Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Religion

2010-05-23T21:06:27Z

Sigh: Blanked the page

Religion

2010-05-23T21:06:12Z

Sigh: Blanked the page

Murder

2010-05-23T21:05:29Z

Sigh: Blanked the page

User talk:Benp

2010-05-23T21:04:44Z

Sigh: Blanked the page

User:Benp

2010-05-23T21:04:32Z

Sigh: Blanked the page

User talk:JohnS001

2010-05-23T21:04:05Z

Sigh: Blanked the page

User:JohnS001

2010-05-23T21:03:56Z

Sigh: Blanked the page

User talk:Cdizon

2010-05-23T21:02:26Z

Sigh: Blanked the page

User:Cdizon

2010-05-23T21:02:15Z

Sigh: Blanked the page

User talk:Chippeterson

2010-05-23T21:00:10Z

Sigh: Blanked the page

User:Johntalbot

2010-05-23T20:57:24Z

Sigh: Blanked the page

Judaism

2010-05-23T20:56:10Z

Sigh: Blanked the page

Talk:Liberal

2010-05-23T20:47:42Z

Sigh: /* Hey */ new section

[[Talk:Liberal/Arch1|Archive 1]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch2|Archive 2]]
|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch3|Archive 3]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch4|Archive 4]]
 


== Differences between liberals and democrats ==
These should not be included because these do not describe liberalism in and of itself, it describes typical opinions of American democrats. Liberalism is the opposite of some of these things because liberalism is a ideology that mean belief in personal liberty and belief in a social market. These are all actually conservative by definition.

'''Censorship of teacher-lead prayer in classrooms and school sponsored events''' (liberals believe in the freedom of speech and religion. This confusion is caused by democrats belief in the seperation of church and state clause)

'''Support for gun control''' (Liberals believe in maximim personal liberty)

'''Political correctness''' (this is censorship, liberals strongly oppose censorship of the media)

'''Environmentalism''' (not a belief of liberalism in and of itself)

'''Disarmament treaties''' (depends on how you look at it, liberals can be either isolationist of involvementist)

'''In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is a key component of atheistic ideologies in the Western World.''' (doesn't have anything to do with politics)

'''Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama).''' (this one doesn't even need an explanation)

== This Article is so flawed it makes my head spin ==
Problems with this page in order and how to fix them:
'''1. The article's definition of a liberal''' "A liberal is a person who's views reject traditional and biblical standards in favour of subjective or relative standards." is baseless. It has no station nor can i find this definition anywhere else on the internet. I would suggest using a definition from the Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy (online)

'''2. list of so called political positions and practices'''
The lists header "A liberal supports many of the following political positions and practices. " on itself is stylistically non-academic. It could be said that that a conservatie likewise suports many of the following political positions and practices: freedom, Christ, and killing children. Many are sported but not all. Moreover, the list contains many practices that should not necessarily be attributed to liberals.

Most of the views contained in the list are validly liberal however most of them do not have citations and those that do are blatant straw men.

'''3. picture'''
The picture contained in the article is non-factual. its just a cartoon. I would suggest the political compass graph of the beliefs of candidates in the democratic primaries.

'''4. Liberals in north america today'''
Again, no facts here.
the following claims are made:
<blockquote>
Democrats and many media outlets in the U.S. are often liberal.[6]

5. Using the term liberal and conervative is misleading. Conservative thought historically believes that human beings are unable to govern themselves and must have a strong ruler. Liberal thought is responsible for the American State as a whole. Assuming the Bible is concrete fact is a mistake. Since the bible is translated the only way to insure that it has not been corrupted would be to read it in the original language. Most conservatives are also economic liberals making these terms too broad to describe the political thought in this article.

* Some argue that liberals typically support economic policy similar to that of fascism. [7]

* Liberals claimed a monopoly on compassion, decency, and social justice (as defined by themselves), posing as the sole defenders of civic virtue against a horde of backwoodsmen, racists, and religious fanatics. [4]
</blockquote>

The first really doens't say anything. i could likewise say that many media outlets in the US are often conservative. The word many is the cause of the meaninless.

The second is unfactual due to the word "Some". I can also say that some argue that conservatives typically suport economic policies similar to that of facism. (and really come on? who's closer to Hitler Mendela or Palin? [though i supose Mendella isn't north america])

The third statment says that liberals claim something however it doesn't speek to any actual policy or official statment.

to fix this i would sugest that this entire section is eather deleted or rewriten by a civics profesor if avalable.

This is what i have to say on this article for now anyway. more comming perhaps. --[[User:Trekdude31|Trekdude31]] 21:34, 19 November 2008 (EST)
::Please stop blaspheming. The article is correct, and since you say that it isn't, I can say with 95% success that you are a liberal, unChristian, unAmerican, and a mass murderer. I can say with 106% certainty that you are an avid practitioner of [[liberal deceit]].--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 21:42, 19 November 2008 (EST)

This is offencive. Your right though. i am a mass murderer, you just haven't herd of me because you don't watch the so called "liberal media" (it realy isn't) whcih reports on all the genocide stuff --[[User:Trekdude31|Trekdude31]] 22:03, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::Dude, chill out. Yes, this article is very biased against the liberal ideology, but this is Conservapedia; the whole site follows the anti-liberal regimin. I agree with what you are saying, but there's no need to get overly accusational and angry; then you are doing the exact same thing that the article is doing. We must discuss these problems calmly if any ground is to be covered. For the reasons you listed, I think I'll refrain from making any major edits for now.--[[user:ForeverPeace|ForeverPeace]]

:: Good, because I don't have the time to clean up the tons of misspellings by the critics above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:21, 9 January 2009 (EST)

:::Mr. Schlafly, may I ask you a question? Please don't ban me, I'm not going to make any changes here or on any highly controversial pages, I'm just wondering... Did you create Conservapedia to try to propigate a hateful opinion of Liberalism? Sometimes I get that vibe, which seems like a ridiculous position for a site advocating loving, Christian values to hold. I understand how tense a situation this can be, I just want to hear your response. Thanks! --[[user:ForeverPeace|ForeverPeace]]

The problem isn't so much the flagrant bias of this article so much as the fact that Conservapedia is so damn sanctimonious about Wikipedia's alleged bias. You people have no right to complain about bias when you wear your own so proudly on your sleeve. This whole enterprise makes you look like a bunch of petty, oblivious jackasses. Consider this a public service announcement.

Also, on an unrelated note, Wikipedia's article on Jesus is more comprehensive, more eloquently composed, more insightful, more educational, and more consistently cited than its counterpart here. Ironic, considering the whole point of Conservapedia was to provide a more Christian perspective on reality.

My comment start here (I want to make it clear since the previous comment is unsigned):

"A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing"

Is that an encyclopedic definition, suitable for an educational resource? I am not going to make any changes, because I do not want to be banned, but I can suggest a general definition for a leftist: "Someone who supports a more egalitarian distribution of wealth". I think all leftists agree with that. Now, as a conservative encyclopedia, you can and should explain the disadvantages of liberalism in the article, but it should also have an objective definition in the first place. --[[User:Quetzalcoatl|Quetzalcoatl]] 20:20, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

== Picture ==

Shouldn't the picture be something representative of liberals rather than a satirical cartoon?[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 08:53, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Yes, yes it should. I understand that this is supposed to be "an encyclopedia with articles written from a conservative viewpoint", but doesn't that make it especially necessary that we don't make ourselves look like clowns? If anything, that was probably drawn up by a self-aware liberal with a sense of humor. [[User:Harbinger|Harbinger]] 11:22, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Indeed, it says that I, as a liberal (one who loves God and tries to mirror the compassion for people that he showed whilst here on earth) have little work ethic, personal responsibility, or common sense. I take issue with that proposition. [[User:Apr28|Apr28]] 4:18 23 May 2009 (PDT)

: You have free will to take issue with 2+2=4 also. The fact remains that liberals favor higher taxes (which not "compassionate") and donate less to charity than conservatives. Indeed, liberals recently attempted to reduce the tax deduction for giving to charity, which speaks volumes about how they really feel about it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:47, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

::Which doesn't change a thing about the fact that a 'trustworthy encyclopedia' should not let satire dominate such an important article (it's linked on the main page if I remember correctly). After all, this is the first picture people see and is hence in some way a discription or a resume for the whole article. If you want to be taken seriously, better take another picture up first. (You can still have the picture later in the article like you have in the article about atheism.) A picture of your favourite liberal would probably be better. You might even consider to cut the picture altogether. -[[User:Shakleton|Shakleton]] 16:04, 8 February 2010 (EST)

:::Odd that a "new" editor here would remember the Main Page linkage so far back, Shakleton. I am happy you so well note and remember our topical and thought-provoking news items! But try to remember that a European Socialist, such as yourself, will have little of value to contribute to our American, conservative encyclopedia project, or agree with much of what we say. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:15, 8 February 2010 (EST)

:::: You may be right in me not agreeing with everything you say but what I can indeed say is something about credibility as this has little to do with political views or country of origin. And what I said was that a picture as provocative as this one somehow ruins your own credibility. This is just some European advice, I know, and you certainly do not have to follow it, I just thought that it could be useful for your encyclopedia. -[[User:Shakleton|Shakleton]] 16:06, 9 February 2010 (EST)

It ruins our credibility (perhaps) with liberals. Who cares? They are full of hate, deceit and vituperation for anyone who dares to disagree with them. Around here, we wear that as a badge of honor. The diagram is far more correct than it is satire, if you ask me. I repositioned it to be more prominent in the article, in light of your thoughts. Godspeed to you. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:34, 9 February 2010 (EST)

== Additional Liberal Organizations ==
Center for Democracy & Technology, a civil liberties group that filed briefs against the law Child Online Protection Act and is working in coordination with the ACLU. {{unsigned|Jpatt}}

:Two more--Brookings Institute and Fairness In Accuracy & Media --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:25, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

::Also Research for Change, Emily's List, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Human Rights Campaign, People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals, Planned Parenthood, Creative Commons, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Democracy For America, and ActBlue! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:31, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Be aware that some liberal organizations, in an attempt to hide their agenda, will tout themselves as "Progressive" organizations instead. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:35, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Another: Center For American Progress --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:21, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

The more I think about it, probably need a whole page dedicated to Liberal Organizations. They can be sorted and divided by Soros funded / abortion sponsors / environmental / innocuous named (e.g. Democracy For America) / gay support / union backed / progressive advocates / Conservative watchdogs. Your thoughts?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:29, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

: Hmmmm, the more you think about it you've come to that conclusion? Well, it's such a good conclusion, I came up with it yesterday and asked Mr. Schlafly about it [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Liberal_Organizations here]! Although I believe a different organizational system is worthwhile. Hey, if you keep checking my contributions, you may find some other ideas that you can "think about" and claim as your own. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:57, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:: Darn, if I only stalked jareds posts I would have realized that I was beaten by liberal intelligence. Let me guess your suggestion 'different organizational system' - hmmm, watered down to alphabetical and by state. If there becomes a Liberal Organizational page, it will need to be a tool for people to know what organizations to stay away from and why they are for boycott.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:45, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Hmmm, I was actually thinking about organizing it by media, topic type, purported purpose. But take my idea and let's collaborate. That was the point of my post the other day, which you buried when you were insulting me. Let's collaborate and put something together. Obviously I had a good idea that you also like, so instead of continuing to insult me, let's make something out of it. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:01, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: I'll just do my own work, you edit, like always. I have no desire to collaborate with you. Sorry. The most you 'll get from me is a prayer that your heart changes--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:07, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

==Founding Fathers were liberal==
For their time at least. And you can't deny this. All of their rallying cries were liberal for their day. "No taxation without representation." Liberal. No authoritarian autocrats, wow that's very liberal considering the day. Freedom of religion, and religion seperated fom state? Why, those are some of the very things some of you hate "liberals" for to begin with.

Point is, "liberal" is just a word. But some of the less sociable and not so well adjusted conservatives *gasp, they exist* have used the same silly word games with "liberal" as they did when they coined that lovely little phrase "pro-life." Actually it's quite clever. Now liberal is, supposedly, perjorative along he same lines that anyone not "pro-life" must be "pro-death." And how horrible is that, pro-death? Exactly...

What ever happened to moderation =( Middle of the road is not so bad, folks. There's something to be had from either end of the spectrum. Extremism is never the best choice. Self profesed "conservatives" are as guilty of it as self profesed "liberals." The problem, unfortunately, is relly with all of us in general. It's just in our nature to prefer the radicals over the moderates. It's more exciting to us, and none of us are above it. However, we can actively be aware of that and make a point not to fall in lock step with the radicals on either end. And in truth, many do. They are just quiet, it's always th fringes that are the loudest... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:55, 24 August 2008 (EDT) (I'm goig to be blasted as one of those "liberals" lol...)

(Keep in mind this is coming from a liberal) The founding fathers were not liberals (at least what liberalism means today), rather, they were libertarians or conservative communist(It should be worthy to note that democratic-republicans were libertarians and the federalist were conservative(by that I mean that they weren't authoritarians because authoritarians believe in socialism (which the federalist did not( but they did oppose free-enterprise and personal liberties (which in my mind make them communist conservatives). Although some aspects of socialism did exist(such as democratic-republicans opposition of aristocracy and federalist belief that government should be actively involved in the economy), socialism had not developed. Thus the founding fathers weren't liberals.

:Grounding government on morality made most of the Founding Fathers conservative, not libertarian. But your points are well taken and I hope you can contribute more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:48, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

==List at top==

The list at the top makes it clear that it's supposed to be strictly a list of things liberals support, almost a "liberal platform", if you will. Why are there "studies" like this: "In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution. Support for the theory of evolution which is a key component of atheistic ideologies in the Western World." Why can't we just say "secularism and atheism"?

Or this: "Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)." Just seems gossipy, and not really representative of a whole, but rather some particular instances with which someone has taken issue. I'm all for being honest about what they're trying to do, and I'm just saying this information should be placed where it deserves to go. Does this merit a new section to place this info in, or does anyone think there's a better place on the article to put this? [[User:PCarson|PCarson]] 13:49, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

==See Also==
Would like to add Liberal education. --[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:10, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

Would like to query the "opposition to the Patriot Act" and being anti-republican while considering the fact that if a democratic president had tried to implement that policy, the screams of Communism and KGB would have raised the roofs. Has anyone considered the fact that invasive policy is invasive based on its content rather than who made it into a bill and passed it?

Oh and that "call someone a professor whether they are or not" thing? I don't know anyone of either party who does that. If you were building a page meant to alienate Americans from each other you couldn't have done a better job cause I'm walking away from you guys and I won't be back.

:Obviously I'm not going to bother with your comment if you petulantly declare that you "won't be back." I do wonder how you'd do on our [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness|test for open-mindedness]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 07:43, 12 December 2009 (EST)

==Clean up article==
Can someone tell me how to edit the main page? The list of liberals in the see also section is a bit long so I created another page to place them located [[List of liberalism in America|here]]. Thank you.--[[User:JasonM|JasonM]] 21:39, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
:The page is locked so nobody can edit except for sysops. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:58, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

== Recent changes ==

In the list of ideologies there is a missing line break in the line "A "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it was intended* Government programs to rehabilitate criminals". This should be two lines.

Also, the wording on the sex ed line needs to be tweaked. As it is, it reads like liberals actually want to teach people to be promiscuous, which isn't true. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:58, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

:The new definition is... circular. And there's still a typo (mentioned above). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:26, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
::Perhaps the word you're looking for is [[tautology]]? "A liberal is someone who denies any harm caused by liberal ideology" - this doesn't actually tell the reader anything about what a 'liberal' is, except that the author clearly doesn't like them. And I'm disappointed to see that the 'brain of a Democrat' cartoon has returned to such prominent placement too - it's unencyclopaedic, to say the least (although I did laugh at the "anti-bellum"). [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:05, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I hate to sound like a bother, but could anyone address these comments? (Anyone with the capability to edit the article, that is) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:50, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:::: That better? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:00, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::It's not bad, actually. I'd rather have a more textbook defintion, but I'm pretty satisfied. Thanks Philip :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:57, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

==Obama: Professor?==
''Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)''

*Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> He held the position of Lecturer, an adjunct position, from 1992 to 1996.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> He held the position of Senior Lecturer from 1996 until his election to the senate in 2004.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, has suggested that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. <ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> The University states that Senior Lecturers are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure track.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>

* ''"I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution," Obama told an audience at a campaign fundraiser. ... Responding to Obama's comments, Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said, "Senator Obama needs to understand that at this level words matter and he will be scrutinized." Ronayne pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. The University of Chicago lists him as a senior lecturer on leave.''[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics] So in this reference, an AP story in the San Francisco Chronicle, we have evidence that Obama has indeed called himself a law professor, and a quote from an RNC spokesman claiming he was not entitled to do so.

* University of Chicago's ''Statement Regarding Barack Obama''<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> states: ''The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.'' It seems that he was an adjunct from '92 to '96, but after that, as a Senior Lecturer, he was considered a professor.

* Next, let's look at a news article on UChicago's site from '04. It uses the title of Senior Lecturer to describe Obama, which confirms that he was indeed at that time a Senior Lecturer. [http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml]

All of the references seem to agree that Obama was a Senior Lecturer, and that he was not full-time. The RNC spokesman said that Obama was "only a Senior Lecturer and not a full professor", but this is contradicted by the university itself; UofC said "Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track". I think this makes a pretty strong case for Obama having been entitled to use the title "professor" to describe at least the latter part of his time teaching at UofC.

Therefore, I suggest that the sentence ''Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)'' be changed to remove Obama's name.

== Suggestions: ==
The Liberal Party of Canada should also be in the "See also" section of the page. Nothing more Liberal than a party that declares itself so. [[User:Conservatores|Conservatores]] 15:04, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

<references/>
==Liberal Arts==
I wanted to remove 'liberal arts' and 'liberal arts college' from the list, but apparently I can't. Those terms have nothing to do with liberalism. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 20:46, 19 December 2008 (EST)

: Good suggestion. I removed them.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 20:51, 19 December 2008 (EST)

==Absolutely correct definition...but :-)==
:''A liberal is a person who's views reject traditional and biblical standards in favour of subjective or relative standards.''
This definition is absolutely correct. Not sure if it captures the possible fact that some liberal thinkers appear to hold these views based on the problems of their time instead of merely asserting their wills. Is there not a significant difference between [[Liberal Christianity#Origins of liberal Christianity|these 19th century Christian liberals]] and say 19th century atheistic liberals such as [[Karl Marx]] and [[Ludwig Feuerbach]] and their 20th century couterparts [[Mao Zedong]] and [[Joseph Stalin]]? --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 10:10, 27 December 2008 (EST)

:Aren't we breaking the first commandment of Conservapedia, ''"Everything you post must be true and verifiable."'' Why don't we just use the dictionary definition of liberal, or are we under the impression that the dictionary has a liberal bias here?
::''liberal: favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal

:::I don't use that definition because it is false. Liberals are people who favor taxpayer-funded abortion, censorship of classroom prayer, and just about anything that is anti-Christian.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:50, 11 December 2009 (EST)

::::Do you have a reliable citation for that? Also, what makes you say that that definition is false?

::: Can we really make up a definition like this. I would consider that the definition you are proposing here Mr. Shlafly better describes... anti-Christian which can be part of a liberal position but do not describe the broad concept of what liberals think. I think the intro of the article should be more general instead of going right away to the many flaws of liberals. I feel that the article explains the problems of liberals without identifying them as a group as if those problems were the essence instead of the consequence the liberal way of thinking. I agree that the dictionary doesn't suit what we are talking about but maybe a derivation from the biased Webster and the Oxford American could turn into something like: A liberal is someone who reject traditional and religious values toward a secular and relatively socialist worldview.
::::You've just described either an anarchist or a communist by your definition. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:13, 18 April 2010 (EDT)
:::::Schlafly said that liberals are far more than just anti-Christian. He said that they favor taxpayer-funded abortion as well. In addition, the definition from the top of the article states that liberals don't care about logical standards. That is far beyond merely anti-Christian, and is actually a very good definition of liberal. [[User:SamuelC|SamuelC]] 02:20, 18 April 2010 (EDT)

::::Hmmm, I think we could profitably incorporate that definition as the way liberals view themselves. How about:
:::: "A '''liberal''' (also '''leftist''') is someone who favors so-called "progress" away from, or "reform" of http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref>, logical and biblical standards. There are no general liberal standards; often a liberal uses many words to say what is, in essence, nothing. Many liberals become liberals out of a craving for attention or other self-centered reasons."
:::: I think this is a better definition than either, because it tells what they're (re-)gressing away from, and that they view it as progress. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 14:18, 11 December 2009 (EST)

:I wouldn't call them Liberals. Liberals are the disguised [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]] of overt Communists. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:14, 27 December 2008 (EST)
::Until World War II most Christian liberals tended to be [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]], thinking it would bring the fullfilment of the [[Kingdom of God]]. [[Reinhold Niebuhr]] is a good example. He expressed pro-Marx views and didn't denounce Stalin until he signed a pact with Hitler in 1939. After that Neibuhr became radically anti-communist. Neverthless, few liberal Christians follow Niebuhr in his renunciation and instead hold on to these obviously false and desctrutive [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]] notions. So today I think most liberal Christians are like the young Niebuhr unaware of the evils lurking within communist thought. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 10:26, 27 December 2008 (EST)
:::On the other hand, most of today's self-proclaimed political liberal Christians (if they give a hoot at all about [[God]], [[Jesus]], or Scripture is unknown) like [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Barack Hussein Obama]] appear to more into [[Liberal Fascism]] than [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]]. Not that one of these evils is better than another. Just different. Sigh. Probably should just ignore this liberal evil stuff altogether. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 11:00, 27 December 2008 (EST)

== The philosophy of Liberalism ==

We definitely need a section on the actual meaning of a liberal viewpoint in political philosophy. The definition of 'liberal' in this article in fact broadly refers to the ideology of the Democrats, who are moderate socialists. The Republicans in fact espouse significantly liberal economic views and significantly conservative social views. Therefore, we need clarification that, outside of American politics, true liberalism is 'promoting freedom', something I believe that the conservatism you refer to advocates.--unsigned dark night

:Maybe at one time liberalism meant promoting freedom, but not today's liberals. Today's liberals look to stay neutral in foreign conflicts, stay away from the promotion of freedom. In America, they are for taking away freedoms (e.g. fairness doctrine, House rules barring minority party representation, etc.) --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:29, 14 January 2009 (EST)

::That may be so, but only by your definition of liberalism. Todays liberals are in fact socialists - , so we should probably attempt to clarify that, in real American government, liberals espouse these flawed policies, whereas in political philosophy, matters are very different.

:No, today's liberals are not in fact socialists, liberalism refers to belief near the center of the political spectrum, with conservatives to their right, and socialists to their left. The assertions in this page that liberals reject logic and the bible are arbitrary and biased, two things that I thought conservapedia was founded against. The idea that liberals are simply those opposed to certain beliefs and opinions held by a majority of those that call themselves conservatives is a sweeping, generalizing statement. A misleading statement is a form of [[deceit]]. [[User:Apr28|Apr28]] 4:52 23 May 2009 (PDT)

:: Today liberals support taxpayer-funded [[abortion]] and demand [[censorship]] of [[classroom prayer]], plus all the other positions on the list. There is nothing "near the center" about the liberal positions. The [[deceit]] is when liberals deny what they do believe and support.

== Free Market ==

I've always thought a defining quality of a Liberal was a lack of faith in a free market to solve problems. Conservatives tend to believe an economic problem is best solved in the market, whereas Liberals tend to want government intervention. [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 23:40, 31 January 2009 (EST)

==Suggestion==
The text currently reads ''There are no coherent liberal standards, and often a liberal is merely someone who uses many words to say nothing.'' I would suggest that this might read 'There are no coherent liberal standards that are distinct from socialism or communism, and often a liberal is... ' [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 17:04, 1 February 2009 (EST)

== If you want anyone to take you seriously... ==

Then you should get rid of this satirical cartoon and replace it with a more appropriate picture. It is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. --[[User:Yorpa|Yorpa]] 09:40, 15 February 2009 (EST)

That's just the thing. The article is written this way (and with the cartoon) because anybody who disagrees with it can be painted as a liberal, and the painting is indeed a portrayal of a rather despicable sort of person (liberal, as per conservapedians' definition of what that is (and most of the bullet points contain a fair degree of truth, with some spin)). The best part is that doing something tantamount on the opposite end of the spectrum will result in a block for [[liberal namecalling]]. I would like to see a couple more citations here and there in the article, like with the criticism of President Obama for being uncharitable (I don't doubt that there has been criticism; I'd just like to know from whom). [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 13:26, 14 December 2009 (EST)

== Problems With the Article ==

''a liberal is merely someone who craves attention''
 Erm... there's just a little problem with what you're saying here. I don't think that this is factually correct, especially considering the fact that Conservatives are just as vocal about their opinions as Liberals are. Perhaps we could consider removing this phrase as it makes the entire article sound ridiculously biased. I know that it is meant to be anti-Liberal, but could we please steer away from what sounds like a petty insult? It makes it sound like vandalism.

There are a few other bits throughout the article which make it sound like whoever wrote the article didn't know what they were talking about/were trying desperately to elongate or pad out the article, eg ''Some argue that liberals typically support economic policy similar to that of fascism''. Liberalism and fascism are polar opposites, one pushing for equality, freedom of choice and help for the poor, the other pushing for a superior race of people, a forced way of living and murdering the poor. I propose that this statement could be amended or removed, especially seeing as it says ''some argue'' rather than ''most'' or ''a significant number of the scientific community/economic experts''. We should not base arguments on what one or two people think - that is not reliable information. [[User:Ululator|Ululator]] 09:51, 16 February 2009 (EST)

:I also have a criticism of the article: the See also section is too long, and contains many pages that are also linked in the navigation bar immediately below it. Perhaps the page could be unlocked so that those with improvements to make can make them?
:Ululator, I know this page is opposed to liberals, but I don't think anyone's accusing them of wanting to 'murder the poor'!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:54, 16 February 2009 (EST)

: (edit conflict) Ululator, you need to open your mind more. On average, liberals are more vocal and aggressive than conservatives. There's no denying that. Just look at what happened to Harvard President Larry Summers.

: As to economic policy, both liberals and fascists favor greater state control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:56, 16 February 2009 (EST)

You cannot try to link two groups based solely on the fact that both hold similar economic policies, otherwise you can clearly link Reaganomics with medieval policies....the solution to our problems is to concentrate the wealth of a nation in the hands of the already wealthy and powerful?

Liberals and fascists do both want greater state control, but then again, so do dictatorships and many other political viewholders. However, you cannot possibly argue that they want state control in the same way. Liberals seek equality. Fascists seek superiority. I don't think there are two more different views. I also disagree that liberals are more vocal and aggressive. I have personally been attacked, both verbally and physically, on a number of occasions by conservatives, for being gay/disabled/pro choice and I know of many other people, including high profile people who have also been attacked.[[User:Ululator|Ululator]] 10:10, 16 February 2009 (EST)

: Ululator, there's no denying that liberals are more aggressive in expressing and enforcing their views on others. You're not going to fool anyone here by claiming otherwise. Address my specific example (one of many) or move on. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:20, 16 February 2009 (EST)

I know little about Larry Summers' situation, so I would feel unable to comment on this example, since all I know about it is hear-say that came from this website. I personally feel that conservatives and liberals are equally vocal and aggressive in their views, since on each side there are those who are loud, and those who are quiet. I am more inclined to remember loud conservatives, and no doubt you are more inclined to remember loud liberals. Therefore it is pointless us pointing the finger at each other. I know in my heart that J-sus preached acceptance and love, so I will end this debate here, before it descends into a petty argument. You may think on this though: liberalism is all about accepting others for who they are, loving them and respecting their choices. Surely this is what J-sus wanted? [[User:Ululator|Ululator]] 10:29, 16 February 2009 (EST)

== Application ==

The description on this page doesn't really apply to many of the Liberals I'm friends with... they're generally anti-censorship, pro-military, patriotic individuals. Some of them I know are charitable in nature. Isn't it a bit of a generalisation? -- Dollfuss

*No. Only a European, or someone living outside the United States might believe that. This is an American encyclopedia, and the view of the vast majority of American liberals, is decidedly anti-military, and unpatriotic. Furthermore, liberals in the United States contribute to charity at a rate of less than half as conservatives do. We do not attempt, at Conservapedia, to be no point of view. We present facts, and if that offends certain people's political ideas, so be it. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:01, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

:Right. We're talking about American liberals specifically in this article. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:29, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

== Question about the article ==

In the first line "A liberal is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards", how can someone who rejects the bible still not be logical? The bible is founded on faith - not logic. Please change this back to traditional instead of logical, as the article is locked. [[User:JamesY|JamesY]] 20:02, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

*Wrong. The Bible is the word of God. We accept what it says because of ''Faith''. Liberals don't have faith, nor much logic. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:13, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

:James, you've been misled in your education. The Bible is the most logical book written. People have a free will to reject logic, and reject that 2 and 2 are 4, but that doesn't change the logical truth of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:03, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::Andy Schlafly, would you do me the honor of explaining why the Bible is the most logical book written? [[User:ShmuelB|ShmuelB]] 22:58, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::: God created the world, and then man. Man incurred the ultimate offense against God, and that required the ultimate sacrifice to redeem it. God intervenes with miracles from time to time as He likes. This ''is'' completely logical. Now everyone has free will to reject this and conjure up any alternative theory they like, but Christianity is the most logical religion and the Bible is the most logical book.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:30, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::: As an example of the illogical view of [[atheists]], they deny the existence of [[Hell]]. If anything is logical, it is justice, and Hell is essential to that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:33, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Well it's possible to embrace Biblical and logical standards and still remain liberal. Take for example a liberal who is for gun control, and thinks the way he does because Jesus taught us to "Turn the other cheek". {{Unsigned| AmmaAm}}

:Spoken like a true liberal and atheist, AmmaAm. "Turning the other cheek" has absolutely nothing to do with guns, or allowing criminals to abuse you, or your family. I urge you to read many of our good articles on Christianity and Jesus Christ. You will find the truth, and it will indeed set you free! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:12, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

I still don't see how Christianity is the most logical religion, or how the fact that God creating the world and man could warrant complete logic. You noted that a logical point of view is to consider that with justice comes punishment (in this particular case, hell). This is a logical way of thinking because we understand that the components work together. We can describe what justice means and understand the its essentials include the punishment of the offender. The fact that God created the earth and everything on it "because he can" doesn't logically explain the components that are required for a God to be able to exist and to be able to perform what has been claimed. Nobody today has a first hand account of the events Christianity describe, so nobody can say for certain that it happened. I can claim that my grandfather told me of a giant alien that his father told him created and rule the earth many hundreds of years ago. I could provide letters and painting of the event that could easily be fake, but just as easily be real, and insist that it happened. People can choose not to believe me and believe in christianity instead, but can't I just claim my teachings to be the most logical? {{unsigned|Texico11}}
:Your logic is that proof is required. We don't need proof for God's existence. Wisdom of Christianity is passed on to other generations. Today's generation claims to be the smartest that ever lived, I beg to differ. Relativists can claim whatever and make truth whatever they want it to be. It doesn't mean that it is true.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:16, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

:Texico11, you find no ''logical'' flaw in Christianity. There is none. You may choose to disbelieve that Jesus rose from the dead, but there is nothing illogical about that Christian statement.

:Try to construct another explanation of the world and you will find it has logical flaws. If you prefer logic, then Christianity is the religion for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:38, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

So the Muslims and the Hindus and all the other religions that exist are not as logically sound as Christianity? Because the millions that follow these teachings would beg to differ and claim as many logical flaws in Christian teachings. The perception of there own religion as being flawless is just as strong as the word of somebody who believes Christianity is. I prefer logic over anything and swing with whatever theories present the most logic and and hold the most evidence, and while I personally believe that Christianity is the most sound of all the religions in its logic I don't believe that all its teachings are 100% flawless.--[[User:Texico11|Texico11]] 16:23, 13 May 2009

== First few sentences ==
I'm not arguing with the political views of Conservapedia at all, but wouldn't it look a little nicer not to have the first few sentences be an editorial against liberals? Wouldn't a dictionary definition or something similar be a better introduction, and then the article can discuss the flaws of liberal views after that? - [[User:Trajork|Trajork]] 13:34, 11 November 2009 (EST)
:A definition is included in the first few sentences, "A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons.". It so happens that the definition of a liberal can be used against them. [[User:NP|NP]] 13:32, 13 December 2009 (EST)
::My problem with that is that not all people who reject logical and Biblical standards are liberals. I think it needs a more specific definition in its first sentence or two. Also, the second sentence, "There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing." either needs to cite a source showing that many liberals say what they're saying just to get attention, or be removed. Such a sentence, unless sourced, doesn't really set a good tone for an encyclopedia. We can present liberalism as is and use that to show why it's flawed, rather than editorializing at the beginning. - [[User:Trajork|Trajork]] 13:55, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:::You write, "My problem with that is that not all people who reject logical and Biblical standards are liberals." What other label do you have in mind? Such people are not conservatives, and I wouldn't call them "moderates". Definitions are the rule, and need not (and should not) address every unusual exception.

:::On your second point, I'll find and add some cites. There are plenty of examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:26, 13 December 2009 (EST)

::::Webster's dictionary defines a liberal as "1) a person who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways 2) a member or supporter of a liberal political party or c) an advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights". Just thought it would be a helpful, unbiased, and credible definition. -- Gtc216

The following people would appear to fit the definition of 'liberal' as it currently stands: "someone who rejects logical and biblical standards":
*An Islamic terrorist
*a paranoid schizophrenic (even if they vote Republican)
*A member of the Fundamentalist Church of Latter-Day Saints.
*An Ultra-Orthodox Jew
*J Edgar Hoover
*A member of the Flat Earth Society
*A member of the Ku Klux Klan
*Adolf Hitler
*Robert Mugabe
*General Francisco Franco

Is that the defintition we want? [[User:Cantaloupe|Cantaloupe]] 19:24, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:First of all, terrorists, the KKK, and Hitler WERE liberal. Second, a paranoid shcizophrenic is incapable of accepting or rejecting anything, so they don't count. Third, Mormons accept the bible, they just ALSO accept an additional book. What you're talking about with J Edgar Hoover, I don't even know, but Flat Earthers certainly are attention seeking and making ludicrous claims - sounds pretty liberal to me. Maybe you should re-think your objection. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:30, 3 January 2010 (EST)
::OK, if you think Islamic terrorists and Hitler are liberal, then I guess the definition stands. Can I go and add Hitler's liberalism to his article? The Fundamentalist LDS are the polygamous ones, by the way. Is polygamy a Biblical standard? How about the Ultra-Orthodox Jew? But maybe we should see what Mr Schlafly thinks about this. [[User:Cantaloupe|Cantaloupe]] 19:36, 3 January 2010 (EST)
I don't think anybody denies that Hitler was an evolutionist and an anti-capitalist, so yeah, he was very liberal. Liberal doesn't just mean "universal healthcare," it refers to a whole network of beliefs. Hitler certainly differed in some important ways from modern American liberals, but the underlying philosophies are surprisingly similar.
While Mormons and Jews do not believe exactly what we believe, they are, for the most part, undoubtedly conservative. I don't think anybody is calling Mitt Romney liberal - that would be silly and wouldn't make any sense. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:40, 3 January 2010 (EST)
:My challenge to you is to go to the articles [[Adolf Hitler]], [[Ku Klux Klan]] and [[terrorist]] and add the fact that they are liberal. Let's see what happens. [[User:Cantaloupe|Cantaloupe]] 19:47, 3 January 2010 (EST)
::I'm not going be goaded into action by a liberal user. This conversation is over. Go make substantive edits.[[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:50, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:::Liberals don't have the market cornered on evil, but they are a major political focus of evil. We can help our readers by distinguishing between the evils of liberalism and some of the world's other evils.

:::Taking potshots at us while we're trying to do this, won't help, so stop or I'll have to ban the lot of you. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:01, 3 January 2010 (EST)

::::As a totally sincere question: What is the difference "between the evils of liberalism and some of the world's other evils"? Right now, the article defines a liberal as "someone who rejects logical and biblical standards"; wouldn't pretty much every evil or misguided person (except for heretics who think they are following Biblical standards) fit that definition? Thanks. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 20:06, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:::That doesn't sound like a good definition, although it does provide a partial description. I'll see what I can dig up. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:15, 3 January 2010 (EST)

We welcome concise improvements, but not dilutions. The five-word definition quoted by Evan seems to be generally true, but we would certainly welcome non-dilutive, concise suggestions. Evan, did you have something in mind? And no, not everyone who is evil or misguided rejects logical and biblical standards as liberals do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:26, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:I don't have anything definite in mind yet; right now I'm trying to figure out what it means. Andy, are you saying that (1) other evil or misguided people reject logical and Biblical standards ''in a different way than'' liberals, or (2) that other evil or misguided people do ''not'' reject logical and Biblical standards, but only liberals do? If (1), then it would seem the current definition of "liberal" needs to be made more precise. If (2), then I'd appreciate if you could explain to me how people become evil or misguided without rejecting logical and Biblical standards.
:Just off the top of my head, I'd favor option (1) and define "liberal" more precisely as (something like) someone who rejects logical and Biblical standards in favor of greater liberty/licentiousness - there are plenty of other ways to reject them. However, I haven't really thought about this; I'd appreciate your comments. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 22:10, 3 January 2010 (EST)

::Most people recognize evil and even repent after doing evil deeds. [[Liberals]], in contrast, really do reject logical and Biblical standards and refuse to repent. Liberals are also unique in trying to keep others away from the Bible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:42, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:::I just found [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09212a.htm an interesting article] about theological liberalism which defines it as "partial or total emancipation of man from the supernatural, moral, and Divine order." I think this changes my viewpoint tremendously: theological liberalism ''is'' a much broader term than political liberalism: only people like this would want to keep others away from the Bible. Is this the sort of liberalism you're talking about? If so, I think we should expand the article to talk about things like the condemnation of liberalism by the Roman Catholic Church and show how political liberalism follows from theological liberalism; if not, I think we should distinguish the two sorts. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 10:01, 4 January 2010 (EST)

Here's my favorite website, distinguishing between liberals and conservatives. [http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/other/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:16, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:Let's not get bogged down by one of the liberals' favorite tactics: exploiting the ambiguity of terminology. Recall that the Soviets and their [[fellow travelers]] said they were for "peace", while the [[peace movement]] of the 1960s was devoted mostly to unilateral [[nuclear disarmament]] and getting the US out of [[Vietnam]]. The latter move caused over two million civilian deaths and extended North Vietnam's anti-religious tyranny to the South. The former would have been an even greater disaster.

:We are talking here about a particular kind of evil: American political liberalism. US liberals will not give up an argument if one of their premises is proved false (even to their own satisfaction!) because they simply want what they want - it is not related to reality; that's why they won't budge on [[global warming]]; they don't care about [[science]] but have an ulterior motive. They reject faith in God and compliance with Biblical moral standards, because they want to keep engaging in premarital sex; they only way they can justify that is to give approval to [[homosexuality|deviant sexual practices]] as well. (They do use logic, when it furthers their cause.)

:You can help us, Evan, by exploring the borders of US liberalism. Not everyone who commits adultery is a liberal; not everyone who wants to end third world poverty is a Communist. Just be careful as you "expand" that you do not dilute. At some point, you will be talking about a distinct topic. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:23, 4 January 2010 (EST)

::That's what I was thinking originally. I agree with everything you just said. The problem I think I'm seeing is that the article's current definition appears to lump a number of things together with American political liberalism. Actually, it seems to be a pretty good definition of theological liberalism. If it's this hard to define political liberalism - I can't think of a single good definition, just some "tendencies" - maybe we shouldn't offer it as a definition at all and just start the article out with, "A '''liberal''' (also '''leftist''') is someone on the left of the [[political spectrum]]. While there are no clear liberal standards, liberals unite in rejecting logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons." --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 11:33, 4 January 2010 (EST)

:::Your suggestion is a dilution, in addition to being a circular definition. Here we strive to be clear, direct and concise. Also, there's nothing special or different about "American liberalism."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:58, 4 January 2010 (EST)

::::I know it's circular; I know it's less specific. What I'm trying to say is that there seems to be a disconnect between the definition, which seems to define [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09212a.htm theological liberalism]; and the rest of the article, which seems to talk about political liberalism. You said above that the distinct thing about liberals is that they refuse to repent after sinning - well, I can name any number of medieval monarchs who refused to repent of adultery, tyranny, et cetera; while they were definitely theological liberals, they weren't political liberals in that they opposed virtually all of the liberal political positions you name! So, the article's current definition lumps theological liberalism together with political liberalism. If you want to talk about both concepts here, I'm certainly fine with that, but we'll have to expand the article. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 10:31, 5 January 2010 (EST)

I admit that I have my own bias, but we all do; it is almost impossible to be completely unbiased. But never in my life have I seen a site that is a trusted site for information as ridiculous as this one. You obviously do not know who I am, considering we have never met before, and I'm sure we never will but you take a few things I believe and assume these things about me:

"Tools:
Censorship • Hate speech • Lies • Liberal logic • Mainstream Media • Myths • Network abuse • Obfuscation • Redefinition • Biased grading • Traps • Tricks • Vandalism
Traits:
Bias • Bigotry • Bullying • Deceit • Denial • Hypocrisy • Style • Uncharitableness • Whining"

You describe liberals as "uncharitable" but when I personally believe that it is our duty to help those in need around us, I get called a socialist. So who really is the uncharitable one? The one wanting to help or calling the other one things they aren't? Jesus himself wanted people to clothe the naked and feed the hungry, is that not socialistic also? Contrary to what you may believe I do not bully, I do not whine. And I am completely against censorship, which most liberals are in fact. Banning books? Does that not count as censorship?

Also I suggest finding a correct definition of liberal.

==Reversion==

Why was my contribution removed? It was a fact and a great contribution I dont see any reason for it to be removed? (Unless it was edited by a liberal fool)

:I undid your contribution because I could not find one shred of evidence that '''anybody''', including liberals, support lesser jail sentences for rapists and child molestors. Also, please sign your posts with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> - [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 13:02, 6 March 2010 (EST)

== Small change to reflect trends in American liberalism? ==

At the end of the first paragraph, the article states "and in Europe even socialistic." While I don't believe that [[America]] is as close to a socialistic perversion as Europe, I think our ''liberals'' are. Does anyone object if I add this or make this sentence emphasize that? I don't want to remove "in Europe" because I feel that makes it too general; any suggestions on how we could make this reflect that American liberals are increasingly socialistic as well? Thank you! [[User:Tzoran|Tzoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 21:57, 12 April 2010 (EDT)

:How is that, Tyler? That what you had in mind? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:04, 12 April 2010 (EDT)
::That looks great! (Well, I added a comma, but still great). Sorry about the duplicate edit too; I'm trying to work on one of my routers so my internet has been a bit flaky recently. Thanks! [[User:Tzoran|Tzoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 22:07, 12 April 2010 (EDT)

== References ==

<references/>

== Hey ==

Except for the stronger-then-necessary first paragraph, this actually makes sense! Good job.[[User:Sigh|Sigh]] 16:47, 23 May 2010 (EDT)

Multiculturalism

2010-05-23T20:46:39Z

Sigh: Blanked the page

Uncyclopedia

2010-05-23T20:43:46Z

Sigh: Replaced content with 'You people are whiners.'

You people are whiners.

Causes of Homosexuality

2010-05-23T20:42:28Z

Sigh: Undo revision 780978 by Sigh (Talk)-Meh.

[[File:70810564 64d3a67932.jpg|alt=Causes of homosexuality|right|225px|thumb|Homosexuality appears to be rare in [[Orthodox Judaism|Orthodox Jews]]. For more information please see: [[Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality]] ]]

The '''causes of [[homosexuality]]''' are attributable to man's sinful nature, nurture and environment, and personal choice, though this is an issue that is debated. Those from the most [[liberal]] school usually assume a philosophy of determinism, treating homosexuality as a healthy identity or orientation which one has no choice over, and which cannot be changed. This belief is then used to justify acting it out.<ref>Sylvia Thorson-Smith, ''Reconciling the broken silence'', p. 30</ref> The contrasting and warranted position is that homosexuality is a choice, that of yielding to ultimately harmful desires, and which choice is partly affected by nurture and and environment.

==Causes of homosexuality - biblical explanation ==

The [[Bible]], being the most comprehensive transcendent moral authority, abundantly deals with human nature and behavior and consistently manifests that the nature of man has not changed since [[the Fall]]. So the Bible is certainly the preeminent authoritative source when it comes to providing a framework when determining the causes of homosexuality. Man is shown to have been created as a perfectly made being (Gn. 1:31) - yet not as a [[automaton]] - but as a being designed to be able to make choices, which thereby allowed him to distort his perfection. God from the beginning also joined male and female in life-long marriage, and placed a priority on the family, and provided laws, as needed, for its health and preservation and that of society, while aberrations result from failure to abide by them. ''For more information please see:'' [[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]].''

===Nature of man and causes of homosexuality ===
In the beginning, man disobeyed his Creator, and as part of the punishment for so doing both mankind and that which he was given stewardship of was negatively affected. In addition to physical decay and the suffering and natural death of living creatures being introduced into the world, (Gn. 2:17; 3:17-19; Rm. 5:12,17; 6:23; ) the Fall resulted in the nature of man demonstrating a certain proclivity to sin. However, this does not determine that a man must practice a certain sin, nor does it justify man giving into this attraction to sin, as God also gave man ability to resist sin. (Gn. 4:7)<ref>http://www.sbts.edu/documents/tschreiner/Homosexuality.pdf</ref>

Certain negative physical effects of sin are also seen as being progressive, as with time more diseases and other aberrations seemed to have occurred, and laws against incest later became necessary. In addition, as men continued to act contrary to the basic moral laws which they knew innately and through creation, conscience and oral tradition, a formal body of law was given through [[Moses]], which detailed and codified the immutable morality God enjoins upon man. (Ex. 20; Dt. 4:8,9; Lv. 18; Gal. 3:19) Addition laws include ceremonial laws which the [[New Testament]] reveals were typological. ''For more information please see:'' [[Leviticus 18]].''

As regards homosexuality, from the beginning of the Bible and throughout, it consistently teaches that God only sexually joined opposite genders together, sanctifying them in marriage, having created men and women uniquely compatible and complementary.(Gn. 2:18-24; Mt. 19:4; 1Cor. 11:8-12)<ref>http://www.cbmw.org/Articles/</ref>

In contrast to what God had ordained by design and decree, homosexuality is one of many sins which are a result of man yielding to his sinful nature, and is a form of fornication, although a most perverse kind. The prohibition of it is given along with sexual relations with animals, (Lv. 18:23) and is clearly condemned wherever it is manifestly dealt with. (Lv. 18:22; 20:13; Mk. 7:21; Rm. 1:20-27; 1Cor. 6:9; 1Tim. 1:10)

The Bible as well as history also evidences that while there are three areas in which man sins, that of lust for pleasure, possessions and power, (1Jn. 2:16) individuals may differ as regards which type of sins present the greatest temptation for them, with genetics playing at least a part in that. That judgment upon a people who gave into a specific sin could result in a genetic predisposition to that same sin among their offspring may be speculated, but it is not proven.

===Environment===

The Bible provides a clear link between the adherence of a family or a nation to the laws of God and the moral choices of offspring. (Prov. 22:6) The Bible also positively examples close father-son and familial relationships, and may be seen to partially implicate detachment with rebellion. (Gn. 37-50; 2 Sam. 13-18) Studies today have shown that [[Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality|religious upbringing and culture can strongly affect rates of homosexuality]]

The record of Sodom as well as accounts of nations elsewhere testify that living within the environment of people where iniquity abounds is conducive to furthering the same iniquity among succeeding generations, resulting in the necessity of Divine judgment when nations became given over to such. (Lv. 18:24; 20:22; Dt. 18:12; 28; Jer. 14:9,10; Rm. 2:2)

In Genesis 19 the city of Sodom, is revealed as a place in which men sexually lusted after men, from which the term "sodomy" was derived (like as homosexuals use the term "gay", although this is contradictory in the end), and Jude 7 refers to Sodom and its region being given to fornication, including that of unnatural relations.

In Ezekiel 16:49 the general iniquity of Sodom and its "sisters" is given as "pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness" and general indifference to the needy. The next verse proceeds to inform that "the Sodomites were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good." The word for ''abomination'' here is ''tô‛êbah'', which is not the word often used for ritual uncleanness, but is often used for sexual sin, in particular sexual sins and including sodomy. (Lv.18:22; 26-27,29,30; 20:13; Dt. 23:18; 24:4 1Ki. 14:24; Ezek. 22:11; 33:26) Sodom is also associated more with sexual sins than with any other ''physical'' type of sin.

What the Bible as well as secular history reveals is that prevalent homosexuality is concomitant with pride, affluence, increased free time, and selfish indulgence and carelessness.<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html Homosexual relations and the Bible: see Genesis 19 to Ezekiel 16:49]</ref> Therefore, rebellion against God's laws and order and the resultant environmental factors are seen to be a cause in promoting sensuality and homosexuality.

===Idolatry and judgment===
[[Image:Martin destruction sodom640x422.jpg|thumbnail|300px|right|Destruction of [[Sodom]] by [[God]]]]

In [[Romans 1]] God, through the [[apostle Paul]] condemns both male and female homoeroticism, which, as a cultural practice, is shown to be a manifestation and a result of idolatry, in which man progressively acted contrary to that which God has revealed by creation, by design and normality. This is morality which is confirmed by written decree (the Law), as the next chapter declares. As a result of this continued rebellion, which was partly manifest in God being reduced to an image like unto corruptible creatures (like as today with homosexuals construing Christ to be homosexual, or sanctioning it, as well as nature effectively being worshiped), "God gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves." (v. 24)

It is also stated that a certain afflictive punishment(s) of the body were incurred by those men who engaged in relations with each other. (v. 27) Unless repentance takes place, worse consequences will follow. (Rv. 21:28)

While some seek to render this chapter as only condemning homosexual relations when done as part of idolatry, the condemnation is not due to its association with paganism, rather as it inherently contrary to that which God ordained, then it is a manifestation of false religion, regardless of its form, though in ancient times in which religion was an inseparable part of culture, then formal idolatry was what was more manifested. Romans 1 proceeds to show that homosexuality is not alone as a fruit of idolatry, but that this particular pernicious physical sin is one of many inherently evil things. (Rm. 1:28-32) ''For more information please see:'' [[Romans 1]]

==== Conclusion of biblical explanation ====

What is revealed in the Bible is that homosexuality is a practice due to man yielding to his sinful nature and disobeying the good laws of God, and misusing, among other things, his sexual abilities. This disobedience itself is idolatry (whatever holds your chief allegiance is your god, at least at that time), while continued idolatry results in homosexuality as a practice, as God delivers one over to perverse desires. In addition, individual and societal disobedience to the laws of God creates an environment which is conducive to perpetuating and further intensifying iniquity, which if continued, in time requires judgment. Studies today have shown that [[Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality|Religious upbringing and culture can strongly affect rates of homosexuality]]

== Modern studies concerning the causes of homosexuality ==

Some studies indicate environmental factors can be involved in persons becoming homosexuals. Stanton L. Jones, Mark A. Yarhouse state in ''Homosexuality: the use of scientific research in the church's moral debate'' (and a main source for this section),
<blockquote>
The origins of homosexuality are not clearly understood by scientists, and the topic is a subject of hot debate. Theories and and empirical studies, which often contrast sharply, abound. The theories about the etiology of homosexuality fall into two very large categories: theories that point to nature (that is, biological variables) and theories that point to nature (that is, the influence of experience, of psychological variables." (p. 52).
</blockquote>

Those who emphasize nurture, sometimes known as the ''psychoanalytical theory'', see powerful psychological forces at work, shaping and molding children from their birth, while those who emphasize nature contend that early homosexual traits attest to a biological cause. (p. 53)

Despite many psychological studies which indicate that the parent-child relationship, early childhood development, early homosexual experiences, and childhood abuse foster homosexuality, liberals tend to reject the environmental aspect, and favor a biological influence.<ref>David G. Myers, ''A level of explanations view'', Psychology of Christianity: four views. pp. 54-83</ref> This is then used to render homosexuals to be slaves to genes, and justified in acting it out.

==Environment and nurture==
[[Image:325979 dna150.jpg|thumbnail|150px|left|[[Columbia University]] [[psychiatry]] professors Drs. William Byrne and Bruce Parsons stated: "There is no evidence that at present to substantiate a [[biology|biological]] theory. [T]he appeal of current biological explanations for sexual orientation may derive more from dissatisfaction with the present status of [[psychosocial]] explanations than from a substantiating body of experimental data".<ref>http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/bornorbred.pdf</ref>]]

That homosexuality is affected by environment and nurture has been the historical secular position.

In his 1980 work ''Overcoming Homosexuality'', Robert Kronemeyer writes: "With rare exceptions, homosexuality is neither inherited nor the result of some glandular disturbance or the scrambling of genes or chromosomes. Homosexuals are made, not born 'that way.' I firmly believe that homosexuality is a learned response to early painful experiences and that it can be unlearned. For those homosexuals who are unhappy with their life and find effective therapy, it is 'curable.'<ref>Robert Kronemeyer, ''Overcoming Homosexuality'', p. 7 (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1980)</ref>

Similarly, in a 1989 USA Today article, [[San Francisco]] State University professor of psychology John DeCecco, and the former editor of the 25-volume, ''Journal of Homosexuality'', stated, "The idea that people are born into one type of sexual behavior is entirely foolish". Homosexuality is "a behavior, not a condition,' and something that some people can and do change, just like they sometimes change other tastes and personality traits."<ref>Kim Painter, ''A Biological Theory for Sexual Preference'', USA Today, 1 January 1989, p. 4D</ref>

===Parental relationships with offspring===

The psychoanalytical theory is the historical position, which implicates a detached, rejecting or absent father, often along with a close bond to the mother, as working, on the conscious and unconscious level, against a secure sexual identity. Also contributing to this can be a mother who has animosity toward the father, or men in general, and who works to present him negatively, and to make the child side with her.

One of the earliest studies supporting this position was that of Irving Bieber and associates.<ref>Bieber, ''Homsexuality: A psychoanalytical study of male homosexuality'' (1962)</ref> Comparison of 106 homosexuals with 100 male heterosexuals showed that mothers of the former had enmeshed seductive type relationships with their sons, while their fathers were detached, distant or rejecting. This study was contested by some who charged the researchers with bias, but a further study by Ray B. Evans which also compared homosexuals with heterosexuals reported similar results, this time among self-identified homosexuals who had never sought treatment.<ref>Ray b. Evans, ''Childhood parental relationships of homosexual men'', Journal of Consulting and and clinical psychology 33. (1969) pp. 129-33</ref>

Based upon his work with 200 male homosexuals, Gerard van den Aardweg stated that 79 percent described their mother as "overanxious", or "overconcerned" about them; their safety, health, and being overly sentimental when they met with some hardship, as well as manifesting other aspects of over mothering. In addition, in 71 percent of homosexual cases, "the most important factor was the father's detachedness or nonparticipation in the son's upbringing. The fathers of 38 percent of the men were so hypercritical that the sons were made to feel either rejected and/or inferior. <ref>Gerard van den Aardweg, ''on the origins and treatment of homosexuality'', (1985) pp.184-85</ref>

Another study of about 1500 homosexuals showed much less influence by the mother, while far more reported an unaffectionate or detached father, and approximately half of homosexuals reported they negative feelings toward their fathers, versus 29 percent of heterosexuals.<ref>Bell, Weinberg, Hammersmith, ''Sexual preference: Its development in men and women'' (1981)</ref>

While these factors are conducive to homosexuality, it should be stressed that these do not ensure that children raised this way will become homosexual, nor are these factors alone in influencing it.

===Sexual abuse===

Childhood sexual abuse is well attested to demonstrate a correlation to the incidence of homosexuality among those affected by it. A large national survey of almost 35,000 Americans showed that more three times as many men and women who had been sexually abused as children became homosexuals versus that of heterosexuals.<ref>7.4 percent or homosexual men and 3.1 percent of females, versus 2.0 percent of heterosexual men and 0.8 percent women.</ref><ref>Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, and Michaels, ''The social organization of homosexuality:...'', (1994) p. 344</ref> Another study reported that 58 percent of male adolescents who later became homosexuals suffered sexual abuse as children, while 90 percent who did not suffer sexual abuse identified themselves as heterosexuals.<ref>Sheir and Johnson, ''Sexual victimization of boys:... (1988) pp. 1189-93</ref> In addition, 43 percent of male homosexuals reported sexual activity with another male during the ages of 10-12, versus 9 percent of heterosexuals.<ref>Manosevitz, ''Early sexual behavior in adult homosexual and heterosexual males'', Journal of abnormal psychology 76, (1970) 396-402</ref>

==Biological research on the causes of homosexuality ==

''For more information please see:'' [[Genetics, Homosexuality, Evolutionary Paradigm, and Creation Science]] and [[Homosexuality and Genetics]].

The belief that homosexuality has a biological cause can be traced back to the preliminary findings of neuroscientist Dr. Simon LeVay. In 1991 LeVay's studied the brains of 41 cadavers which included 19 homosexual males, and claimed that "a tiny area believed to control sexual activity [the hypothalamus] was less than half the size in the gay men than in the heterosexuals."<ref>Charlene Crabb, ''Are Some Men Born to Be Homosexual?'', U. S. News & World Report, 9 September 1991, p. 58</ref><ref>S. LeVay, "A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure Between heterosexual and Homosexual Men," Science 253 (1991), pp. 1034-37</ref> This study was immediately seized upon by many as proof that homosexuality was biologically determined.

However, further scrutiny showed this hasty conclusion as lacking in warrant.

*1. The range of sizes of the hypothalamic region varied and was inconsistent. The region at subject was the same size in a few homosexual men as that of the heterosexuals, while in a few other heterosexuals this region was a small as that of a homosexual.
*2. The fact that all 19 of the homosexual men had died of [[AIDS]] could easily have accounted for or contributed to the differences.
*3. It has not been determined if the smaller hypothalamuses were the cause rather than the effect of homosexual activity. "Researchers have found that when people who become blind begin to learn Braille, the area of the brain controlling the reading finger actual grows larger."<ref>Reported in D. Gelman "Born or Bred?" Newsweek, 24 February 1992, pp. 46-53</ref><ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/homotheo.html</ref>
*4. Levay's study was based study was based upon a supposed sexual functional correlation between the SDN-POA brain center in male rats and a brain center called INAH3 in humans, but which assumption was shown to be false.<ref>http://www.biblebelievers.com/Cameron4.html</ref>
*4. The sexual history of the "heterosexual" men was not known, and Levay's samples included 16 brains from men whose sexual orientation was unknown.<ref>[http://www.equip.org/PDF/DH055-1.pdf Joseph P. Gudel, ''HOMOSEXUALITY: Fact and Fiction'']</ref>
*5. And as William Byne noted, LeVay’s work "has not been replicated, and human neuroanatomical studies of this kind have a very poor track record for reproducibility. Indeed, procedures similar to those LeVay used to identify nuclei have previously led researchers astray".<ref>Byne, William (1994), “The Biological Evidence Challenged,” Scientific American, May, 1994, 270: p. 53</ref>.
*5. The conclusions were that which were sought by the researcher. Dr. LeVay, a homosexual himself, confessed that his study was not entirely a dispassionate scientific endeavor,<ref>Simon LeVay on The Phil Donahue Show, ''Genetically Gay: Born Gay or Become Gay?'', January 3, 1992</ref> He also later stated, "I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay."<ref>Byrd, A. Dean, Shirley E. Cox, and Jeffrey W. Robinson (2001), ''Homosexuality: The Innate-Immutability Argument Finds No Basis in Science'', The Salt Lake Tribune</ref><ref>http://www.sltrib.com/2001/may/05272001/commenta/100523.htm</ref>

Two prominent geneticists, Paul Billings and Jonathan Beckwith, commenting on the quality of the LeVay research, stated that LeVay, "could not really be certain about his subject's sexual preferences, since they were dead." and that his "research design and subject sample did not allow others to determine whether it was sexual behavior, drug use, or disease history that was correlated with the observed differences among the subjects' brains." And in addition, it was very likely that LeVay's method of defining homosexuality would "create inaccurate or inconsistent study groups." <ref>P. Billings and J. Beckwith, "Born Gay?" Technology Review, July 1993, p. 60,61</ref>

Another study, published in ''Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America'', examined the ''anterior commissure'' (a structure that divides the left and right halves of the brain) of male heterosexuals and homosexual men, most of whom died of AIDS. The study shows that the anterior commissure was larger in women and in 27 of the 30 homosexual men than in heterosexual men.<ref>L. Allen, et al., ''Sexual Orientation and the Size of the Anterior Commissure in the Human Brain,'' Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America 89, no. 15 (1992), pp. 7199-7202</ref>.

Here again, how AIDS might have factored in this difference is an issue, and the findings of this study were overall in contradiction to another study published in 1988, which found, in part, that the anterior commissure was larger in men than in women.<ref>S. Demeter et al., "Morphometric analysis of the human corpus callosum and anterior commissure," Human Neurobiology 6 1988), pp. 219-26</ref>

A 1991 study of twins by Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard was also promoted as establishing biological determination of homosexuality, but which conclusion was also soon found to be lacking in warrant, and contrary to other studies.<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/homotheo.html</ref><ref>[http://www.biblebelievers.com/Cameron4.html Dr. Paul Cameron, ''Born WHAT Way?'']</ref>

That blood chemistry as well as brains can change over time in response to environment and lifestyle has been documented by studies.<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/bioresearch.html</ref><ref>Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, ''The Biology of Homosexuality: Science or Politics?''</ref><ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/bioresearch.html</ref>

==Conclusions==

Sociologist Steven Goldberg, Ph.D. states,
<blockquote>
Virtually all of the evidence argues against there being a determinative physiological causal factor and I know of no researcher who believes that such a determinative factor exists...such factors play a predisposing, not a determinative role...I know of no one in the field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors.
</blockquote>

Goldberg also expressed, "Gay criticism has not addressed the classic family configuration"; it has merely "asserted away the considerable evidence" for the existence of family factors. Studies which attempt to disprove the existence of the classic family pattern in homosexuality are "convincing only to those with a need to believe." <ref>S. Goldberg, ''When Wish Replaces Thought: Why So Much of What You Believe is False'' (1994), Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books</ref>

Psychiatrists Friedman and Downey: "Despite recent neurobiological findings suggesting homosexuality is genetically-biologically determined, credible evidence is lacking for a biological model of homosexuality." <ref>R. Friedman, M.D. and J. Downey, M.D., ''Journal of Neuropsychiatry'', vol. 5, No. 2, Spring l993</ref>

Psychiatrist and author Jeffrey Satinover, M.D. concludes,
<blockquote>
Like all complex behavioral and mental states, homosexuality is...neither exclusively biological nor exclusively psychological, but results from an as-yet-difficult-to-quantitate mixture of genetic factors, intrauterine influences...postnatal environment (such as parent, sibling and cultural behavior), and a complex series of repeatedly reinforced choices occurring at critical phases of development.<ref>J. Satinover, M.D., ''Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth'', (1996). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books</ref></blockquote>

Drs. William Byne and Bruce Parsons, researchers at the New York State Psychiatric Institute,having carefully analyzed all the major biological studies of homosexuality, found none that definitively supported a biological theory of causation. "Human Sexual Orientation: The Biologic Theories Reappraised." Archives of General Psychiatry 50, no.3. (1993)

Other similarly express that nurture and choice factor as being mostly or wholly determinative.<ref>[http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/homorig.html On the Origins of Homosexuality:
Is a Person "Born that Way"?]</ref>

===Indications of onset homosexuality===

Childhood manifestations of gender non-conformity such as consistent preference by a boy for the clothing, company and play things (dolls, etc.) of girls over that of boys is generally seen as predisposing such to homosexuality.<ref>Stanton L. Jones, Mark A. Yarhouse, ''Homosexuality: the use of scientific research in the church's moral debate'', pp. 52-92</ref>

==Homosexuality as a choice==
The Bible shows that while nurture and environment can make one more predisposed to certain types of behavior, man's sinful nature can also deceive one into believing that sinful behaviors are not sin, while yielding to sin reduces ones ability to resist it. Secular studies also indicate that most homosexuals have been attracted to the opposite gender.

A research project (2004) of Robert Goetze identified 84 articles or books that contain some relevance to the possibility of sexual orientation change. Of the data reported, 31 of the 84 studies showed a quantitative outcome of individuals able to change sexual orientation.<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2553</ref>

===Former homosexuals===
[[Image:St Paul Preaching.jpg|left|thumb|200px|St. [[Paul]] defends his preaching (Giovanni Ricco)]]
''For more information please see'': [[Ex-Homosexuals]] and [[Overcoming Homosexuality]]

One of the earliest historical records of the existence of [[Ex-Homosexuals|ex-homosexuals]] is found in the letter of the [[Paul|Apostle Paul]] to the [[Corinth|Corinthian]] [[Christianity|Christian]] church (approx. 59 AD).
{{cquote|Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the [[Kingdom of God|kingdom of God]]? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such '''were''' some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the [[Holy Spirit|Spirit]] of our [[God]]. - I Corinthians 6:9-11 (KJV)}}

Today people still report leaving homosexuality and becoming heterosexual by being born again through repentance and faith in the Lord [[Jesus Christ]].<ref>http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56481</ref><ref>http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=19650</ref><ref>http://www.cwfa.org/articles/4216/CFI/cfreport/index.htm</ref><ref>http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.aspid=25145</ref><ref>http://www.witnessfortheworld.org/blkexgbks.html</ref> <ref>http://www.frontlinemin.org/wasgay.asp</ref><ref>http://www.charismamag.com/display.php?id=9019</ref><ref>http://www.apocalipsis.org/testimony.htm</ref><ref>http://www.baylor.edu/lariat/news.php?action=story&story=13784</ref>

[[Peter LaBarbera]] is the President of [[Americans for Truth]] which is a organization which counters the [[Homosexual Agenda|homosexual agenda]]. Peter LaBarbera stated the following regarding Christian ex-homosexuals who reported being transformed by the power of God:
{{cquote|Another factor from my experience as a close observer of the “ex-gay” phenomenon is that many former homosexuals do not linger in “[[Reparative Therapy|reparative therapy]]” programs, or participate in them at all. They attribute their dramatic and (relatively) rapid transformation to the power of God, and likely would not show up in a study of this kind. In fact, these “unstudied” overcomers would appear to be the most successful ex-homosexuals because they’ve moved on with their lives — as “reborn” Christians can move on after overcoming any besetting sin.<ref>http://www.americansfortruth.com/news/landmark-study-change-for-homosexuals-is-possible.html</ref>}}

==Additional sources concerning the causes of homosexuality ==

There has been much work done since the latter part of the 20th century. Below are some resources in regards to the various causes of homosexuality:

*[[Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality]]
*[[Sexual Abuse Being a Contributing Factor for Homosexuality]]
*[[Homosexuality and Choice]]
*[[Homosexuality and Genetics]]
*[[Homosexuality in animals myth]]
*[[Genetics, Homosexuality, Evolutionary Paradigm, and Creation Science]]

==See Also==
* [[Homosexuality and the Bible]]
*[[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]]
*[[Ex-Homosexuals]]
*[[Teenager Homosexuality]]
*[[Homosexuality Research]]
*[[Homosexuality Statistics]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.allaboutworldview.org/causes-of-homosexuality-faq.htm What are some of the causes of homosexuality?]
*[http://ankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/streams-of-life/SL2W0803.pdf What Causes Homosexuality] by Dr. John F. Ankerberg
* [http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/genetics_of_homosexuality.html Rich Deem, ''Genetics and Homosexuality: Are People Born Gay? The Biological Basis for Sexual Orientation]

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

[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category:Psychology]]
[[Category:Sociology]]

Causes of Homosexuality

2010-05-23T20:39:38Z

Sigh: Replaced content with 'This site puts Conservatives to shame. Homosexuality is bad, but it's not a disease. It is nothing like cancer, AIDS, or other things that are really diseases.'

This site puts Conservatives to shame. Homosexuality is bad, but it's not a disease. It is nothing like cancer, AIDS, or other things that are really diseases.

Talk:Mystery:Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?

2010-05-23T20:34:57Z

Sigh: /* I REALLY hope this article is trolling. */ new section

==Mind Altering Drugs==
The suggestion may (or may not) have been made with parodic intent, but I had been thinking along similar lines. It is well-known that use of drugs - 'even' marijuana, which Liberals pretend is less harmful than candy - causes a range of psychiatric illnesses (which may also be hereditary); and I think that maybe between us we could come up with an acceptable form of words. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:50, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:I agree: that's why in my reversion I suggested that the original contributor expand to put the claim on a firmer foundation. How about, "use of mind-altering drugs, which encourages one to become a liberal to reconcile the cognitive dissonance, or dulls mental acuity resulting in mindless conformity," or something like that.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 15:52, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::That sounds good to me. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:54, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:::Thanks! Done.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 15:56, 13 December 2008 (EST)

Lots of insights in this list. I wonder if it would be possible to estimate percentages for each reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 15:59, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:Thanks! I expect media/school bias, along with [[liberal friendship]] & mindless rebellion, are some of the biggest contributors.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 16:09, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::::Any estimates would probably be just a guess so I suggest a data gathering exercise. If someone could set up a sub-page with a list of the options then we could all think of the non-conservatives that we are familiar with at school, work or in some cases even at home. Then we could just give one point for the reason that we would estimate for each person. I think the demographic diversity here should be sufficient to build a fairly accurate picture. This sort of thing wouldn't be allowed at WP with their dogmatic No Original Research mantra. So it highlights a real difference between us and WP in that we can generate new insights through a group effort as it would give almost everyone the opportunity to contribute. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 16:55, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:::::Applying clear numbers to it is probably impossible, since many of the causes effect any individual. Everyone is subject to the bias in media, academia, etc..., while only some have the poor thinking skills, innate naivete, and simply, pure delusion that creates the radicals members of the far left whom we all love and tolerate. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 17:00, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:: Probably so. But note that even the most powerful bias requires something extra to close the mind as well. Of course aging seems to have an effect of closing the mind automatically for many.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 16:12, 13 December 2008 (EST)

Mental endowments are certainly a key reason (see ''[[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness]]''). A certain demographic is inherently irrational and childlike. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 16:14, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:I saw that on WND: I'll try to find time to read it over the break.[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 16:16, 13 December 2008 (EST)

== Organization ==

I've tried to compact and organize it, to make it easier to grasp. Please improve. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 16:27, 13 December 2008 (EST)

: Great point. I think we need prioritized sections, like "Main Reasons", separated from "Other Reasons." Feel free to improve.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 16:35, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::Great job Rod!-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 18:01, 13 December 2008 (EST)

==Wow==
Okay, if this isn't a parody, then it's just scary. It makes multiple errors in it's assumptions, characterizes liberals as "weak-minded" or just unthinkingly "rebellious", and heavily insists that being Non-conservative is "wrong", and that if you're not a conservative, then you are brainwashed simple thinker. Does the author realize that there are opposing views to conservatism that are not liberal? Does he realize that some liberals are quite intelligent, and have reasons for being liberal that are based on logic? I like to think of myself as a moderate conservative, but the reasons highlighted in this list serve only to make me ashamed of that. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 16:37, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:Shawn, the tenor and content of your rant (and it is 'its assumptions', not 'it's assumptions') lead us to suppose that you are very far from being a Conservative of any hue. If you held sincere beliefs, you would not be ashamed of them because of third party actions. And if you were one of those mythical 'quite intelligent liberals', you might be capable of opening up your mind to new ideas, rather than rejecting them out of hand. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:44, 13 December 2008 (EST)

::Right, Bugler. ShawnJ's talk lack substance. But perhaps it can be analyzed: why isn't ShawnJ a real conservative? His reference to liberals being "quite intelligent" suggests he aspires to be considered likewise. I sense the public school rationales at work here: the "A+" went to the liberal positions, and either ShawnJ received a few himself and cannot let go of the illusion, or he's a wannabee.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 18:57, 13 December 2008 (EST)

::: Bugler, I consider myself a conservative because I was raised in a strictly conservative family, and while I don't agree with all of their positions, I still do agree with many of them. Hence me considering myself a "moderate" conservative. My whole issue with this article is it reads as an attack on non-conservatives, in no small way calling them worse people. It is a complete error to refer to all liberals as stupid, or unthinking, or ignorantly rebellious. It's the same flaw that racism and all forms of bigotry share. Trying to apply absolutes to beliefs and personalities simply doesn't hold up under closer inspection. Perhaps if you were secure in your conservative beliefs, you might be capable of opening up your mind to new ideas, instead of rejecting them because they come from someone with different political views than your own. Aschlafly, I addressed most of your argument in my reply to Bugler, but for the record, most of my "A+"s went to Math and Physics. It's really hard to put a political spin on calculations and numbers. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 19:52, 13 December 2008 (EST)

:::: ShawnJ, take a look at our new statistical portion of the entry. Which category do you fall into, or should there be a new one? For example, did you hear about conservative principles and the logic behind them only ''after'' you made up your mind? Do you have liberal friends whose acceptance you value?

:::: If you got "A+"s in school, regardless of subject, then your self-esteem is likely tied to approval by the very liberal education establishment. You'd have to feel embarrassment if your teachers learned that you might become a real conservative. And your self-esteem would not permit that, right?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 20:37, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::::::Wait a sec--you're saying that people who get "A"s in school tend to be liberal? So would that make the converse true--that conservatives would tend to get low(er) grades? That can't be right...--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:18, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::Ooooh, SO close, but no cigar! The arguments is that liberals know that professors are liberal - see [[professor values]] - and conform their behavior & values deliberately to the professor's to get better grades not for substance, but because they agree with the professor's worldview. It's not that they're smart; they're just playing the game.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 22:22, 13 December 2008 (EST)

:::: I gotta say, my personal experiences negate any of the categories in the statistical portion. I simply realized, over time, that conservatism didn't hold all the answers. That, surprise, there was no perfect school of political thought. All this talk about the "liberal education system" is funny to me, because, honestly, I couldn't give you the political leanings of ANY of my teachers/professors. Who they did/would vote for, their stances on gun control, abortion, homosexuality, government, it simply never came up. I'm sure there was some rule on the books preventing teachers from discussing such things, and they were followed. The military upbringing put me in many different schools in various parts of the country, domestic and abroad, and not a single one broke that rule. Granted, I never sought out my instructors political beliefs, but the never volunteered them either. They were there do their job of teaching me, and I was there to do mine of learning.

:::: As far as my friends go, they fall much into the same boat. I hang out with them to relax after work. Watch a game, play a game, maybe throw a party, whatever, not to have heated arguments that won't resolve anything.[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 23:36, 13 December 2008 (EST)

::::: ShawnJ, you probably vote and so do your friends and teachers; you adhere to certain values and so do your friends and teachers; and you make statements of a political nature just as your friends and teachers do. I'm sure you've taken courses in economics, history, government, English literature, and science, and it is impossible to teach or learn those topics without forming opinions that affirm or deny conservative principles. Perhaps you were unaware of it at the time, but with an open mind you can reconsider it now.

::::: Your teachers voted overwhelmingly for [[Barack Obama]], to take just one example, and they taught you things consistent with their view. I'd guess that 50% of what you learned in school was false, and those of who care about the truth embark on a path to revisit and reconsider all of it. I encourage you to join us.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 10:43, 14 December 2008 (EST)

== Ohkay......... ==

Erm, i understand the bit about all those TV shows and the media in general, but mind-altering drugs?, isn't that just taking it a bit too far (i mean in terms of accusations, how the heck would Obama put drugs in everyone's cookies, i mean, he's busy enough as it is dealing with conniving madmen like the governor from Illinois with the weird name (apologies for the long sentence)--[[User:PhilipV|[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]]]] 17:14, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:Who is talking about Obama here? The effects of drug abuse are well known. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:33, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::I think he meant Blagovejich :)-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 18:00, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:::PhilipV's comments are bizarre. But why is PhilipV a non-conservative, do you think?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 18:59, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::::Sounds like he's trying to apologize for drug use.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 19:02, 13 December 2008 (EST)

::::: Alex, I find that accusation offensive! ----[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 12:28, 14 December 2008 (EST)

::::::Come to think of it, how on earth is that an apology for drug use/abuse/misuse? if i had used such works of the devil (which they are) i would probably have voted Democrat so that i could have continued using illegal drugs - but no - i voted republcan this year and my political compass test says that im a right-wing authoritarian.----[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 12:28, 14 December 2008 (EST)

== Seriously? ==
Hmmm... in this article I see Liberal Style 21. Why must we try to make liberals seem less intelligent than conservatives? If the positions of Conservatism are much more logical than the positions of Liberalism... shouldn't that be self-evident? Why do we need to bash down liberals, calling them sheeple? And since when were issues like race and poverty "simple"? [[User:DM|DM]] 17:44, 13 December 2008 (EST)

: You seem to be bothered by the intelligence issue also, like another above. Please see my comments above.

: Race and poverty are easier-to-grasp issues than globalism. There's no denying that.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:05, 13 December 2008 (EST)

:: Let us tackle race, firstly. What race is President Obama? Black? No, he's not black. He's African-American. Now what's the difference? I would consider someone who is African-American to be an American who immigrated from Africa or is of African descent. Now who is Black? Black people are the descendants of Africans who were kidnapped and brought to the New World to work as slaves. Now, Barack Obama is descended from an African man. Thus, he can be called African-American. But he is not a descendant of Africans who were slaves, thus he is not Black. Is this just a difference of their places in history? No. Black people are of West African descent exclusively. They didn't sail to the other side of Africa to kidnap slaves. President Obama is of East African descent. Hmmm.

:: So is race a simple issue? [[User:DM|DM]] 23:56, 13 December 2008 (EST)

::: It is extremely simple to millions of non-conservatives, who do not care one bit about the distinctions you attempt to draw in your comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 10:46, 14 December 2008 (EST)

::::Race CAN be complex. I don't think we're arguing that it's not. However, globalism & the global economy, as well as the complex relationship between taxes & economic growth, can be harder to grasp for some liberals. That's all we're arguing (please correct me if I'm wrong Aschlafly).-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 10:56, 14 December 2008 (EST)

== Morally depraved nature ==

Why do sinners sin? It is because they have a sinful nature. I think this mystery article totally lacks a greater focus on man's sinful nature apart from God and also neglects to mention the grace and redemptive work of Christ and the Holy Spirit. I think this is rather odd for a encyclopedia which [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Articles_mentioning_Conservapedia prominently features an article by the Christian Post through its main page which states that Conservapedia favors Christianity]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:16, 13 December 2008 (EST)

:I think perhaps this article doesnt talk about the sinful nature of man because it is about political affiliation rather than religious. Or are you pointing out that all non-conservatives are innately sinful?

::I think "political affiliation" is slightly off the mark. This is not about party affiliation. This article is about one's outlook as expressed in political terminology, which of course is highly correlated with how one votes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:55, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

== Statistical Analysis ==
Ok I know this is a mystery and not an encyclopedic article but could we please get one or two cites for the statistical analysis section since it would be very interesting to read the studies that that was based off of --[[User:WillB|WillB]] 22:47, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:good wuestion WillB! how were these statistics compiled?
:Agreed. It definitely does not look good at its present state where these numbers have nothing to back them up -- even if listed as estimates. --[[User:SJames|SJames]] 18:20, 14 December 2008 (EST)

:: It's an estimate, and a work in progress. Do you doubt its truth? Perhaps you're simply saying that a liberal newspaper would not admit this, and you'd be right about that. But the truth is not constrained by what liberals will admit.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 18:29, 14 December 2008 (EST)

::: I was just stating my curiosity -- one that I believe most readers share -- as to how those numbers came about. As to its validity, I have no way of knowing but based on my own encounters, those numbers look about right for the most part, except for one group that I believe is missing on that list. I know quite a few non-conservatives who, with an open mind, simply weighed conservative values against non-conservative values and decided that they identified more with non-conservative values. Their values usually gravitate towards "freedom of choice", as defined by themselves. (Obviously we disagree with it)
Examples include: Freedom to choose abortion, freedom to choose religion, freedom to choose a "lifestyle", etc. You might say that these people fall into the ''10%: refuse to rise above their personal temptations, often self-destructive, and refuse to accept conservative values that conflict with their personal desires like irresponsible sexual promiscuity'' -- and that's true for some, but not for others. Some non-conservatives aren't interested in engaging in sexual promiscuity, dwelling in person temptation and self-destruction; they simply believe that it should be up to each individual if they choose to do so. --[[User:SJames|SJames]] 21:42, 14 December 2008 (EST)

:::As I said it would be interesting to read how these estimates were arrived at. I have no idea what the percentages should be and would love to see the data but I know that since this is an essay that a cite is not required and my not be possible to get in any case. --[[User:WillB|WillB]] 18:41, 14 December 2008 (EST)

Aschlafly asks "Do you doubt its [the statistics'] truth?" To which I respond, yes, I do doubt it, but more importantly I doubt very much that these "statistics" should be referred to as such. I, further, dispute WillB's claim that because this is an essay Aschlafly is not obligated to provide citations or data to support his claim.

My basic issue here is that absent any sort of supporting documentation these "estimates" are nothing of the sort and are, instead, simply guesses. A guess is not the same as a statistical estimate. To understand why, consider ASchlafly's first cited reason, "Did not hear about conservative principles...", which I will refer to as Claim A. Now, in theory Claim A is true of some portion of the population (A "population" being defined as the set of things we're interested in studying. In this case, for the sake of argument, we'll assume the population is American citizens or legal residents). This value is known as a population parameter and we will refer to it as "Mu", following the common statistical practice of referring to true population values with Greek symbols. Now, the difficulty is that the population is too large for us to assess as a whole. To deal with this, we take a sample of the population- for example, a random sample. Now, the composition of a true random sample is determined by its parent population. So, for example, if Claim A is true of 40% of the population, as ASchlafly asserts, then a true random sample will- in theory- contain the same proportion of persons for whom Claim A is true. The quantity in the sample for whom Claim A is true will be referred to as X-bar, a symbol used to refer to the arithmetic mean of a sample, and is not written in Greek as it refers to an estimate or "statistic" rather than to a true population parameter. So, if our random sample is perfect Mu should equal x-bar.

Now, this is true in theory, but in practice things get tricky. While a true random sample is the ideal, it is also the case that larger samples provide better estimates (i.e. more accurate values of x-bar) than smaller samples. Thus, it is almost always the case that Mu does not equal x-bar but rather is only approximately equal to x-bar. The relation between a particular value of x-bar and the value of Mu is determined using two things: the estimated [[standard deviation]] of a distribution of means and a [[confidence interval]]. The distribution of means is a mathematical construct that indicates how often we ought to see the x-bar of a sample of a given size, n, vary by a certain amount from the value of Mu. For our purposes we would estimate it using sample information by dividing the sample variance by n (i.e the sample size) and then taking the square root. We will refer to this as SDm (i.e. the standard deviation of the distribution of means). We would then use this value to construct a confidence interval. A confidence interval is a range of scores within which we are certain to a specific probability that we will find Mu. Put differently, it is like saying, "The true population value is x-bar plus or minus y amount, with a certainty of 95%." Confidence intervals are almost always included with point estimates (i.e. estimates of a specific value, such as x-bar) because statisticians are well aware that x-bar almost never precisely equals Mu. We would construct our confidence interval by taking x-bar and then adding, and subtracting, the value of the product of SDm and a t-value corresponding to our desired level of certainty and degrees of freedom (i.e. x-bar + (SDm)(t-value) and x-bar - (SDm)(t-value)). A t-value is a score taken from the t-distribution, which is an approximation of the [[normal distribution]] used when a smaller sample size produces non-normality. The t-distribution asymptotically approximates the normal distribution, so with large sample sizes you can essentially use the normal distribution instead. The degrees of freedom in this case are equal to n-1. So, if we drew a sample of 101 people and wanted to be 99% sure that our confidence interval included Mu then we would use a t-value of 2.626. So, in summation, using the sample information we can compute not simply an estimate of the value of Mu (i.e. x-bar) but also an interval within which we can be confident (e.g. 99% certain) that the true value of Mu lies. Obviously, the smaller the confidence interval, the more exact our estimate of Mu is likely to be and, if we assume that the sample x-bar is derived from is a perfect random sample, then the quality of our estimate is based entirely on sample size. Further, the relationships discussed above are well-documented empirically and have been proven out by mathematicians and statisticians since about the turn of the century.

The reality, of course, is that samples are rarely if ever perfectly random. Sampling error inevitably creeps in and, as a result, confidence intervals often have to be adjusted for this added error. If we cannot determine the extent of the sampling error's influence on our statistics then there is no mathematical adjustment possible and we, instead, have to assess the robustness of our estimates against the probable size of the error. And what all this means is that something is a statistical estimate rather than an offhand guess precisely because it includes not only a point estimate (e.g. 40% of the population subscribes to Claim A) but also a confidence interval around that point estimate (e.g. plus or minus 10%). Moreover, the point estimates as well as the confidence intervals are produced using a set of established procedures that are rooted in the mathematical characteristics of both population/sample relationships and the estimators (i.e. the computations used to produce the point estimates). Given that this is the case, point estimates are almost always provided with confidence intervals or standard errors and, additionally, information must be provided in order to allow others to assess the likely accuracy of the estimates.

ASchlafly has provided a set of point estimates generated in an unknown manner from unknown data. He has included no confidence intervals and no indication of the degree of accuracy in these estimates. As a result they are not statistical estimates and in no way should be referred to as the product of "statistical analysis". They are, to the contrary, nothing more or less than offhand guesses and should be referred to as such. On the other hand, if ASchlafly has some basis for these point estimates he should indicate where the data derive from and provide- at a bare minimum- the confidence intervals around these estimates as well as an outline indicating how he produced those intervals.

The point of statistics is not simply to compute an answer (e.g. a point estimate) but to produce along with it an estimate of the degree or error contained in that estimate. No human, after all, is perfect and it is in the nature of statistics to honestly quantify that imperfection. Absent confidence intervals or standard errors, and some understanding of how the data were gathered the appropriate response to the question "Do you doubt its truth" from anyone who is marginally competent in statistics must be "yes." Moreover, if ASchlafly wishes to label these assertions as "statistical estimates" then it is his responsibility to justify them in the manner accepted by statisticians. Otherwise, they should be (correctly) labeled as guesses.

Understand, the substance of my objection has nothing to do with whether or not ASchlafly's claims are correct but, rather, with the appropriateness of their presentation and treatment. -Drek
:Any reasonable argument should be capable of being put in two or three concise paragraphs, Drek. Your lengthy and confused screed doesn't add any light to this matter, I'm afraid. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:07, 16 December 2008 (EST)
::No sweat: ASchlafly's "statistics" are not statistics but guesses. He can demonstrate to the contrary by providing adequate citations to his data source as well as indicating the techniques used to generate the point estimates as well as confidence intervals and/or standard errors. Until he does so, referring to his guesses as "statistical analysis" is, at best, an exaggeration. Leaving this essay as-is saps credibility from both Conservapedia generally and ASchlafly particularly. See the above "confused screed" for a detailed explanation of my concerns. It's good to be succinct, but if Conservapedia is meant as an educational resource- and the criticism of Wikipedia for not offering courses lends support to that notion- then it's even better to be sufficiently thorough for students to follow the dispute. Or, as Beatrice Wright puts it, "You must learn to write in such a way that it will be as easy as possible for your critics to know why they disagree with you." -Drek
:::Andrew Schlafly is a qualified and experienced statistician and I'd certainly trust his judgement; not to sound suspicious, but in what way are you qualified to make such sweeping statements about this aricle? Also, you can be sure that his analyses and his estimates are based on a mature and thorough understanding of the issue being examined. Proper statistics is not just bare number crunching: it is an informed process that requires a full understanding of context. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:58, 16 December 2008 (EST)
::::"Proper statistics is not just bare number crunching: it is an informed process that requires a full understanding of context." Exactly right, and as you will notice, I am asking for a disclosure of that context so that we can all assess the accuracy and reliability of ASchlafly's claims for ourselves. If he is, indeed, a "...qualified and experienced statistician..." as you assert and his numbers are based on good data and appropriate techniques, this should be trivially easy. I also appreciate that you trust his judgment but statistics aren't about trusting someone's judgment, they are about verifiable results. Whether you or I view ASchlafly as a competent statistician has no bearing on the fact that he has not, at present, provided any justification whatsoever for the figures presented. Asking about my qualifications is something of an ad hominem since I have presented a lengthy explanation of why I question ASchlafly's claims. Rather than ask how I know what I do, why not respond substantively to my points? Regardless, while I have no expectation that you will take my word for it, I have been teaching statistics in an American four-year university for six years. -Drek
:::::I'm sorry you take it as an ad hom; I'm sure you appreciate that in such an environment a certain caution about people's claimed expertise is perhaps excusable. And I certainly accept your word as to your post and experience. But this is more than a pure, abstract, mathematical, dare I say professorial treatment of statistics. This is the application of statistics in the real world, down and dirty, relying also upon a knowledge of human nature, and in particular the nature of the Liberal-minded human, which is an additional layer of expertise which possibly you do not have - although, to be fair, working in a university (is it a public funded institution?) you would very likely be exposed daily to all kinds of Liberal nonsense. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:19, 16 December 2008 (EST)
::::::"This is the application of statistics in the real world, down and dirty, relying also upon a knowledge of human nature..." The thing is, Bugler, that statistics are an applied branch of mathematics. Their express purpose is to allow us to extract certainty from the vapor of possibility or, less metaphorically, to allow us to derive useful knowledge from messy research situations. Indeed, multivariate methods like regression are often used when the purity of experimental control is unattainable. Statistics can only provide this service reliably, however, when there is a full disclosure of how they are obtained. If the data are valid, the procedures appropriate, and the necessary mathematical assumptions not grievously violated, then the conclusions may be trusted to a particular degree of certainty. That ASchlafly's statistics are being used to asses the "...nature of the Liberal-minded human..." is effectively irrelevant. I do not ask that ASchlafly produce perfect statistics, but unless and until he provides a basis for judging his numbers, they cannot be regarded as anything more than his personal opinion. I appreciate your accepting my claimed expertise on my word, however. I have worked at both public and private universities and you will understand that the various strains of "nonsense" that I have encountered from a variety of ideological camps underlies my interest in seeing that statistical methods are not abused. If statistics are to be used to adjudicate between rival claims, then we must emphasize the need for them to be performed correctly. More simply, the extent to which I agree or disagree with the outcome of an analysis has no bearing on whether or not it was done correctly. And, as a side note, I have enjoyed our chat, but will probably be away from my computer for the next day or so for travel. If I do not respond to further comments, please understand it is not out of rudeness. -Drek
:::::::: of course. ''Bon voyage!'' [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:37, 16 December 2008 (EST)

:::::::: Drek, you really "take the cake" for the most long-winded liberal rant in recent memory here. The field of statistics does include estimates, and no one doubts that that there are percentages for each category listed. Are the estimates off slightly? Perhaps, but be specific about which one you think may be off.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 13:48, 16 December 2008 (EST)

::::::::::Mr. Schlafly,

::::::::::It has taken me a long time to respond to your more or less final remarks on this subject. This has been due to travel during the Christmas holidays so that my wife and I would be with family as well as a desire to take my time in thinking before responding. I will attempt to answer each of your remarks directly.

::::::::::First, I am sorry that you regard my concerns as a "liberal rant." I am not interested in the politics of this article but only in the legitimacy of labeling your estimates with the heading of "Statistical Analysis." Labeling my arguments "liberal" does nothing to refute them.

::::::::::Second, I never claimed that statistics do not include estimates. Indeed, in the second paragraph of my original comments I remarked, "...it refers to an estimate or "statistic" rather than to a true population parameter." Your response to me that "The field of statistics does include estimates..." has nothing to do with what I said. Do I think your estimates off "slightly"? Without question- all estimates can safely be said to deviate from the true population values by at least a small amount. This is a statistical reality. As to which I think may be off- I regard all of them suspect as you have provided no information about where these estimates derive from.

::::::::::Except, that isn't really true. In a response to FernoKlump at 21:22 on December 16, 2008 you remark that, "Like any estimate, it's based on experience and logic." This is the only time you have ever provided anything even approximating a citation for these estimates. Unfortunately, it does nothing to alay my fears. In regards to "experience," as I know you are familiar with the common statistical saying "Correlation does not equal causation," allow me to remind you of another common statistical saying: "The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data.'" That is to say, no individual's experiences- no matter how reasonable and observant they are- can substitute for properly gathered information. The reason is simple: the world is a large place and we are, individually, very small. We only perceive the small slice of reality that we ourselves occupy and fail to observe the world from any other position. As such, even if we suppose that there are no biases in our perceptions whatsoever (a superhuman claim) it is vanishingly unlikely that those perceptions match perfectly with observable reality. In regards to "logic" I can only remind you that logic is a poor guide if one has flawed information. If we believe that ill health is caused by imbalances in the humors of the body, it is perfectly logical to treat a variety of disorders with bloodletting. Yet, if we evaluate this practice scientifically we find that in most cases it does more harm than good. Good logic is no substitute for good data.

::::::::::I suspect that you will not find my arguments above compelling, so please allow me to present a handful of additional points. The 2006 edition of the American Heritage Dictionary defines "statistics" as: "1. The mathematics of the collection, organization, and interpretation of numerical data, especially the analysis of population characteristics by inference from sampling. 2. Numerical data." WordNet 3.0 defines it as, "a branch of applied mathematics concerned with the collection and interpretation of quantitative data and the use of probability theory to estimate population parameters." The American Heritage Science Dictionary defines it as, "1. The branch of mathematics that deals with the collection, organization, analysis, and interpretation of numerical data. Statistics is especially useful in drawing general conclusions about a set of data from a sample of the data. 2. Numerical data." Finally, if we examine Conservapedia's own article on statistics we find this in the first paragraph: "Statistics is the application of mathematics to the understanding of data. It involves all stages of data collection and processing from the initial collection, to the analysis and ultimately to the conclusions and interpretations of the data." You will note the primacy of data in all of these definitions. Nowhere do any of these sources refer to "experience" or "logic" with the same emphasis as they do to "data." Likewise, I can review my books on statistics as long as you like and will never find a term in any equation where "experience" is to be added, while all deal in one way or another with data.

::::::::::At this point I consider that you have finally revealed that as these estimates are based on "experience and logic" rather than data, you have conceded that they are not the product of statistical analysis. I do not object to your referring to them as estimates, but do object in the strongest terms to your labeling them "statistical analysis." Your estimates are not the product of statistics. You can accuse me of producing another liberal rant, but that does not make me wrong. You can scold people for "carping," but that does not make your estimates reliable. This is not politics, this is mathematics. -Drek

::::::::: He's not claiming the statistics are wrong, he's saying that they are meaningless if the method of finding them is withheld. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Mr. Schlafly! Look at this petition!]] 20:09, 16 December 2008 (EST)

:::::::::: Like any estimate, it's based on experience and logic. Instead of carping, please contribute.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 21:22, 16 December 2008 (EST)

I have a quick question for Aschlafly. I notice that the percentages in the Statistical analysis section add up to exactly 100. I find this a little confusing as I don't see any reason that the events listed should be mutually exclusive. Surely a person could be a liberal for many of the reasons given? [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 11:43, 31 December 2008 (EST)

: They refer to the ''primary'' reasons.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 12:13, 31 December 2008 (EST)

:: Hmmm, I suppose that could work. However in this instance it could be very difficult to define what we mean by the primary reason. Typically in such analysis one could self-reporting, however I doubt that would work in this case :) [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 12:37, 31 December 2008 (EST)

== My political alignment ==

Ahem, I am a conservative (just see some of my userboxes, and i am against abortion, and i support classroom prayer too) and another thing, my comments were somewhat misguided. When you said mind-altering drugs, i thought you were implying that Obama and company were putting drugs of some sort into everyone's food. ----[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 12:24, 14 December 2008 (EST)
:But why on earth would you suspect any such thing was implied? Surely it is clear that it meant voluntarily-ingested illegal drugs? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:30, 14 December 2008 (EST)

Evidently not - case closed.---- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 10:18, 1 January 2009 (EST)

==question==
Are you honestly that arrogant that you wonder why people might not think exactly like you? sounds like mindless confomity to me.

==A further suggestion==
It struck me that denial of Conservative principles could be a result of incipient or presenting mental illness. Just as it has been widely demonstrated that Liberal beliefs can lead to psychiatric conditions (per http://www.conservapedia.com/Mystery:Do_Liberal_Teachings_Cause_Mental_Illness%3F ), so there might also be a reciprocal effect. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:19, 15 December 2008 (EST)

== "Abstract" principles ==

I don't define "more guns, less crime" and "less taxes, more revenue" as abstract characteristics. There are statistics to back up both claims, as there are statistics to support a counter-claim to either. Those statements are based off of concrete observations and statistics. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 12:18, 16 December 2008 (EST)

: The observation "more guns, less crime" does entail a slight abstraction, and there are people who may have trouble understanding. Statistics confirm it, as does logic.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 13:50, 16 December 2008 (EST)

::I don't doubt that people may have trouble understanding. However if it is statistically confirmed, where is the abstraction? [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 13:55, 16 December 2008 (EST)

::: You can always find someone to dispute statistics, as your own posting demonstrates. The real obstacle to some is grasping the abstraction of the logic.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 14:03, 16 December 2008 (EST)

::::I think we're arguing for the same side here, Andy. I'm not disputing any statistics; that's my point. The statistics are there ''plain as day'' that an armed citizenry opposes crime. I would say it's just blind ignorance (or faulty logic) to believe otherwise as opposed to an abstraction. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 14:27, 16 December 2008 (EST)

::::: I don't think someone having, to use popular terminology, an IQ of less than 100 can easily understand the truth of "more guns, less crime." Abstractions become more difficult to understand the lower the intelligence. Frankly, this abstraction strikes many highly intelligent people as wrong at first glance, before thinking more abstractly.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 21:11, 16 December 2008 (EST)

==Tweaking the Statistics==
With all due deference to Andy's knowledge on the subject, I believe that it would be beneficial to consider reweighting the estimates for why people choose to remain liberal, despite superior arguments for conservatism, as follows:

:* 25%: did not hear about conservative principles and the logic behind them until ''after'' they made up their mind, perhaps due to pervasive societal bias, and refuse to reconsider;
:* 25%: refuse to rise above their personal temptations, often self-destructive, and refuse to accept conservative values that conflict with their personal desires like sexual promiscuity;
:* 20%: were told off or disciplined once by a conservative, often a parent, and refuse to rise above the animosity;
:* 10%: refuse to let go of their past, or let go of their desire for a sense of acceptance by liberal friends or teachers;
:* 10%: mistakenly feel that conservative values and benefits are available only to those who are from an intact family, not realizing the availability and benefits to all, including children of divorced parents;
:* 5%: bitterly unemployed, or having a salary or benefits that conservatives would reduce, such as public school teachers, and a refusal to rise above self-interest; and
:* 5%: like an anarchist, genuinely want to believe in and propagate destructive ideas.

The largest reason that people remain liberal is clearly their desire to have their immoral and atheistic actions become more socially acceptable so that they can justify such lifestyles to themselves and others. Being disciplined by conservatives goes hand in hand with this - liberals do not like people pointing out that their lifestyle choices are wrong and detrimental to the country as a whole. It is primarily conservatives who are willing to call a spade a spade and chastise immoral conduct. I decreased the point about hearing about conservative principles later in life because the vast majority of United States citizens are raised in Christian churches and are taught the Bible's conservative principles from a young age. It is only once they are school-aged that liberal indoctrination can begin.--[[User:Laches|Laches]] 14:48, 16 December 2008 (EST)

: Good insights, but American kids get indoctrinated by public schools and television at young ages prior to (and during) their formation of their views.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 21:23, 16 December 2008 (EST)

:: Just one question: You are claiming that no liberal has ever taken that position through logical thought? (Usual disclaimers apply)
:: Okay, two questions: I would still like to see a source for those statistics. "Experience and logic" isn't enough; show me the data.
:::(The silence that will likely follow a response to the second question will not necessarily indicate acceptance of the argument it presents; more likely, it will mean that I believe a response won't add anything.)
::-[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 18:02, 17 December 2008 (EST)

::: The more logical a liberal is the less likely he will remain a liberal. Liberals do better in gaining adherents by avoiding logic. If you have a logical argument for a liberal position, then I'd love to hear it.

::: References are being added to the entry. Feel free to add some yourselves, unless you think that liberals never become conservatives (which is demonstrably false).--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 21:56, 17 December 2008 (EST)

::::You didn't answer my first question. Are you claiming that no liberal has ever taken that position through logical thought? (I'm just looking for a yes or a no, not an essay.) -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 22:38, 17 December 2008 (EST)

::::: Your question is incoherent. What does "that position" refer to? Are you referring to a specific position (e.g., gun control), or a general ideology (e.g., being a liberal)?

::::: In general, liberal views are not based on logic. There are examples of superficial liberal appeal to logic (e.g., to believe that banning guns will reduce crime), but it doesn't take long to show the error in the logic. Many liberals make superficially logical arguments simply to mislead others who are not bright enough to see the flaw.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 22:49, 17 December 2008 (EST)

::::::Given that I didn't mention anything other than liberalism, it seems obvious that's what I'm referring to. I'll ask again: Are you arguing that no liberal has ever become a liberal through logical thought? "Yes" or "no" will do. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 23:14, 17 December 2008 (EST)

::::::: No one has become a liberal through ''truthful'' logical thought.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 23:25, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Dennis Prager is one of my favorite thinkers, and took this up at length, proving what Andy says is true.
<blockquote>
"With the decline of the authority of Judeo-Christian values in the West, many people stopped looking to external sources of moral standards in order to decide what is right and wrong. Instead of being guided by God, the Bible and religion, great numbers -- in Western Europe, the great majority -- have looked elsewhere for moral and social guidelines.

For many millions in the twentieth century, those guidelines were provided by Marxism, Communism, Fascism or Nazism. For many millions today, those guidelines are "feelings". With the ascendancy of leftist values that has followed the decline of Judeo-Christian religion, ''personal feelings have supplanted universal standards''. In fact, feelings are the major unifying characteristic among contemporary liberal positions.

Aside from reliance on feelings, how else can one explain a person who believes, let alone proudly announces on a bumper sticker, that "War is not the answer"? I know of no comparable conservative bumper sticker that is so demonstrably false and morally ignorant. Almost every great evil has been solved by war -- from slavery in America to the Holocaust in Europe. Auschwitz was liberated by soldiers making war, not by pacifists who would have allowed the Nazis to murder every Jew in Europe." [http://www.orthodoxnet.com/archives/religious_articles.shtml Does religion make people better or worse, Dennis Prager - 24 columns on topic]

</blockquote>
--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 00:27, 18 December 2008 (EST)

==TV Shows==

How about some citations or examples for South Park, Family Guy, and Hannah Montana? Well, the first two are somewhat political anyway I guess. But Hannah Montana? Please, example or citation. Did you know Billy Ray Cyrus is with Sean Hannity on the Freedom Concert, and Miley Cyrus is a strong Christian? [[User:AddisonDM]] 28 December 2008

: I don't watch TV, so I hope someone else can help out here!--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 20:07, 28 December 2008 (EST)

Hannah Montana is a kid's show. I don't watch it often but it does not seem to be ether conservative or liberal. I think it should be removed from the list of liberal TV shows. --[[User:AmeliaJ|AmeliaJ]] 14:49, 31 December 2008 (EST)

Don't say South Park pushes liberal values. Matt Stone and Trey Parker are both libertarians. For example in a certain episode, a one Mr. Reiner tries to take down the local tobacco company, and in the end he is portrayed as ridiculous, out of touch, and the townspeople rally around the tobacco company. --[[User:Snotbowst|Snotbowst]] 14:20, 4 January 2009 (EST)

: [[Libertarians]] are socially [[liberal]]. You could benefit from our entries on both. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:33, 4 January 2009 (EST)

::I know what socially liberal and libertarian are defined as. What I am gettng at is that the show is wrongly heaped. Another example could be the show's mockery of the attempt to ban the N word through an entire episode. Besides it's crassness, the show is one the most balanced on TV and it handles issues with maturity while throwing a mask of fart jokes to add some comic relief.
As for The Simpsons, the show does lean leftward, but gives both sides a say. For instance, the show makes scatig comments about neo-hippies, President Carter, and President Clinton. Ned Flanders is often a set up but the jokes are never hugely inflammatory (to put it in perspective if someone made jokes about my POV at that level, I'd let it slide, maybe even let a smile crack through). And if you can't laugh at yourself, you don't deserve to be taken seriously. --[[User:Snotbowst|Snotbowst]] 21:12, 4 January 2009 (EST)

By the way I'm glad Hannah Montana is off the list. I don't think it is really liberal, and there are definitely more harmful shows that could be listed instead. [[User:AddisonDM]] 6 January 2009

== Statistics ==

Where did the author of the various statistics get their information? It looks to me like the information was fabricated from thin air. In fact, the entire article makes the conservative movement look bad because we come off as extremely arrogant. This is no way to convince liberals to see reason; it only solidifies their belief that we are unable to see any side but our own. This article will make us more enemies than friends.
[[User:WilliamBeason|WilliamBeason]] 14:57, 31 December 2008 (EST)

: The estimates are based on experience and available articles. More citations can be added and I encourage you to do so. Is there a particular statement that you dispute?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 16:07, 31 December 2008 (EST)

::My problem is that the entire article in general is committing the logical fallacy known as "poisoning the well". Rather than directly confronting liberal ideas, it uses weighted phrases inclusively describing ''all'' liberals as: "close-minded", "irrational", having "poor abstract thinking", and having "arrogance" to create a view that makes all liberals to seem like horrible people. The article seethes with hypocrisy from these statements. If we should seek to show liberals that their views are incorrect, we should combat on '''issues''', not participate in labeling a person simply based off of their political views.
::The article should be rewritten following the '''title'''. As it asks the question "Why do Non-Conservatives Exist?", it should cover more than just liberalism, as there are many political movements ''other than'' conservatism and liberalism. To name a few other major movements: libertarianism, federalism, and marxism. Followers of each political movement have different reasons for existing (be they world events, nationality, socioeconomic class, etc.)
::But to summarize an ideal article under this topic: non-conservatives exist because humans think differently. Because there is such a staggeringly large number of ideologies, sub-ideologies, and other ways to view the world, one would be hard-pressed to find two people who thought that the world should exist in the exact same way. To further compound this, there is no easily definable line that separates one ideology from another because many people take their beliefs from a ''variety'' of political movements.
::Thank you for reading this, and best regards for the new year!
::[[User:WilliamBeason|WilliamBeason]] 23:15, 31 December 2008 (EST)

::: Your comments are thoughtful, and thought-provoking. Thank you. But there are some insights in this entry worth developing. Liberals do try to keep conservative ideas from reaching people. Why? Because many people are liberal simply because they haven't heard conservative principles with an open mind. If they are liberal for long enough, then the mind is closed and will not reconsider.

::: Politics is a battle for control of the future. Liberals know how to play the game to serve their purposes. The percentages might be tweaked a bit, but just watch how the liberals themselves behave. They censor and demonize conservatives, for example, and this entry explains why. Just look at the beginning of the entry by [[Wikipedia]] on Conservapedia and you can see the liberal strategy in action.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 23:27, 31 December 2008 (EST)

:::: You are correct in saying that liberals try to keep conservative ideals from spreading. However, when looking at the scheme of things from a larger perspective, it quickly becomes noticeable that ''all'' political movements attempt to hinder those that are (or even simply those that they see to be) opposed to themselves. The Romans tried to hinder Christians; Catholics hindered heliocentrism; atheists hinder theists; and ''theists hinder atheists''. Censoring and demonizing opposition is not a new method developed by liberals for hindering conservatives: it has been a tool of politics for ages. But even so, is this article currently not a monument to demonizing liberals? ''Even though'' '''some''' liberals demonize us, ''it does not make it right for us to demonize them.'' We need to show that we are above that. We need to show that the conservative movement is above pointing the finger and telling nasty stories like schoolchildren.

:::: To add some further perspective: read your previous post. In your mind replace "conservative" with "liberal" and "liberal" with "conservative". Does it make the post any less true? ''Have we removed the plank from our own eye?''

:::: Thank you for taking the time to read this with an open mind. [[User:WilliamBeason|WilliamBeason]] 18:54, 1 January 2009 (EST)

===Percentages===
It is possible for 20% of one group of people to also be in the 15% of another group of people. It's a type of "inclusive clause" -- I'm not sure of the proper term for it. Here's a math problem from a while ago...
:There are 1000 students in a school. 35% like math, 60% like history, and 75% like both (disregard the existence of other subjects). How many students only like history? (I messed up on the quoting of the problem, but you can figure out what I'm trying to convey) 
You did not need to readjust the percentages because a new item was added to the "Statistical" list. [[User:ZacharyM|ZacharyM]] 00:21, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
::Good point, but untrue when listing the ''primary'' reasons (or favorite courses).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:26, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

== Christianity ==

I would like to point out that also a lot of people become '''liberal''' on conversion to Christianity as they feel that liberalism is more consistent with the Bible than conservatism. My personal belief is that both are very inconsistent on different points, and I've voted both ways. --[[User:Trinity123|Trinity123]] 10:11, 9 February 2009 (EST)

== Definitions ==

Surely the answer to this question is self-evident. Conservative is a relative term as is liberal. To put it simply, conservatives exist because liberals do. If everyone had exactly the same views on all issues then there would be no need for a word to describe them. Although as the usage here implies, they are now used as set terms to describe a set of views, it must be remembered that there is a spectrum of political views. As such the word conservative is best used as a relative term, as is the case with liberal. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 12:59, 27 February 2009 (EST)

== I REALLY hope this article is trolling. ==

I'm a Conservative and think this is rude and awful. I disagree with liberals, but insulting them like this is just uncalled for. This is why everyone hates this site.[[User:Sigh|Sigh]] 16:34, 23 May 2010 (EDT)