challenge this sort of action? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:28, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:Was it Sinclair Lewis who said that when fascism came to the US, it would be carrying a flag and a cross? There's more to being "patriotic" than saying the Magic Words of the Pledge of Allegiance, after all. --[[User:AlfredK|AlfredK]] 19:41, 24 February 2008 (EST)

It would seem about 40% of the military support the Democratic ticket, up from 22% in the 2002 election cycle, according to donations as of Sept. 2007 [http://www.capitaleye.org/inside.asp?ID=300] Just an FYI. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 19:43, 24 February 2008 (EST)

: That was before it became McCain v. Obama. Moreover, primary donations are not much of an indicator of overall voting patterns in a broad election. Notice how McCain won with so few donations?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:57, 24 February 2008 (EST)

My father is a Vietnam vet who's voting for Obama. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 20:15, 24 February 2008 (EST)

: Perfect illustration of point #5 of [[liberal logic]], unless you meant to preface your remark with "Of course this proves nothing, but ..."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:57, 24 February 2008 (EST)
::I'll preface mine if Karajou will preface his ( "I am one retired military member that will never vote for him." ) My point is that we can debate back and forth, but without a scientific poll, both sides of the debate are making assumptions. But that's also an assumption. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 22:24, 24 February 2008 (EST)

::: It's known that the military votes at least 60% Republican, and I think the percentage was even higher in the famous absentee ballots in Florida in 2000. With a decorated war hero and POW (McCain) against someone who never served and has raised money from anti-military folks like MoveOn.org, you can bet the percentages will be even more lopsided, just as Karajou said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 24 February 2008 (EST)

Hey, I know I'm probably gonna get shouted at for this BUT (hehe) what is so wrong about not being patriotic? Now that I've asked it, let me qualify: I do not mean hating your country, I do agree that that is a problem. I also do not mean being indifferent to your country, again indifference causes almost as many problems as hate. However what is wrong with liking the country you live in, yet not seeing the need to express it with national anthems and pledges and flags? I love Australia yet the flag does not connect with me and the anthem seems rather lame (by the way I do stand for the national anthem out of respect for those whom it does have meaning for). I am also willing to admit that Australia has problems (although we may disagree on what those problems are) and that we are far from perfect. Clearly I am not patriotic, yet I am not going to violently attack my country or its people. Why is this attitude so badly ridiculed on this site, and particularly in this discussion? [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 17:17, 25 February 2008

:Your position, Bolly, is unique. Like a Knicks fan who doesn't like any of the players or coaches (understandable) but still roots for them in every game. I think you ''ARE'' patriotic, but only in the broadest sense of the word.--[[User:StevenM|Steve]] 09:42, 25 February 2008 (EST)

::Well what I really meant (before I was sidetracked by myself!) was that: what was so bad about Obama not doing the full hand on heart head down or singing or whatever it is that the others were doing in that picture? Perhaps it is just that he does not feel the need to express his love for America in that way? Maybe I am completely wrong but from what I've read its as good a theory as has been put forward on this thread so far. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 7:44 26 February 2008

Talk:Liberals and friendship

2008-02-26T04:22:04Z

SSchultz: /* Another take */

Talk:Liberals and friendship

2008-02-26T04:17:31Z

SSchultz:

Credit card

2008-02-26T04:10:52Z

SSchultz:

[[Image:Credit-cards.jpg|right|thumb|200px|A ''VISA'' card and a ''MasterCard''.]]
A '''credit card''' is an access card to a line of credit issued by a bank. It is intended to be used as a revolving account meaning that consumers are assigned a credit limit and may make any purchase that doesn't exceed that limit, but must make either partial or full payments every month. As long as customers have available credit and their payments are up to date, they may continue to make purchases using the card up to their credit limit. Credit cards make it easier and more convenient for a consumer make purchases inasmuch as:
*cardholders do not need to carry [[cash]];
*cardholders can make purchases and pay them off over time buy things even if they do not have enough money in their [[bank account]] to pay for them at the time of purchase;
*cardholders are protected against many billing errors by [[merchant]]s and from [[fraud]].

Some predict that credit cards will soon make paper and coin money obsolete. But in exchange for this convenience, a credit card has costs and dangers.

==Costs==

*A purchase made on a credit card is a [[loan]], and [[interest]] (called a "finance charge") is charged. The interest rate can be very high; rates of 18% to 24% per year are not unusual, though consumers with good credit scores are often given more competitive rates. Because banks take a larger risk in issuing unsecured lines of credit, the rates are often higher than other secured consumer loans like auto loans or [[mortgage]]s. Almost all cards allow the customer to pay the bill off in full each month and thereby avoid interest charges.

*If a customer does not send in a payment prior to the due date, the credit card company will often charge a late fee. These fees typically range from $25 to $50.

==Dangers==

*Credit cards are lucrative profit channel for [[bank]]s because of the interest rates and the fees the banks charge the merchants for using the cards. The higher a balance revolved by the customer, the greater the profit for the bank. Banks are required by law to require customers to pay a minimum monthly payment of at least 1% of the total balance plus interest.

*Because a credit card is an open line of credit, they require disciplined use. If a customer is assigned a credit line with a minimum payment higher than they can afford, they must take care not to charge too much on the card.

==Dispute rights==

If a consumer makes a credit card purchase and the merchant doesn't send the item, or it is not the way the merchant described it, the consumer is protected from having to pay for the item in most cases.

The customer has the right to dispute the transaction with their bank or credit card company. The company is required to investigate the customer's dispute and issue a chargeback to the merchant if it is found that the customer was charged improperly. However, if the merchant is able to show that they charged the customer properly, then they have the right to represent the charge to the customer's bank. For example, if a customer fails to cancel a recurring transaction but disputes the item anyway with their bank the merchant may present a contract showing that the customer failed to cancel, and the customer will be responsible for paying for the item.

==History==

Charge cards which required customers to pay the balance in full every month have been in existence since the late 1800s. The first true credit card was invented in 1958 by Bank of America. The BankAmericard eventually became so widespread that it was spun off from Bank of America and became the agency now known as Visa. Credit card use became increasingly popular in the 1960s and 1970s. Before credit cards, travel was more difficult because travelers needed to carry money, purchase travelers checks, or make special arrangements in advance with banks in the cities they were traveling to. Mail order purchases were made by check, and were very slow, because most companies would wait for the check to clear before shipping the product.

Today credit cards are governed by 4 major organizations: Visa, Mastercard, American Express, and Discover. Visa and Mastercard allow banks and credit card companies to issue cards for use on their respective networks, whereas AMEX and Discover issue and service cards themselves. There are approximately 641 million cards in circulation and consumers revolved approximately 904 billion in June 2007.<ref>http://www.creditcards.com/statistics/credit-card-industry-facts-and-personal-debt-statistics.php</ref>

[[Category:Technology]]

Credit card

2008-02-26T04:09:49Z

SSchultz: improved.

[[Image:Credit-cards.jpg|right|thumb|200px|A ''VISA'' card and a ''MasterCard''.]]
A '''credit card''' is an access card to a line of credit issued by a bank. It is intended to be used as a revolving account meaning that consumers are assigned a credit limit and may make any purchase that doesn't exceed that limit, but must make either partial or full payments every month. As long as customers have available credit and their payments are up to date, they may continue to make purchases using the card up to their credit limit. Credit cards make it easier and more convenient for a consumer make purchases inasmuch as:
*cardholders do not need to carry [[cash]];
*cardholders can make purchases and pay them off over time buy things even if they do not have enough money in their [[bank account]] to pay for them at the time of purchase;
*cardholders are protected against many billing errors by [[merchant]]s and from [[fraud]].

Some predict that credit cards will soon make paper and coin money obsolete. But in exchange for this convenience, a credit card has costs and dangers.

==Costs==

*A purchase made on a credit card is a [[loan]], and [[interest]] (called a "finance charge") is charged. The interest rate can be very high; rates of 18% to 24% per year are not unusual, though consumers with good credit scores are often given more competitive rates. Because banks take a larger risk in issuing unsecured lines of credit, the rates are often higher than other secured consumer loans like auto loans or [[mortgage]]s. Almost all cards allow the customer to pay the bill off in full each month and thereby avoid interest charges.

*If a customer does not send in a payment prior to the due date, the credit card company will often charge a late fee. These fees typically range from $25 to $50.

==Dangers==

*Credit cards are lucrative profit channel for [[bank]]s because of the interest rates and the fees the banks charge the merchants for using the cards. The higher a balance revolved by the customer, the greater the profit for the bank. Banks are required by law to require customers to pay a minimum monthly payment of at least 1% of the total balance plus interest.

*Because a credit card is an open line of credit, they require disciplined use. If a customer is assigned a credit line with a minimum payment higher than they can afford, they must take care not to charge too much on the card.

==As protection==

If a consumer makes a credit card purchase and the merchant doesn't send the item, or it is not the way the merchant described it, the consumer is protected from having to pay for the item in most cases.

The customer has the right to dispute the transaction with their bank or credit card company. The company is required to investigate the customer's dispute and issue a chargeback to the merchant if it is found that the customer was charged improperly. However, if the merchant is able to show that they charged the customer properly, then they have the right to represent the charge to the customer's bank. For example, if a customer fails to cancel a recurring transaction but disputes the item anyway with their bank the merchant may present a contract showing that the customer failed to cancel, and the customer will be responsible for paying for the item.

==History==

Charge cards which required customers to pay the balance in full every month have been in existence since the late 1800s. The first true credit card was invented in 1958 by Bank of America. The BankAmericard eventually became so widespread that it was spun off from Bank of America and became the agency now known as Visa. Credit card use became increasingly popular in the 1960s and 1970s. Before credit cards, travel was more difficult because travelers needed to carry money, purchase travelers checks, or make special arrangements in advance with banks in the cities they were traveling to. Mail order purchases were made by check, and were very slow, because most companies would wait for the check to clear before shipping the product.

Today credit cards are governed by 4 major organizations: Visa, Mastercard, American Express, and Discover. Visa and Mastercard allow banks and credit card companies to issue cards for use on their respective networks, whereas AMEX and Discover issue and service cards themselves. There are approximately 641 million cards in circulation and consumers revolved approximately 904 billion in June 2007.<ref>http://www.creditcards.com/statistics/credit-card-industry-facts-and-personal-debt-statistics.php</ref>

[[Category:Technology]]

Credit

2008-02-26T03:45:47Z

SSchultz: Redirecting to Credit card

#REDIRECT [[Credit card]]

Credit

2008-02-26T03:45:37Z

SSchultz: Redirecting to Credit Card

#REDIRECT [[Credit Card]]

FDCPA

2008-02-26T03:45:00Z

SSchultz: Redirecting to Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

#REDIRECT [[Fair Debt Collection Practices Act]]

Collection Agencies

2008-02-26T03:43:00Z

SSchultz: New page: A '''Collection Agency''' is a company that engages in the practice of buying and selling defaulted debts for the purpose of collecting said debts from the original debtors. The industry ...

A '''Collection Agency''' is a company that engages in the practice of buying and selling defaulted debts for the purpose of collecting said debts from the original debtors. The industry can be quite profitable because these debts are usually purchased from the original creditors for pennies on the dollar, but can still be collected for the full amount. Collectors are bound by the [[FDCPA]] to engage in ethical practices in the collection of these debts. Some collection agencies only purchase debts that are within the statute of limitation of collections for the state in which the debt is owed, and thus they have the legal right to force the debtor to pay the debt through the courts, though often these agencies simply contact the debtor directly in order to extract payment. However, many collection agencies purchase debts that may or not be within statute but attempt to collect regardless of the legality of such action. These companies are usually referred to as Junk Debt Buyers, and are often cavalier with regards to the FDCPA.

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

2008-02-26T03:38:00Z

SSchultz:

The '''Fair Debt Collection Practices Act''' or FDCPA (15 USC 1692) is a law enacted in 1978 designed to protect [[consumer]]s against abusive practices by [[Collection Agencies]]. In the event that a consumer defaults on a [[debt]] and that debt is transferred to a collection agency not owned by the original [[credit]]or, the FDCPA governs the rights a consumer has in dealing with the agency. The Act prevents collection agencies from contacting the consumer at an inconvenient time or place, use harassing or threatening language unless the collector actually intends to follow through (eg threatening to file suit but having no intention of doing so), and allows the consumer the right to dispute the validity of the debt. The FDCPA provides that when a collector violates the law that the consumer will be awarded statutory damages of $1000.

Despite being in force for 30 years, there are still many violations of this law committed by unscrupulous collectors every year. In 2006 there were 69,000 violations reported to the FTC. <ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ftc.gov/os/2006/04/P0648042006FDCPAReport.pdf|title=Federal Trade Commission Annual Report 2007; Fair Debt Collection Practices Act|accessdate=2007-08-24|publisher=Federal Trade Commission}}</ref>

==Links==
[http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/credit/cre27.pdf The text of the FDCPA] 
[http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpajump.shtm FTC Staff opinions on the application of the FDCPA]

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[Category: Law]]

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

2008-02-26T03:36:40Z

SSchultz: New page: The '''Fair Debt Collection Practices Act''' or FDCPA (15 USC 1692) is a law enacted in 1978 designed to protect consumers against abusive practices by Collection Agencies. In the...

The '''Fair Debt Collection Practices Act''' or FDCPA (15 USC 1692) is a law enacted in 1978 designed to protect [[consumer]]s against abusive practices by [[Collection Agencies]]. In the event that a consumer defaults on a [[debt]] and that debt is transferred to a collection agency not owned by the original [[credit]]or, the FDCPA governs the rights a consumer has in dealing with the agency. The Act prevents collection agencies from contacting the consumer at an inconvenient time or place, use harassing or threatening language unless the collector actually intends to follow through (eg threatening to file suit but having no intention of doing so), and allows the consumer the right to dispute the validity of the debt. The FDCPA provides that when a collector violates the law that the consumer will be awarded statutory damages of $1000.

Despite being in force for 30 years, there are still many violations of this law committed by unscrupulous collectors every year. In 2006 there were 69,000 violations reported to the FTC. <ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ftc.gov/os/2006/04/P0648042006FDCPAReport.pdf|title=Federal Trade Commission Annual Report 2007; Fair Debt Collection Practices Act|accessdate=2007-08-24|publisher=Federal Trade Commission}}</ref>

==Links==
[www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/credit/cre27.pdf The text of the FDCPA]
[www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpajump.shtm FTC Staff opinions on the application of the FDCPA]

==References==
{{Reflist}}

Talk:Liberals and friendship

2008-02-26T03:19:29Z

SSchultz: New page: So let me get this straight. Are you saying that liberals will often, or even usually, only make friends with a conservative for the purpose of converting them? Isn't that ascribing an a...

Malaria

2008-02-25T05:47:57Z

SSchultz:

'''Malaria''' is a tropical [[disease]] spread by the [[mosquito]]. It is caused by a protozoan of the Sporozoa group. There are four species of protozoan that cause malaria, the most common of which is Plasmodium vivax. All malaria-causing parasites spend part of their life cycle in humans and part of it in the Anopheles mosquito.

==DDT Controversy==
One very effective way to fight malaria is by using an [[insecticide]] called [[DDT]]. <ref>"Sprayed just once or twice a year on the walls of houses, this powerful repellant keeps most mosquitoes from entering; irritates those that do come in, so they don't bite; and kills any that land." [http://www.aim.org/guest_column/5456_0_6_0_C/ Pro-malaria forces resurface at WHO] - Paul Driessen - May 15, 2007 - [[Accuracy in Media]] </ref>
Unfortunately for sub-Saharan Africans and some Asians, the U.S. ban on DDT has made this cheap (though [[teratogenic]]) chemical<ref>[http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/ddt.htm Toxicology Network]</ref> very difficult to obtain. This helped lead to a renewed [[malaria epidemic]], and more than one million people die of malaria every year.

There is a controversy over malaria eradication. While most Americans are in favor of relieving third-world people of the scourge of preventable disease, some prominent Westerners oppose anything that would lead to increases in population (see [[population control]]).
*[[Club of Rome]] founder [[Alexander King]] said, "My chief quarrel with DDT in hindsight is that it greatly added to the population problem."
*Oceanographer [[Jacques Cousteau]] told Novelle Observateur, "In order to stabilize world populations, we must eliminate 350,000 people a day." [http://www.aim.org/guest_column/5456_0_6_0_C/]

==Eradication efforts==
Malaria was eradicated from the United States in 1951, and in 1955 the World Health Organization stated that it would eradicate malaria worldwide in an effort similar to the eradication of [[smallpox]] that was ongoing at the time. The eradication efforts were partially successful, particularly on the Indian subcontinent, but areas such as sub-Saharan Africa were ignored. This poor organization combined with lack of funding by donor countries and the evolution of mosquitos to become resistant to many insecticides led to an abandonment of the eradication effort. In 2005 the [[Bill Gates|Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation]] announced that it would be donate $258 million to malaria research to compliment President Bush's Presidential Malaria Initiative of 1.2 billion over 5 years. The goal of these initiative is to achieve the worldwide eradication of malaria, which kills approximately 1 child every 30 seconds, through the use of vaccines, mosquito control, insecticide impregnated bednets, and new anti-malarial drugs.<ref>http://www.gatesfoundation.org/GlobalHealth/Pri_Diseases/Malaria/Announcements/Announce-071007.htm</ref>
<ref>http://www.pmi.org</ref>
==References==
<references/>

== See also ==

*[[American Medical Association]]
*[[Doctor]]
*[[Fred Soper]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Diseases]]

User talk:Iduan

2008-02-25T05:35:41Z

SSchultz:

{{User talk:Iduan/header}}
{| style="background:navy;text-align:center" width="100%"
|-
|style="background:white; border: 2px solid maroon; font-weight:bold; font-variant:small-caps"|<div class="horizontal">
*[[/Archive1|(August)]]
*[[/Archive2|(September)]]
*[[/Archive3|(October)]]
*[[/Archive4|(November)]]
*[[/Archive5|(December)]] 
*[[/Archive6|(January)]]
*[[/Archive7|(February)]]
</div>
|}
==Liberal Tricks==
The idea of [[liberal tricks]] is more on a personal level, rather than politics that can be best addressed in [[liberal logic]] and [[liberal style]]. So while you're edit is good of [[liberal tricks]], I don't think it belongs there. It's not really a "trick".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:29, 23 February 2008 (EST)
:Ah, my mistake - sorry, --[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:31, 23 February 2008 (EST)
==I don't suppose you can close the site down==
I would think Andy would have shut off night editing by now, usually he does so at midnight eastern. But he hasn't made an edit since about 11:50. Maybe he went to bed and forgot. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 00:35, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Left Behind: Eternal Forces

2008-02-25T05:31:38Z

SSchultz: But the reviewer didn't give the game an F just because of the religious aspect. The game is also very poor from a technical standpoint.

'''''Left Behind: Eternal Forces''''' is a real-time strategy computer game based upon the bestselling [[Left Behind]] novels. It was created by Left Behind Games and released on November 14, 2006. The game has been the focus of much controversy, criticism and rumormongering, most of which has been based upon erroneous information about the game that Left Behind Games has vehemently denied and corrected.

Following the same plot elements as the Left Behind novels, ''Eternal Forces'' follows the exploits of members of the post-[[Rapture]] Tribulation Force as they struggle against the schemings of the [[Antichrist]]. The game is based in [[New York City]], which was painstakingly reproduced in 3D to be as accurate and detailed as possible. The player controls various characters throughout the game, ranging from average citizens and members of the Antichrist's forces converted to Christianity to unique characters specially created for the game to characters from the novels.

==Plot and goals==
''Eternal Forces'' takes place shortly after the [[Rapture]]. The player controls members of the Tribulation Force as they attempt to set up a base in New York City from which they can spread the [[Gospel]]. At first, their efforts are opposed only by local gangs, but soon [[Antichrist]] Nicolae Carpathia's forces start to take notice.

The goal of the game, as stated in the game manual, is to "[s]ave as many people from the clutches of the Antichrist as possible. Your purpose is absolutely NOT to wipe out the enemy forces!" Additionally, the description for the soldier units for the Tribulation Force states that their "#1 goal is still to save as many people from the Antichrist as possible" and that the player's "duty and moral obligation is to use soldiers as little as humanly possible."<ref name="manual">Left Behind: Eternal Forces Game Manual</ref>

==Game appearance==
The main game screen is viewed from an in-game vantage point above the streets. This vantage point can be adjusted from low and close to the streets to very high above them. The main screen is accompanied by a small interactive map to help the player navigate the play area. This map can be clicked on to move the in-game view to a different area and can also zoom in and out.<ref name="manual"/>

==Gameplay==
===Interface===
The game is controlled via the mouse and/or keyboard hotkeys.<ref name="manual"/>

===Single player mode===
In single player mode, the player controls the members of the Tribulation Force and leads them through 40 missions with varied goals.<ref>http://www.eternalforces.com/faq.aspx</ref>

===Multiplayer mode===
In multiplayer mode, a player can invite up to 7 players to compete via the internet or local area network (LAN). The players choose to control either the Tribulation Force or the Antichrist's forces with up to 4 players controlling each side.<ref name="bauman">http://www.firingsquad.com/news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=12481</ref>

==Production==
===Visuals===
Left Behind Games sent photographers to [[New York City]] for six weeks to photograph the streets and buildings of hundreds of city blocks. These were reproduced in detail in the game down to fire escapes and rooftops.<ref name="bauman"/>

===Music===
The score for ''Eternal Forces'' was created by Chance Thomas, an award-winning composer who has previously created the scores for games like ''The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Ring'', ''X-Men: The Official Game'', and ''Marvel: Ultimate Alliance''.<ref>http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0858613/</ref>

===Voice talent===
Chris Fabry, best known as the announcer for late [[Baptist]] pastor Dr. Adrian Rogers' "Love Worth Finding" radio program and co-author of the Left Behind: the Kids novels, was cast as the gameplay narrator. Also, many of the game's creators lent their voices to characters in the game.<ref name="manual"/>

==Reviews==
''Eternal Forces'' received a variety of positive and negative reviews. Among the better-known video game reviewers, GameSpy<ref>http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/left-behind-eternal-forces/749748p1.html</ref> and G4's X-Play<ref>http://www.g4tv.com/xplay/reviews/1367/Left_Behind_Eternal_Forces.html</ref> both gave it 2 stars out of 5, Gamespot<ref>http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/leftbehindeternalforces/review.html</ref> gave it a 3.4 out of 10, IGN<ref>http://pc.ign.com/articles/745/745956p1.html</ref> gave it a 5.9 out of 10, GameShark<ref>http://www.gameshark.com/reviews/2547/Left-Behind-Eternal-Forces-Review.htm</ref> gave it a C+, Game Vortex<ref>http://www.gamevortex.com/gamevortex/soft_rev.php/3314</ref> gave it an 80%, and UnderGroundOnline<ref>http://www.ugo.com/ugo/html/article/?id=16063&sectionId=51</ref> gave it a B+.

Some of the reviews were more about the reviewers' personal bias against religion in general or evangelical Christianity specifically. For example, in the review that appeared on Game Revolution, the author wrote, "I am sick and tired of being told that I have to respect everyone’s beliefs," and, "So let me be clear - Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Whatevers – you’re all nuts." Unsurprisingly, the reviewer gave the game an "F."<ref>http://www.gamerevolution.com/review/pc/left_behind</ref> However, this review also criticised the game on it's technical merits (or lack thereof), saying, 'And when the glowy balls get thick (anytime a lot of people are on the screen), the game starts to seriously lag, and sometimes even crash. All your units look and dress alike once they’re converted (which is kind of creepy), and you certainly don’t need a cutting-edge graphics card', and, 'Unfortunately, there are very few of these locations, and you’ll find yourself playing the same maps over and over, preaching on the same corners, buying the exact same buildings and turning them into banks and churches and hospitals all over again. It’s like the movie Groundhog Day'. The Gamespy review also points out bad technical points of the game, summarising them as, 'Lousy controls; too much micromanagement; bad AI; poor graphics and art design; lack of skirmish mode; slow multiplayer'.

==Controversy and criticism==
Even before the game or its demo were released, in what only could be described as a fit of [[Liberal hysteria]], many left-wing individuals and groups were already criticizing the game on its alleged content.<ref name="bauman"/> The anti-Christian Right website Talk To Action sparked much of the criticism starting in May of 2006, several months before the game's release. Talk To Action contributor Jonathan Hutson wrote articles with titles like "the Purpose Driven Life Takers" condemning the game for allegedly having the goal "to convert or kill Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, gays, and anyone who advocates the separation of church and state - especially moderate, mainstream Christians."<ref>http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/5/29/195855/959</ref> Hutson also asserted several times in other articles that "characters kill New Yorkers while shouting 'Praise the Lord.'"<ref>http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/6/1/82458/92817</ref><ref>http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/6/7/41835/37829</ref><ref>http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/6/9/32014/83270</ref><ref>http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/6/12/31011/1474</ref><ref>http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/6/21/23153/9497</ref> (Strangely, at one point, Talk To Action apologized to Left Behind Games president Troy Lyndon in part for the adding of red coloring to screenshots of the game to give the false impression that it depicts blood.<ref>http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/11/11/154225/46</ref>) Others picked up on Talk To Action's claims and uncritically repeated them and even built more falsehoods upon them. This included several left-wing bloggers, the [[BBC]]<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6178055.stm</ref>, the [[New York Times]]<ref>http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/12/14/grand-theft-christianity/</ref>, the San Francisco Chronicle<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/12/12/MNG8TMU1KQ1.DTL</ref> and the [[Nation (magazine)|Nation]]'s Max Blumenthal.<ref>http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=220960</ref> The manufactured controversy and criticisms led to left-wing groups calling for [[Wal-Mart]] to censor the game by removing it from store shelves.<ref>http://www.faithfulamerica.org/article.php?id=133</ref><ref>http://ga3.org/campaign/tell_wal_mart</ref>

Left Behind Games, however, vehemently denied these allegations and posted a response on their website<ref>http://www.leftbehindgames.com/pages/controversy.htm</ref> which cited the comments of various sources. Among them, the [[Anti-Defamation League]] - while criticizing the theology behind the game - stated, "Conversion to Christianity in the game is not depicted as forcible in nature, and violence is not rewarded in the game."<ref>http://www.adl.org/Interfaith/leftbehind.asp</ref> Game reviewers like IGN.com<ref>http://pc.ign.com/articles/745/745956p1.html</ref> and ArsTechnica.com<ref>http://arstechnica.com/reviews/games/leftbehind.ars</ref> also were cited as noting the false allegations of critics and the game's focus on promoting non-violent solutions to the missions. In addition to these sources cited by Left Behind Games, other sources noted the game's promotion of non-violence. [[GameSpy]] described the game as having an "[i]nteresting premise" and an "unusual 'nonviolent' strategic design," and stated, "[A]nyone looking for explicit 'Kill the unbelievers!'-style content to justify their fear of the game won't find it here."<ref>http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/left-behind-eternal-forces/749748p1.html</ref> Gamespot called the game an "[i]nteresting concept that strays from the kill-'em-all RTS norm."<ref>http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/leftbehindeternalforces/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=tabs&tag=tabs;reviews</ref> And G4's X-Play stated, "[A]ny deaths will severely negatively impact the spirit of your flock."<ref>http://www.g4tv.com/xplay/reviews/1367/Left_Behind_Eternal_Forces.html</ref>

=="Million Games Giveaway"==
In February of 2008, Left Behind Games announced the giveaway of one million copies of ''Eternal Forces''.<ref name="news">http://www.eternalforces.com/news.aspx</ref><ref>http://www.leftbehindgames.com/free/</ref> The game can be obtained either as a physical copy through the mail or as a digital download (with both requiring a minimal handling and processing fee).

==Sequel==
In December 2007, Left Behind Games released the sequel to "Eternal Forces:" "Left Behind: Tribulation Forces."<ref name="news"/> The sequel was available for free for a limited time to "Eternal Forces" players who had faithfully kept up with the various updates (i.e. V1.03/EP3 through V1.10/EP10) and is now available either as an upgrade CD for those who already own "Eternal Forces"<ref>http://www.lbgstore.com/lebetrfoupcd.html</ref> or as the full retail version (which includes all the missions from "Eternal Forces").<ref>http://www.lbgstore.com/left-behind-eternal-forces-the-pc-game--the-multiplayer-enhancemen.html</ref>

==References==
<references />

==External links==
[http://www.eternalforces.com/ Left Behind: Eternal Forces official website] 
[http://www.leftbehindgames.com/index.html Left Behind Games official website]

[[Category:Video Games]]

Talk:The Oscars

2008-02-25T05:13:16Z

SSchultz:

==Page Name==
I know at first you would think this page should be "THE Oscars" - but really when you think about it, it's perfectly acceptable to say "I saw a Oscars show" - because "The" is not part of the name, and thus should not be in the title. There can also be an argument for this page to be titled "Academy Awards" given that that's the official name, but I could care less on that subject, just wanted to throw the idea out there--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 00:08, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:'''Support''' renaming as Academy Awards with appropriate redirects from Oscars, The Oscars, and The Academy Awards. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 00:13, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Obamacan

2008-02-25T05:05:50Z

SSchultz:

'''Obamacan''' is a descriptive term coined by political pollsters which describes those [[Republican]] voters who support [[Barack Obama]]'s candidacy for the [[President|Presidency]] of the [[United States]]. <ref>http://www.republicansforobama.org/?q=node/321</ref> Obama himself first used the term in a speech on February 12, 2008,<ref>http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0802/12/acd.01.html</ref> though the term appears in print prior to his first usage.<ref>http://newpittsburghcourieronline.com/articlelive/articles/39872/1/The-Way--I-See-ItBecoming-an-Obamacan/Page1.html</ref><ref>http://www.insightnews.com/commentary.asp?mode=display&articleID=3779</ref>

==See Also==
[[Reagan Democrat]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

{{Category:Politics}}

Reagan Democrat

2008-02-25T05:05:32Z

SSchultz: New page: '''Reagan Democrat''' is a term coined by political pollsters to indicate those Democrats who voted for Ronald Reagan in the 1980 and 1984 Presidential Elections. Most Reagan Demo...

'''Reagan Democrat''' is a term coined by political pollsters to indicate those [[Democrat]]s who voted for [[Ronald Reagan]] in the 1980 and 1984 Presidential Elections. Most Reagan Democrats were found to be middle-class working men and women from the Northeast primarily who had come to feel that the Democratic party wasn't championing middle-class causes at the time, and also blamed President [[Jimmy Carter]] for the economic [[recession]] of the late 1970s.

==See Also==
[[Obamacan]]

First Amendment

2008-02-25T04:59:28Z

SSchultz: "Church" and "religion" aren't necessarily synonymous. The Amendment uses the term religion, and so should we.

The First Amendment to the [[Constitution]] of the [[United States of America]] says:

:[[Congress]] shall make no law respecting an establishment of [[religion]], or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the [[freedom of speech]], or of the [[press]]; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the [[government]] for a redress of grievances.

This is generally taken as a limitation on the power of the federal goverment with respect to:
#[[freedom of religion]]
#[[free speech]]
#[[freedom of the press]]
#[[peaceful assembly]]
#[[political activism]]

== Conservative Interpretation ==
Liberals often focus on the so-called "[[establishment clause]]", in noting that the federal government cannot endorse or establish a religion. However, liberals often overlook the clause explicitly allowing for the free exercise of religion. Conservatives argue that this clause can be interpreted to allow much more leeway to the majority of religious Americans than liberals currently allow.

{{US amendments}}
[[Category: Constitution]]

Obamacan

2008-02-25T04:56:55Z

SSchultz: The term was actually coined by pollsters, not Obama himself, so it can't be self serving